> From the site I linked to above (which incidentally is the site [1] you linked to in your post). It includes re-invested dividends and also taxes, which were significantly higher in the late 70's and early 80's compared to what they are now. The page I linked to goes through their methodology.
I missed that link. It makes some good points. Of course, if you had $200 million in 1974, and your marginal tax rate was 75%, you would not hold it in person but would shield it in a corporation. I'm sure his tax lawyer would have found some structure that would have brought down his taxes significantly.
> you can't run a company of that size for so long if you "lack intelligence"
He is not a complete moron, but he is far from a brilliant businessman. And he doesn't seem to have many intelligent insights outside of business.
He is good at selling an image that appeals to a lot of Americans, though.
> even more so if you're building it back up after losing a billion dollars a few decades earlier.
How do you lose a billion dollars? Does that take a special kind of intelligence? Or does it maybe indicate that he takes irresponsible risks that sometimes pay off, but sometimes go horribly wrong? Could his relative success be explained by survivorship bias?
I'm not claiming he is a brilliant businessman. I'm only disputing the assertion that he "lacks intelligence", which is what started this side-thread.
> How do you lose a billion dollars?
Many different ways. For example, Hillary spent over a billion dollars on her losing campaign, but I don't assume that Hillary lacks intelligence because of this.
> Could his relative success be explained by survivorship bias?
It could well be, and again I'm not ascribing any sort of "special intelligence" to Trump, just that I don't agree that he "lacks intelligence".
I missed that link. It makes some good points. Of course, if you had $200 million in 1974, and your marginal tax rate was 75%, you would not hold it in person but would shield it in a corporation. I'm sure his tax lawyer would have found some structure that would have brought down his taxes significantly.
> you can't run a company of that size for so long if you "lack intelligence"
He is not a complete moron, but he is far from a brilliant businessman. And he doesn't seem to have many intelligent insights outside of business.
He is good at selling an image that appeals to a lot of Americans, though.
> even more so if you're building it back up after losing a billion dollars a few decades earlier.
How do you lose a billion dollars? Does that take a special kind of intelligence? Or does it maybe indicate that he takes irresponsible risks that sometimes pay off, but sometimes go horribly wrong? Could his relative success be explained by survivorship bias?