US Democratic Election Incapable of Changing Economic Crisis

The U.S. presidential election is like a raging fire. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party’s candidates have pulled out all of the stops. They each hope to win the most votes. Now, both candidates are in a deadlock. It is difficult to immediately determine who will be the victor and who will be defeated. Regardless of whether it is the Democratic Party’s candidate or the Republican Party’s candidate, they both frequently take advantage of each other’s economic policies, attempting to persuade voters to support their own positions. However, it is definitely the case that the economy is not prospering, and this can bring about greater pressure for the Democratic Party, as they are attempting to run for another term in office.

Many economic scholars are currently analyzing the presidential candidates’ proposed economic plans. However, from my point of view, U.S. presidential power is not as strong as people think. The reason why the presidential candidates dared to open a short-term bank check during the campaign is very simple. In order to succeed when running for office, one cannot hesitate at any cost. Once elected, they are able to cash a check with regard to the promises they made when running for office. On the other hand, it seems that the Democratic candidate is now the same. He attributed the problems of implementing his own policies to the last presidency, or he directly blamed Congress. I think that Congress mutually works to prevent action, making it difficult for the president’s policies to be effectively implemented. This is a deceptive trick, and although it is very poor, it occurs again and again.

Market economy is a very exceptional operating mechanism. There is rational allocation of resources by the free competition of the market players — although in recent years, many countries have been trying to shift the allocation of resources to macro-control policies through fiscal and taxation measures. However, when looking at real outcomes, in most situations the government is more of a hindrance than a help. In other words, when the market economy approaches a downward phase, when cyclical economic crises are on the verge of emerging, government financial and taxation regulations, which can have some effects, cannot change the overall trend of the market economy. The government’s macro-control may delay the emergence of the economic crisis to a certain extent, but the occurrence of the crisis cannot be avoided. In the past, people recognized that there are specific types of economic crises. Now, more and more people realize that economic crises entail not only definite, but also fictitious economic consequences. If one grasps the fact that governments have the right to distribute currency, and they excessively issue that currency, then one can see how the government can create large scale economic crises. People cannot doubt that, now, many countries’ economic crises are the result of government mistakes related to currency policy. After all is said and done, during an economic crisis, is the government playing the part of an impeder or of a promoter?

Since the government has had a very limited role in the economy, why do people hope that the economic downturn will cause the government to play a greater role in it? One of the reasons is very simple: Decentralized decision-making of a market economy mechanism cannot be changed. Yet people expect the government, through limited intervention, to reduce the losses caused by the economic crisis. Presidential candidates take advantage of this. This entails very complex economic calculations and very complex political calculations. The U.S. Republican presidential candidate explains his economic policy during the campaign by saying that he is trying to reduce taxes, expand investment and solve the U.S. unemployment problem. The U.S. Democratic presidential candidate continues to explain his own tax policy, saying that he hopes to reduce the taxes of the middle class, attempting to gain its votes. For ordinary Americans, this is a dilemma of choice, but it is an unnecessary choice. As we have analyzed, the laws of the market economy decide the economic cycle, whereas the government plays a very limited role. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether they plan to reduce taxes for the middle class or for investors; both options are nothing but political maneuvers aimed to please some voters.

However, the crux of the problem is that no one wants to pay more taxes. Therefore, whether it is a Republican presidential candidate or a Democratic presidential candidate, both are making a fuss about tax cuts. The consequential problem is that the tax reduction will inevitably bring about an increase in the fiscal deficit and will inevitably lead to the reduction of social welfare. Voters have the burden of choosing between reducing their own social welfare and increasing their own taxes. In this sense, the U.S. presidential election is not as important as people imagine. In a federal country, every state has its own way. U.S. diplomatic and military policy is subject to Congress. Therefore, the U.S. presidential election only concerns the competition between two individuals. In other words, the U.S. presidential election is actually focused on the limited capabilities of two opposing candidates. No matter who is elected they cannot change the general trend of the U.S. economy. The economic crisis is under the rule of the market economy. Therefore, if an economic crisis hits when there is a re-election for the U.S. president, the incumbent will face great challenges. Conversely, if a U.S. presidential candidate is ready to recapture the presidency in the event of an economic crisis, then he will be faced with unprecedented opportunities. The reason why I point this out is that some U.S. experts on the topic of the U.S. presidential election have put forth analyses that over-exaggerate the economic policies of the U.S. presidential candidates. Saying that the economic policy of the U.S. presidential candidates can save the U.S. economy is like saying that fire and water can go together. This is an unrealistic fantasy, and the president of the U.S. can lie. U.S. presidential candidates can propose rhetoric, but in the face of the laws of the market economy, they can do nothing.

Of course, this is not to say that the U.S. democratic elections are useless. The market itself cannot solve our problems. The market economy itself can cause more problems. Because of this, the market economy still needs more democratic elections. When an economic crisis emerges, there is an urgent need for a presidential election. A reason for this is that during the campaign people can find the crux of the problem through the presidential candidates’ mutual criticism. You can also vote to change the current economic policy. It can be said that periodic democratic elections for presidential candidates bring more political luck. Periodic democratic elections make voters more clearly aware of current problems. They allow them to make choices in their best interests when choosing between different economic policies.

The market economy caused voters to lose their livelihood. However, the presidential election asks them to get a ballot. They can use their votes to change social welfare, and they can also use their votes to select different economic policies. Voting is people’s only option to influence policy.