Not a valid comparison. A general has ultimate control and authority over every single resource under his command. Not so with presidents and the economy.
The economy is influenced by MILLIONS of things that the Prez has no control over. He represents, at best, only a third of the Federal government, and that's just the fed: state & local governments have a lot of impact also, and the Prez does not control them. And that's just the government: the actions of millions of private-sector entrepreneurs, workers, innovators, businessmen, volunteers, and pundits ALL effect the economy - and let's not forget natural disasters such as hurricanes & earthquakes - no Prez can control those things. And that's just the United States - what goes on in the rest of the world impacts us also, and the Prez can't control that.
Um, no, the general does not have "ultimate control and authority over every single resource at his command". I used "general" because I felt the comparison would be more accessible to you. The more appropriate comparison would be to the captain of a Navy ship, something that as retired Navy, I do know something about. The best example is what happens when the ship runs aground at zero-dark-thirty while the captain was getting the rarest of commodities - sleep. When the captain goes in front of the court martial, will he say he was in his rack getting some sleep? No. He will say that he had the conn, that he was personally responsible for the ship running aground.
And he is. Why? Because if he had properly trained his Navigation department, if he had properly ensured that his Navigator vetted his quartermasters and watchstanders, if he had been maintaining the proper level of discipline on board his ship, the entire mishap likely would not have occurred...
...but even then, it might still have, because just as you pointed out above all the people the president does not control, the captain does not "control" his people. He LEADS them, and he can even order them with all the force of the UCMJ behind him...but he can't MAKE them do what he wants them to do. Leadership doesn't work that way. All he can really do is tell his XO and his department heads to do this or that, and then he hopes that they follow his orders in the way he wanted them followed. Just as the president doesn't personally control most of the federal government, the captain does not personally control most of the crew. Not only that, but just as the president does not control the actions of all the private-sector millions, the captain does not and cannot control the actions of the many, many civilians with whom he must deal, from contractors to foreign liaisons to lawyers, and - most significantly - the wives and families of the crew...and this directly impacts the effectiveness of the crew.
This is why, sir, that politicians and philosophers
all the way back to Plato have referred to government as "the ship of state"...because the metaphor fits so very well.
And besides, whatever the Prez does is not instantaneous - his actions could take years, if not decades, to bear fruit.
Hm...let me see here. When Obama took office the first time, we were losing 800K jobs per month, and by March the Dow Jones had plunged below 7,000. Today, we've had 5.5 years of consecutive private-sector job growth (again, by far the longest such period in American history), and the Dow's at 17,902 as I write this. Obama instituted the stimulus and Dodd Frank and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau - all which were virulently opposed by the Republicans and would not have been passed under a Republican president. I'd say we're looking at the fruits of his efforts right now.
No, you cannot compare the president's power to control the economy to a general's power to run a battle.
No, I switched it to the captain of a ship...just as politicians and philosophers have rightly done since the time of Plato.