This seems to gleefully conflate wealth and income, in order to claim that the infamously-always-grifting trump lost a fortune during his first term. Using percent to decide who had the “biggest increase” to their wealth is a sneaky way of excusing the grifting of the richest among us. It points out “Democrat” or “Democratic” repeatedly but doesn’t use the word “Republican” even one time. Its supporting “according to Bloomberg” link doesn’t even go anywhere.
Additionally, Donald Trump does not appear on the chart of before and after wealth, presumbaly because the “according to Bloomberg” numbers are 20 time higher than the highest number that is on the chart.
The article also does nothing to acknowledge or account for the way trump’s family cashed in, scoring deals that added up to potentially billions, i.e, far more than all the money on their little chart put together.
I am skeptical that any outsider can really say, in good faith, that trump’s wealth rose or fell during his first term anyway. That family’s finances are infamously obfuscated and shot through with fraud. Once a system passes a certain level of complexity, it becomes pretty trivial to paint it in whatever light you’d choose, and offer evidence to back that point of view up, too.
This seems to gleefully conflate wealth and income, in order to claim that the infamously-always-grifting trump lost a fortune during his first term. Using percent to decide who had the “biggest increase” to their wealth is a sneaky way of excusing the grifting of the richest among us. It points out “Democrat” or “Democratic” repeatedly but doesn’t use the word “Republican” even one time. Its supporting “according to Bloomberg” link doesn’t even go anywhere.
Additionally, Donald Trump does not appear on the chart of before and after wealth, presumbaly because the “according to Bloomberg” numbers are 20 time higher than the highest number that is on the chart.
Yes, good catch!
The article also does nothing to acknowledge or account for the way trump’s family cashed in, scoring deals that added up to potentially billions, i.e, far more than all the money on their little chart put together.
I am skeptical that any outsider can really say, in good faith, that trump’s wealth rose or fell during his first term anyway. That family’s finances are infamously obfuscated and shot through with fraud. Once a system passes a certain level of complexity, it becomes pretty trivial to paint it in whatever light you’d choose, and offer evidence to back that point of view up, too.