The problem with that question is that we don’t have agreement on the definition, meaning, and relevancy of macroeconomic performance and growth. And it also skips the critical supposition of whether growth, as indicated by income, equates to evolutionary growth.
In the prevailing religion of economics, these numbers are as relevant as the score of a game of soccer. Is the score in soccer any indication of the quality of the game? No, and neither are the majority of the metrics we use in economics an indication of the performance of its participants.
Instead, we should parlay the relevancy of economics to how it traces the evolution of humanity we are subjugated to (I do with Renewable Economics™). For mere income and wealth creation may make you the wealthiest guy in the cemetery but will leave a massive deficit behind for the next generation.
Take the tobacco industry as an example, many people and countries created wealth by selling tobacco. Now respiratory disease stemming from it is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S. the next generation is footing the (unsustainable) medical insurance bills for.
So, not only are the validity of the metrics you pull out questionable, but its evolutionary impact is also highly doubtful. So, I suggest you stop graphing statistics that are used to prove a point our religion of economics is already predisposed to. The point being its meaninglessness.