Is the presidential family net worth growth/loss portrayed in this infographic true?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
48
down vote
favorite
2
Is the presidential family net worth growth/loss portrayed in this infographic true?
(I am not asking about the other assertions in this infographic)
I'm skeptical of the massive gains both the Obama's and Clinton's have made, and skeptical of the massive loss the Trump's have made.
If these number are more-or-less true, can you explain how they were achieved?
This graphic has been circulating forums/online for a while - here's where I found it:
https://twitter.com/usatrump45/status/949067334081228800?lang=en
politics economics
asked Sep 10 at 17:17
SnakeDoc
34637
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
48
down vote
favorite
2
Is the presidential family net worth growth/loss portrayed in this infographic true?
(I am not asking about the other assertions in this infographic)
I'm skeptical of the massive gains both the Obama's and Clinton's have made, and skeptical of the massive loss the Trump's have made.
If these number are more-or-less true, can you explain how they were achieved?
This graphic has been circulating forums/online for a while - here's where I found it:
https://twitter.com/usatrump45/status/949067334081228800?lang=en
politics economics
asked Sep 10 at 17:17
SnakeDoc
34637
3
Hello, and congrats on your first question! You should give both the source of the infographic and some proof that the source is notable, otherwise your question might be closed.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:38
21
As for the infographic itself, it is incredibly misleading since it doesn't show when each group had those changes in net worth(since the start of their presidencies, Clinton has had 25 years to make money, Trump has had 2). Presidents make a lot of money after their presidency from books, paid speeches, etc., which I'm sure Trump will also cash in on after his presidency.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:47
19
This is also a fantastic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
– Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:38
2
A far more fair graphic would be one DIRECTLY AFTER their terms, instead of NOW (especially for the Clintons who had years to make money since the last term)
– Hobbamok
Sep 11 at 8:52
2
Be careful the Donald doesn't sue you for saying he is worth less than $10 billion !
– Mawg
Sep 11 at 12:47
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
48
down vote
favorite
2
up vote
48
down vote
favorite
2
2
Is the presidential family net worth growth/loss portrayed in this infographic true?
(I am not asking about the other assertions in this infographic)
I'm skeptical of the massive gains both the Obama's and Clinton's have made, and skeptical of the massive loss the Trump's have made.
If these number are more-or-less true, can you explain how they were achieved?
This graphic has been circulating forums/online for a while - here's where I found it:
https://twitter.com/usatrump45/status/949067334081228800?lang=en
politics economics
asked Sep 10 at 17:17
SnakeDoc
34637
Is the presidential family net worth growth/loss portrayed in this infographic true?
(I am not asking about the other assertions in this infographic)
I'm skeptical of the massive gains both the Obama's and Clinton's have made, and skeptical of the massive loss the Trump's have made.
If these number are more-or-less true, can you explain how they were achieved?
This graphic has been circulating forums/online for a while - here's where I found it:
https://twitter.com/usatrump45/status/949067334081228800?lang=en
politics economics
politics economics
asked Sep 10 at 17:17
SnakeDoc
34637
asked Sep 10 at 17:17
SnakeDoc
34637
edited Sep 10 at 18:09
asked Sep 10 at 17:17
SnakeDoc
34637
asked Sep 10 at 17:17
SnakeDoc
34637
asked Sep 10 at 17:17
SnakeDoc
34637
34637
3
Hello, and congrats on your first question! You should give both the source of the infographic and some proof that the source is notable, otherwise your question might be closed.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:38
21
As for the infographic itself, it is incredibly misleading since it doesn't show when each group had those changes in net worth(since the start of their presidencies, Clinton has had 25 years to make money, Trump has had 2). Presidents make a lot of money after their presidency from books, paid speeches, etc., which I'm sure Trump will also cash in on after his presidency.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:47
19
This is also a fantastic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
– Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:38
2
A far more fair graphic would be one DIRECTLY AFTER their terms, instead of NOW (especially for the Clintons who had years to make money since the last term)
– Hobbamok
Sep 11 at 8:52
2
Be careful the Donald doesn't sue you for saying he is worth less than $10 billion !
