A year after Trump defeated Hillary, the stock market has racked up its biggest post-election gain since 1945, when FDR was re-elected to a short-lived fourth term. Of course, Trump had no more to do with the current rally than Roosevelt or his successor, Harry S Truman, did with the post-War surge in shares. The stock market and the U.S. economy will always move in broad cycles far bigger than mere presidencies and the vainglorious strivers who typically hold the office. As such, it is arguably just a matter of luck that some Presidents get to preside over relatively good economic times (i.e., Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan) while others, less fortunate, have occupied the White House during relatively hard times or downturns (i.e., George W. Bush and Richard Nixon).

Tax ‘Reform’? Yeah, Sure…

It is laughable that pundits, economists and the usual news-media hacks are attributing the stock market’s crazed ascent in part to the dim prospect of what passes for tax ‘reform’ on Capitol Hill.  We’ve already glimpsed enough of the current process to know that, in the end, it will amount to just another stinking heap of handouts to various interest groups, none of whose priorities could even remotely be tied to a fairer, simpler or economically more efficient tax code.  Trump will grab as much credit as he can for the stock market’s ebullience, but only an imbecile could believe he caused it.  Indeed, there should be little doubt that if Hillary had won the Dow would still be trading above 23,000 — albeit for an entirely different set of ginned-up reasons, many of them as ridiculous as the current, purported tax ‘reform’. Moreover, any dubious economic benefits we might stand to gain over the long haul from tax ‘reform’ have probably already been discounted tenfold by the rabid bull market’s dollar gains to date.