If it makes you feel any better, last week's issue of the economist was about how the future is bright for clean energy and the fight against climate change, even with Trump in the white house.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21710807-or-without-am...

"even with Trump in the white house(sic)" - can we put this to bed yet? Trump isn't an oilman, he's a business man.

He's not a businessman, he's a salesman.

On green energy, I'm getting the impression that some threshold is finally being passed where clean energy is picking up momentum, and won't be so easily stopped anymore. Trump may have promised coal to the former coal miners, but coal is getting too expensive, so that's unlikely to happen. On oil, with some luck, he may want to make the US less dependent on Saudi oil.

So despite his denialism, he might turn out to be okay here. Of course you can never be sure with him.

When has he expressed support for renewable energy? http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Energy_+_Oil.ht...

Or even business like consideration for technology that's rapidly dropping in price? Since the election, he's been making promises to coal workers: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602853/trumps-empty-promi...

He's not really much of a businessman either, is he?

This reminds me of something that Dijkstra used to do and was criticised for. He used to use [sic] a lot to point out tiny errors that others used to make, implying that the other person wasn't competent. In the words of John Backus, "this guy's arrogance takes your breath away" [1]. In Dijkstra's defense, he might have been arrogant but he had much to be arrogant about.

Perhaps when your bona fides aren't so well established as Edsger Dijkstra, randomguy23, you would refrain from doing the same. We all understood what that person meant. Discuss it and move on without resorting to pettiness.

[1] - https://medium.com/@acidflask/this-guys-arrogance-takes-your...

No. Look at his picks to head government agencies. His pick for the EPA is a climate change denier.

The world is actually full of things to be optimistic about - media outlets aren't usually writing about them though.

That's so depressing.

It's actually uplifting! That means that the world is actually a better place than portrait by the media.

True, I was trying to be ironic. Guess it didn't work, ha!

I'm curious what course of action they would suggest. Should we stop trying to have a better economy for the sake of global concerns? I'm genuinely asking because I have zero knowledge of currency market. What is the right move to strengthen our economy with the least amount of global impact?

The dollar is going up because of the prospect of a lower corporate tax rate and increased infrastructure spending. The first means companies will have more motivation to bring profits into the United States and the second is believed to lead to investment (though China is an example that shows this can be taken too far). As to whether this will improve the economy, I have serious doubts that US presidents have much ability to impact the economy barring very extreme measures, and those measures generally do damage, not good.

I completely understand people's over-estimating the power of President. They do have an ever widening ability to declare war without Congress, but they don't control everything.

Republicans will control the presidency and both houses of congress for at least two years. They can potentially push a lot through in that time, especially if democrats don't want to take on the mantle of "the party of no" and filibuster endlessly in the Senate.

I have my doubts as to what can be accomplished with only 51 Senators. Just like with the Democrats in 2008, the Republicans are not as monolithic as they would like you to believe. They face reelection as much as anyone and if they start massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, but obviously won't be able to bring back a manufacturing economy, then I think they'll be facing a tough situation in 2018.

Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing

That's not why economics is called the dismal science.

Economics is called the "dismal science" because of it's "find[ing] the secret of this Universe in 'supply and demand,' and reducing the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone".

Carlyle took a different view, feeling that the "idle Black man in the West Indies" should be "compelled to work as he was fit, and to do the Maker's will who had constructed him".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science

Mencius Moldbug also has an interesting take on Carlyle, suggesting that his views on slavery and hierarchy were significantly more nuanced than what my pithy summary above describes. I have not managed to read enough Carlyle to form my own opinion (maybe on my next 24 hour flight).

https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-ca... https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyl...

Iconoclastic mood affiliation?

Isn't that largely because people don't understand it?

The term is more a criticism of the reductionist view of Economics, ignoring human value and ethical considerations.

But the problem with economics is that it is often viewed or presented/used (by governments) as a hard science, while it is much closer to some humanities: a game of deducing, abstracting, and guessing.

Economies are hugely complex and intertwined systems, which are hard to understand and harder to predict, because they depend on so many variables.

Economic models often only work when everything is going well or down an established path, and not when you would actually need them.

Math is closer to the humanities than economics is. Math is not empirical, with its expanding knowledge driven more by philosophical thinking than empirical deduction.

Economics is not a hard science, and shouldn't be treated as such, but to claim it is more like the humanities is disingenuous. It is a social science. That is to say that it is still ultimately empirical, just that the empirical implications of working with humans makes the job a lot harder and ocassionally less repeatable (are we measuring innate human nature, or a fluid and ever changing culture?).

We're measuring human behavior. The problem is that, as the circumstances change, humans change their behavior. That means that economic models only work as long as the economy keeps doing what it has been, so that the humans keep doing what they have been, which leads to an economy that continues to do what it has been...

Why is the world bereft of things to be optimistic about?

because humans are fundamentally insane and inevitably corrupted by power?

Just a guess.