– Mawg
Sep 11 at 12:47
 |Â
show 4 more comments
3
Hello, and congrats on your first question! You should give both the source of the infographic and some proof that the source is notable, otherwise your question might be closed.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:38
21
As for the infographic itself, it is incredibly misleading since it doesn't show when each group had those changes in net worth(since the start of their presidencies, Clinton has had 25 years to make money, Trump has had 2). Presidents make a lot of money after their presidency from books, paid speeches, etc., which I'm sure Trump will also cash in on after his presidency.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:47
19
This is also a fantastic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
– Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:38
2
A far more fair graphic would be one DIRECTLY AFTER their terms, instead of NOW (especially for the Clintons who had years to make money since the last term)
– Hobbamok
Sep 11 at 8:52
2
Be careful the Donald doesn't sue you for saying he is worth less than $10 billion !
– Mawg
Sep 11 at 12:47
3
3
Hello, and congrats on your first question! You should give both the source of the infographic and some proof that the source is notable, otherwise your question might be closed.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:38
Hello, and congrats on your first question! You should give both the source of the infographic and some proof that the source is notable, otherwise your question might be closed.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:38
21
21
As for the infographic itself, it is incredibly misleading since it doesn't show when each group had those changes in net worth(since the start of their presidencies, Clinton has had 25 years to make money, Trump has had 2). Presidents make a lot of money after their presidency from books, paid speeches, etc., which I'm sure Trump will also cash in on after his presidency.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:47
As for the infographic itself, it is incredibly misleading since it doesn't show when each group had those changes in net worth(since the start of their presidencies, Clinton has had 25 years to make money, Trump has had 2). Presidents make a lot of money after their presidency from books, paid speeches, etc., which I'm sure Trump will also cash in on after his presidency.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:47
19
19
This is also a fantastic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
– Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:38
This is also a fantastic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
– Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:38
2
2
A far more fair graphic would be one DIRECTLY AFTER their terms, instead of NOW (especially for the Clintons who had years to make money since the last term)
– Hobbamok
Sep 11 at 8:52
A far more fair graphic would be one DIRECTLY AFTER their terms, instead of NOW (especially for the Clintons who had years to make money since the last term)
– Hobbamok
Sep 11 at 8:52
2
2
Be careful the Donald doesn't sue you for saying he is worth less than $10 billion !
– Mawg
Sep 11 at 12:47
Be careful the Donald doesn't sue you for saying he is worth less than $10 billion !
– Mawg
Sep 11 at 12:47
 |Â
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
79
down vote
accepted
Yes, but it is an unfair comparison.
According to Snopes, the figures are close to the official estimates, but it makes no sense to compare former two-term presidents like Clinton and Obama to Trump, who is a sitting president and has not yet completed a full term. All ex-presidents have lucrative opportunities in the private sector that Trump does not have access to. Also, there is no evidence that Clinton or Obama acquired their increased wealth illegally, which is what this graphic suggests.
answered Sep 10 at 17:47
awells
1,741166
41
One should also note that the graphic looks like a cherry-picked data set, as it doesn't mention, either Bush family, which looks odd due to the younger President Bush serving between Clinton and Obama.
– sharur
Sep 10 at 20:24
39
Well it would be interesting to know the error margins for each number. Especially Trump's amount of wealth is rather controversial (i.e. large error margins) as far as I know.
– Nobody
Sep 10 at 20:24
32
@SnakeDoc Since the starting numbers are different by more than three orders of magnitude, it really makes no sense to try to compare the changes. What happens economically to a person with a net worth of over $4 billion is just going to be fundamentally different to what happens to a person with a net worth of under $4 million even under very similar circumstances. Trying to compare them is bizarre.
– David Schwartz
Sep 11 at 2:37
28
I'd say the way the amounts are stated are also meant to be misleading by using a different order of magnitude. If it was fair, it should probably read something like: Before: $4.5B, $0.003B, $0.0005B After: $3.5B, $0.04B, $0.01B. Whatever the Obamas and Clintons gained is comparable to the daily natural variation of Trump's wealth.
