Um, no. Economic indicators are just that, indicators. They aren't a measure of "best". It's like saying "best temperature decades": higher temperatures aren't necessarily better (or worse) temperatures.
I mean, some numbers do measure good vs. bad tings, like "unemployment", but there are still nuances behind them: have they improved because people are getting jobs? or because they've dropped out of the labor force? Labor force participation is still problematic. 
Yes, the stock market is doing well, but at least part of that is because of the Fed's loose monetary policy that inflates asset prices. If you are a 20-something starting to save for retirement, this sucks, because you'll get lower returns as Fed unwinds this policy.
Housing prices are back up to the bubble prices, due to this monetary policy getting even looser under Obama. Again, great if you are retired and are selling your house, but bad if you are buying your first house.
The reverse is also true. Our high trade deficit is just an indicator, not a measure of something bad, which Trump is unable to understand. It's the result of America's attractiveness for investment, not the result of trade barriers by foreign countries.
Rather than lowering the trade deficits, Trump's actions will only serve to increase it, by lowering tax revenues and increasing government spending, he's sucking in even more foreign investment.
Presidents don't run the economy. They rarely deserve credit for when it performs well nor blame for when it runs poorly. The only clear credit/blame Trump deserves is the harm his trade war is causing.
Well, he also deserves some credit with the lowering of the corporate tax, but I'm not sure the long term benefit of that is as bad as the long term harm of his trade war.
In any case, Trump taking personal credit now will turn into him blaming others when the indicators turn "bad".
(I tweet this only so 2 years from now I can retweet this tweet).
(I tweet this only so 2 years from now I can retweet this tweet).
