We have a funny confusion in our country. People vote as if the President controls the economy. We hear candidates make promises to reopen the coal mines, keep family farms open, lower the price of gas, and on and on. While they have no control over these things, we vote as if they do.
A (mostly) Free Market Economy
We have a “free” economy. The government does not control it. At best, the Fed can implement monetary policies that mitigate the swings. But, in a free economy, the markets dictate the price of gas, the demand for coal (yes, government regs impact demand, but at a policy level, not a control level), and the struggles of family farms are exacerbated by corporate mega farming.
The US does have subsidies to help specific industries. There are farm subsidies, energy subsidies, and so on. These help individual businesses (usually big businesses). They do not control the economy.
In fact, these programs are an admission that the government doesn’t control the economy. If it did, subsidies would not be the primary mode of helping sectors; we’d simply redirect the economic efforts.
If a President could control the economy or significantly affect it through normal governmental operations, that would be Socialism.
We have a free market economy (mostly.) It swings, and as it does, people get hurt. To help, we have social programs.
Having Social programs to mitigate the pain of a free economy is not Socialism; it’s compassion.
The irony of our recent election
For many decades, regions of our country have been suffering. Textile workers, miners, farmers, and manufacturing have all been hit by globalization. Our government has done little to help them truly. In part because the real answers are complex.
Instead, we elected the Candidate who said, “I’ll fix it,” and “Only I can fix it.”
He can’t. For decades, we’ve heard this and nothing.
What makes it ironic is that one of the things the government can do is expand social programs to aid people in transition. It’s not a fast answer. It’s not easy. It’s not simple.
It would take multiple administrations of consistent policies (see how Germany managed the demise of its coal mining industry), people willing to accept the reality (rather than a hollow promise), and a country willing to help its citizens.
Why is it ironic? Because the same party that is elected to “solve” the problems is a champion of reducing social programs and demonizes them as “socialism.”
The only tool they could use is not (and should not be) available to do what they promise is Socialism. And yet they demonize social programs that they could use, incorrectly labeling them as Socialism.