– LordOfThePigs
Sep 11 at 7:53
7
Rumors have it that Trump has been burning through his wealth ever since he inherited it. If his wealth trajectory was on a steep decline, the question is "How much more would he have lost over the past years if he wasn't president". In general, there's so much other potential explanations and unfair comparisons here that even if the cherry-picked statistics were true, the conclusion is not.
– FooBar
Sep 11 at 13:14
 |Â
show 13 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
79
down vote
accepted
Yes, but it is an unfair comparison.
According to Snopes, the figures are close to the official estimates, but it makes no sense to compare former two-term presidents like Clinton and Obama to Trump, who is a sitting president and has not yet completed a full term. All ex-presidents have lucrative opportunities in the private sector that Trump does not have access to. Also, there is no evidence that Clinton or Obama acquired their increased wealth illegally, which is what this graphic suggests.
answered Sep 10 at 17:47
awells
1,741166
41
One should also note that the graphic looks like a cherry-picked data set, as it doesn't mention, either Bush family, which looks odd due to the younger President Bush serving between Clinton and Obama.
– sharur
Sep 10 at 20:24
39
Well it would be interesting to know the error margins for each number. Especially Trump's amount of wealth is rather controversial (i.e. large error margins) as far as I know.
– Nobody
Sep 10 at 20:24
32
@SnakeDoc Since the starting numbers are different by more than three orders of magnitude, it really makes no sense to try to compare the changes. What happens economically to a person with a net worth of over $4 billion is just going to be fundamentally different to what happens to a person with a net worth of under $4 million even under very similar circumstances. Trying to compare them is bizarre.
– David Schwartz
Sep 11 at 2:37
28
I'd say the way the amounts are stated are also meant to be misleading by using a different order of magnitude. If it was fair, it should probably read something like: Before: $4.5B, $0.003B, $0.0005B After: $3.5B, $0.04B, $0.01B. Whatever the Obamas and Clintons gained is comparable to the daily natural variation of Trump's wealth.
– LordOfThePigs
Sep 11 at 7:53
7
Rumors have it that Trump has been burning through his wealth ever since he inherited it. If his wealth trajectory was on a steep decline, the question is "How much more would he have lost over the past years if he wasn't president". In general, there's so much other potential explanations and unfair comparisons here that even if the cherry-picked statistics were true, the conclusion is not.
– FooBar
Sep 11 at 13:14
 |Â
show 13 more comments
up vote
79
down vote
accepted
Yes, but it is an unfair comparison.
According to Snopes, the figures are close to the official estimates, but it makes no sense to compare former two-term presidents like Clinton and Obama to Trump, who is a sitting president and has not yet completed a full term. All ex-presidents have lucrative opportunities in the private sector that Trump does not have access to. Also, there is no evidence that Clinton or Obama acquired their increased wealth illegally, which is what this graphic suggests.
answered Sep 10 at 17:47
awells
1,741166
41
One should also note that the graphic looks like a cherry-picked data set, as it doesn't mention, either Bush family, which looks odd due to the younger President Bush serving between Clinton and Obama.
– sharur
Sep 10 at 20:24
39
Well it would be interesting to know the error margins for each number. Especially Trump's amount of wealth is rather controversial (i.e. large error margins) as far as I know.
– Nobody
Sep 10 at 20:24
32
@SnakeDoc Since the starting numbers are different by more than three orders of magnitude, it really makes no sense to try to compare the changes. What happens economically to a person with a net worth of over $4 billion is just going to be fundamentally different to what happens to a person with a net worth of under $4 million even under very similar circumstances. Trying to compare them is bizarre.
– David Schwartz
Sep 11 at 2:37
28
I'd say the way the amounts are stated are also meant to be misleading by using a different order of magnitude. If it was fair, it should probably read something like: Before: $4.5B, $0.003B, $0.0005B After: $3.5B, $0.04B, $0.01B. Whatever the Obamas and Clintons gained is comparable to the daily natural variation of Trump's wealth.
