Obama was elected in of 08. If we're counting 09 as his first year that means he accomplished -2.8% gdp decline.
The Washington compost is very anti trump. I can skew the figures too and make Obama look like the best president in growing the economy if I pick and choose what measures he did well in and offer irrelevant comparisons while not providing the same data for obama....And that's exactly what the compost writer did, who is a former CNN journo and 'commenter' and clearly not a financial professional, stock or commodity broker or someone who deals with the markets in any other way beside writing 'orange man economic policy bad, obama good' which any investor, hedge fund manager or even junior broker would laugh at.
First, he chose a specific 15 month period of the s&p, and even admits that Obama came in during a recession so that's why the stock prices grew - a collapse not seen since the great depression which he, then compares to trump. If a company loses half or a quarter of its market cap and gradually rebuilds obviously it'll have faster growth than
As far as the second chart he compares % change for other developed countries to us % change for 2017, which is only slightly lower. Seeing as countries considered by moody to be developed but poorer than us, like Poland for example have far higher growth rates than the us the chart means little. Poland has a far higher growth rate than the us, yet their economies are structured way differently. Same with china. A 5% increase in gdp in china is considered slow, in poland it's a strong number, in the us it's almost unheard of especially in the past decade. Yet trump accomplished 5% quarters. If the writer provided a chart with data for Obama's first year and compared it to other developed countries it'd look even worse because while us went way down many economies like polands grew.
To people with limited financial knowledge it would appear that Obama was better - basically because the first chart shows quick growth after a major recession and the 2nd chart is comparing us to other economies and he doesn't even offer a similar chart for Obama's first year.
To people who understand markets the writers argument is totally unconvincing. Not only has he picked only 2 measures, one of them not even given for Obama as a comparison despite the title of the article, but he's looking at only s&p growth for 15 months rather than considering gdp, dow, real estate, unemployment, trade balance, in addition to s&p. All those things improved under trump while under Obama all of them went down, except for stocks which yes did slowly recover.