Just as I thought and already said: selecting percentage growth and disregarding the starting point, you can "demonstrate" anything. This is what I said:
"... Obama got in at the lowest point, after the worst recession since the Great Depression. It was all uphill after that anyway (and absolutely not thanks to him - he managed to preside over the LONGEST recovery in recent history).
Trump inherited an already high market, bound for a correction. The predictions were that his election would cause an immediate crash and panic in the markets, world-wide. And yet, the market jumped and continue to see a rosy future."
Anybody with a modicum of statistical education would recognize the trick MJ and you are playing.
The same trick is used by annuities salesmen to prove that investing with them into their type of annuities outperforms the market every time.
The same explanation is why the Chinese economy grows at double-digit percentages, while the US merely manages 2-3 percents: different starting points, low for China, already high for the US.
For percentage-challenged, here is how it works: adding one unit of something (e.g., an airplane) to a low base of one results in a 100 percent growth; add anorher unit, for a total of three, gives a 50 percent growth, add a fourth unit, the growth becomes 33 percent, keep adding and it goes down: 25 percent, 20 percent, etc. When you add that one unit to and already high base of, say, 100, the growth is a meager one percent.
Elementary.