– LordOfThePigs
Sep 11 at 7:53
7
Rumors have it that Trump has been burning through his wealth ever since he inherited it. If his wealth trajectory was on a steep decline, the question is "How much more would he have lost over the past years if he wasn't president". In general, there's so much other potential explanations and unfair comparisons here that even if the cherry-picked statistics were true, the conclusion is not.
– FooBar
Sep 11 at 13:14
 |Â
show 13 more comments
up vote
79
down vote
accepted
up vote
79
down vote
accepted
Yes, but it is an unfair comparison.
According to Snopes, the figures are close to the official estimates, but it makes no sense to compare former two-term presidents like Clinton and Obama to Trump, who is a sitting president and has not yet completed a full term. All ex-presidents have lucrative opportunities in the private sector that Trump does not have access to. Also, there is no evidence that Clinton or Obama acquired their increased wealth illegally, which is what this graphic suggests.
answered Sep 10 at 17:47
awells
1,741166
Yes, but it is an unfair comparison.
According to Snopes, the figures are close to the official estimates, but it makes no sense to compare former two-term presidents like Clinton and Obama to Trump, who is a sitting president and has not yet completed a full term. All ex-presidents have lucrative opportunities in the private sector that Trump does not have access to. Also, there is no evidence that Clinton or Obama acquired their increased wealth illegally, which is what this graphic suggests.
answered Sep 10 at 17:47
awells
1,741166
answered Sep 10 at 17:47
awells
1,741166
answered Sep 10 at 17:47
awells
1,741166
answered Sep 10 at 17:47
awells
1,741166
1,741166
41
One should also note that the graphic looks like a cherry-picked data set, as it doesn't mention, either Bush family, which looks odd due to the younger President Bush serving between Clinton and Obama.
– sharur
Sep 10 at 20:24
39
Well it would be interesting to know the error margins for each number. Especially Trump's amount of wealth is rather controversial (i.e. large error margins) as far as I know.
– Nobody
Sep 10 at 20:24
32
@SnakeDoc Since the starting numbers are different by more than three orders of magnitude, it really makes no sense to try to compare the changes. What happens economically to a person with a net worth of over $4 billion is just going to be fundamentally different to what happens to a person with a net worth of under $4 million even under very similar circumstances. Trying to compare them is bizarre.
– David Schwartz
Sep 11 at 2:37
28
I'd say the way the amounts are stated are also meant to be misleading by using a different order of magnitude. If it was fair, it should probably read something like: Before: $4.5B, $0.003B, $0.0005B After: $3.5B, $0.04B, $0.01B. Whatever the Obamas and Clintons gained is comparable to the daily natural variation of Trump's wealth.
– LordOfThePigs
Sep 11 at 7:53
7
Rumors have it that Trump has been burning through his wealth ever since he inherited it. If his wealth trajectory was on a steep decline, the question is "How much more would he have lost over the past years if he wasn't president". In general, there's so much other potential explanations and unfair comparisons here that even if the cherry-picked statistics were true, the conclusion is not.
– FooBar
Sep 11 at 13:14
 |Â
show 13 more comments
41
One should also note that the graphic looks like a cherry-picked data set, as it doesn't mention, either Bush family, which looks odd due to the younger President Bush serving between Clinton and Obama.
– sharur
Sep 10 at 20:24
39
Well it would be interesting to know the error margins for each number. Especially Trump's amount of wealth is rather controversial (i.e. large error margins) as far as I know.
– Nobody
Sep 10 at 20:24
32
@SnakeDoc Since the starting numbers are different by more than three orders of magnitude, it really makes no sense to try to compare the changes. What happens economically to a person with a net worth of over $4 billion is just going to be fundamentally different to what happens to a person with a net worth of under $4 million even under very similar circumstances. Trying to compare them is bizarre.
– David Schwartz
Sep 11 at 2:37
28
I'd say the way the amounts are stated are also meant to be misleading by using a different order of magnitude. If it was fair, it should probably read something like: Before: $4.5B, $0.003B, $0.0005B After: $3.5B, $0.04B, $0.01B. Whatever the Obamas and Clintons gained is comparable to the daily natural variation of Trump's wealth.
