Well if the thing about putting his money in a savings account is true... he could have retired in 1978, sat on some island somewhere and spent $1.3m a week, every week... and he'd be just as wealthy as he is now. Without having to do any work.

Well, that calculation only works if he spends $0. 

If he spent $1.3 million per week, which would have been around $350,000 a week in 1978, he would only have had $82 million + 8.9% of the average total capital in 1979... and so on.

He would have gained $8 million from S&P, but spent $18 million, starting the next year with only $90 million to take from (and get S&P gains from).

At that rate, he would be living on the streets in the 80s (by 1985).

You forget that people also spend money on food, housing, travel, cars. Rich people spend even more.

---

A 30x increase over 40 years (S&P) is 8.9% per year.

If you spend 18.2% per year ($350k per week in 1978) without income you quickly go down to zero.

Ok, $1.3m but make sure to take inflation into account.

$350K a week still isn't that bad. Especially if your happy meal was a lot cheaper back then as well.

That was with inflation.

$350k a week starting in 1978 means being broke in the 80s (1985 to be exact). You don't want to be broke in the 80s. Too much cool stuff.

Ok, well start in the late 80's when he had his first billion. The point is that he's not exactly this amazing businessman that some people make him out to be. A lot of people would probably be considerably wealthier than him if they started with the same money and connections back in the 70's and 80's.

Not commenting on politics or business skills. I try to stay away from that.

But I just had to get the math right. Can't stay away from that.

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 07, 2018, 16:18

Quote from: derek on February 07, 2018, 14:27

Stan is right, he is just messing around, trolling on purpose to see if some people are imbeciles enough to take notice, looking for reactions!

Yep, I bet he would have loved to be a stand-up comedian or a reality TV star, able to "mess around" without consequences.
Meanwhile he is president. Not a troll on a some forum. Everything he says matters and has consequences.
And all he is doing and saying is a real "mess", indeed. Not so much "just messing around".

There are much better people at "messing around" than our "Moron in Chief": https://youtu.be/hSCAHKy61-M

Enjoy! 

Well I would like to be that sort of a moron! business-man worth 5 billion bucks, makes poor Oringer look like a beginner! Let me tell you Zero just to quote a famous quote, you dont become super-rich by being stupid!
If he was to walk around all stiff and dignified well-spoken eloquent well then the leftie/lib brigade would find something wrong with that calling him snobbish or whatever.
If IS blow up a bus in the Alps his Trumps fault, if a car has a flat-tyre its Trumps fault, if an englishman dont like Haggis its Trumps fault??  people never tire do they. Trump didnt come to the MSG but some people here introduce Trump to the MSG and for what............??

Meanwhile yes I can understand you I presume youre from the US which I personally still think is one of the greatest countries in the world and especially when you compare it to poverty stricken and cretin-like Europe! unfortunately!

The only thing your post is proving is that rich morons do exist. And I have to agree with you.

The problem we have is that a rich moron became president, because other morons and wannabe morons assumed that rich and moron are mutually exclusive. We have solid proof now, that the assumption was a delusion.

On the other hand, president and moron should have been mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, the reality is contradicting, every day, this assumption, as well.

And now we have a rich man as "Moron in Chief".