The difference between president and elected king

Isn't a president just a king who's elected? Maybe from one point of view.

What is the purpose of a king vs. that of a president, though?

If we look back that the beheading of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the job of a monarch is to satisfy the people economically . . . or else!

By installing a republic instead of a monarchy, it becomes possible to just change the government/monarchy whenever the people are economically dissatisfied, instead of murdering them.

Arguably many people view the US president as an elected king whose job it is to keep the people economically satisfied or else lose office, but is/should that really be the purpose of a president.

The word, 'president,' suggests that the job of the president is to preside and not to rule in the manner of a king. Therefore a president shouldn't be held accountable for the economy, which is the job of the people. The people are supposed to create the economy and the government is supposed to govern them, while the job of the president is to preside over the government.

It is wrong, therefore, when the people/media construe the president as an elected king who should be accountable for the economy and if the people are unhappy with the economy, they will oust the king in favor of the next person who they think can give them the economy they want.

That is a top-down view of economic power, which in reality should be coming from the people themselves.

Corporatism, arguably, is the reason the people fail to see the economy as a bottom-up endeavor. I.e. because the people organize themselves into corporations and view those corporations as top-down systems of economic control, they make themselves powerless to create their own economy from the bottom-up.

What the people need is not a revolution where they oust leaders and managers (kings and aristocrats of corporatism) but where they take responsibility for collaborating with them in coming up with an economy that will satisfy everyone.

To do that, democracy has to be a functional (not dysfunctional) collaboration between differing points of view and interests to reach consensus about what is good, or at least acceptable, and what isn't.