– LordOfThePigs
Sep 11 at 7:53
7
Rumors have it that Trump has been burning through his wealth ever since he inherited it. If his wealth trajectory was on a steep decline, the question is "How much more would he have lost over the past years if he wasn't president". In general, there's so much other potential explanations and unfair comparisons here that even if the cherry-picked statistics were true, the conclusion is not.
– FooBar
Sep 11 at 13:14
41
41
One should also note that the graphic looks like a cherry-picked data set, as it doesn't mention, either Bush family, which looks odd due to the younger President Bush serving between Clinton and Obama.
– sharur
Sep 10 at 20:24
One should also note that the graphic looks like a cherry-picked data set, as it doesn't mention, either Bush family, which looks odd due to the younger President Bush serving between Clinton and Obama.
– sharur
Sep 10 at 20:24
39
39
Well it would be interesting to know the error margins for each number. Especially Trump's amount of wealth is rather controversial (i.e. large error margins) as far as I know.
– Nobody
Sep 10 at 20:24
Well it would be interesting to know the error margins for each number. Especially Trump's amount of wealth is rather controversial (i.e. large error margins) as far as I know.
– Nobody
Sep 10 at 20:24
32
32
@SnakeDoc Since the starting numbers are different by more than three orders of magnitude, it really makes no sense to try to compare the changes. What happens economically to a person with a net worth of over $4 billion is just going to be fundamentally different to what happens to a person with a net worth of under $4 million even under very similar circumstances. Trying to compare them is bizarre.
– David Schwartz
Sep 11 at 2:37
@SnakeDoc Since the starting numbers are different by more than three orders of magnitude, it really makes no sense to try to compare the changes. What happens economically to a person with a net worth of over $4 billion is just going to be fundamentally different to what happens to a person with a net worth of under $4 million even under very similar circumstances. Trying to compare them is bizarre.
– David Schwartz
Sep 11 at 2:37
28
28
I'd say the way the amounts are stated are also meant to be misleading by using a different order of magnitude. If it was fair, it should probably read something like: Before: $4.5B, $0.003B, $0.0005B After: $3.5B, $0.04B, $0.01B. Whatever the Obamas and Clintons gained is comparable to the daily natural variation of Trump's wealth.
– LordOfThePigs
Sep 11 at 7:53
I'd say the way the amounts are stated are also meant to be misleading by using a different order of magnitude. If it was fair, it should probably read something like: Before: $4.5B, $0.003B, $0.0005B After: $3.5B, $0.04B, $0.01B. Whatever the Obamas and Clintons gained is comparable to the daily natural variation of Trump's wealth.
– LordOfThePigs
Sep 11 at 7:53
7
7
Rumors have it that Trump has been burning through his wealth ever since he inherited it. If his wealth trajectory was on a steep decline, the question is "How much more would he have lost over the past years if he wasn't president". In general, there's so much other potential explanations and unfair comparisons here that even if the cherry-picked statistics were true, the conclusion is not.
– FooBar
Sep 11 at 13:14
Rumors have it that Trump has been burning through his wealth ever since he inherited it. If his wealth trajectory was on a steep decline, the question is "How much more would he have lost over the past years if he wasn't president". In general, there's so much other potential explanations and unfair comparisons here that even if the cherry-picked statistics were true, the conclusion is not.
– FooBar
Sep 11 at 13:14
 |Â
show 13 more comments
3
Hello, and congrats on your first question! You should give both the source of the infographic and some proof that the source is notable, otherwise your question might be closed.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:38
21
As for the infographic itself, it is incredibly misleading since it doesn't show when each group had those changes in net worth(since the start of their presidencies, Clinton has had 25 years to make money, Trump has had 2). Presidents make a lot of money after their presidency from books, paid speeches, etc., which I'm sure Trump will also cash in on after his presidency.
– Giter
Sep 10 at 17:47
19
This is also a fantastic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
– Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:38
2
A far more fair graphic would be one DIRECTLY AFTER their terms, instead of NOW (especially for the Clintons who had years to make money since the last term)
– Hobbamok
Sep 11 at 8:52
2
Be careful the Donald doesn't sue you for saying he is worth less than $10 billion !
– Mawg
Sep 11 at 12:47