agip, it's pretty easily provable, by a number of mechanisms. Make the historical calculation of GDP linear, and forget about changing components, adjustments, etc. Also, look at tax receipts. There are other ways.
By now you must know that there has been price inflation in many asset classes, and that that price inflation has been driven by banks, and that there are a great many excess reserves around. Trump's plan is to get those excess reserves into circulation, to put them to work--hence his constant use of the terms "growth-friendly" and "growth-oriented", and his suggested repeal of Dodd-Frank. His plan is to ameliorate business conditions, in order to increase the frequency of transactions and the velocity of money, as a path to growth.
Issues abound. For one thing, government is not a business, states are sovereign. While businesses are subject to government dictates and therefore answerable to government, a nation-state is sovereign, the US more so than many because it has significant control over a reserve currency. Being "under" another level of organization, as business is under government, means 3 big things: 1) you can't just do whatever you wish, and 2) you can fail, and the bigger system will distribute the pain, and 3) there are some things you can't externalize.
Much more so than a business, the sovereign US can do as it wishes, especially the incoming executive, with both the House and Senate being amenable, and with the now-accepted expansion of the executive order power. This is something Trump will have to adjust to. Businessmen are like weasels, always figuring out ways to squeeze through holes in the fabric of regulation--which is an entirely different mindset than that of a real leader of policy and implementation. (Trump is more clearly a "businessman" than a "statesman", as his first order is to make the holes in the fabric bigger for easier maneuvering by the business weasels.) While he will have to hold his head up and lead, no longer will he as easily be able to offload failure. He can try to put it off on "the establishment", but he has put himself out there as the reformer. I don't know that he quite understands the difference between being a businessman and a statesman, but I get the sense that he got his first taste of it when he talked to Obama.
Regarding #3, that there are some things you can't externalize, when somebody within your business structure sucks or doesn't agree with you or tries to sabotage your corporate initiatives, you can fire them, and even sue them afterward--but you cannot do this with a country. There are blocks of citizens within this body politic that will suck and not agree with him and actively try to sabotage his social initiatives, and he won't be able to just fire them, or get rid of them, or effectively externalize them. This type of thing is a big deal for those who have not developed the psychological mechanisms to deal with them. No doubt he does have some ability in this regard, I just think that he is very far toward the other end of the spectrum.
His electioneering suggests that he believes that the Dems have run roughshod over the country, and that they have gotten everything they have wanted. Knowing a few things as I do, this is untrue, and I'm sure that Obama told Trump as much yesterday. Also, having been involved with national security, I can tell you that Trump knows precisely SQUAT about US operations and assets around the globe, and that knowledge (a taste of which he probably got from Obama but not from his security briefings) may very well force him, in some measure, to understand that statecraft is not synonymous with business management.
In "unleashing the potential of excess reserves" in his attempt to "make the country great again", it must be remembered that every time the country has been made "great", it came with a price that was paid for afterward, and that is what has me at a crossroads. We hear about "kicking the can further down the road", and that is no doubt true--but what nobody knows is just how far that can can in fact be kicked. I could see the next 4 years going gangbusters, and all of the current problems just being amplified, or changed to suit future purposes: they will scrap Dodd-Frank and maybe Basel III capital requirements, but they will put something else in its place that looks more favorable on the books. Just the same as they will do with Obamacare--the optics will be much better. What I will need to see is fundamental change, in order to believe in anything past the 4-year time horizon.
But a lot can happen in 4 years. I could quite easily see the markets going to 25k within 5 years, and that's a ride I would want to be on, even though just shy of 19k is overpriced.
One of the bottom lines is that he will need terrific advisors, if he is to successfully promote real growth during his term. As with everything, it will require, above all else, "buy-in". Wall Street lap dogs are all too willing to comply, because they exist side-by-side with mom and pop chumps in the pool of equity owners, and can always direct the contaminants their way. Mom and pop are like "getters", soaking up the contaminants produced by the activities of the big boys, and the only way they can "get ahead" is by effective timing.
This election was no joke. Everything is a matter of perspective. There are very real issues, and I entirely doubt that the country and/or Trump and/or his future administration are actually willing to deal with them, in a fundamental sense. First of all they're not smart enough to know what they actually are, and second of all they're not courageous enough to articulate any sort of actually historic vision. They are still small people, voting their own current interest, as may quite possibly be the total fate of mankind...but if I can make some gains during this period and then convert them to something that actually matters, I will.
I haven't quite decided yet. DJIA 18.8k at the moment.