47

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

SnakeDoc
  • 558
  • 4
  • 12
  • 4
    Hello, and congrats on your first question! You should give both the source of the infographic and some proof that the source is [notable](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/864/faq-must-all-questions-be-notable), otherwise your question might be closed. – Giter Sep 10 '18 at 17:38
  • 23
    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 '18 at 17:47
  • @Giter It's been circulating on a lot of different forums for a bit, and I've been skeptical that it's true. Does that count? – SnakeDoc Sep 10 '18 at 17:49
  • At least a link to where you found this particular image would be good. – Giter Sep 10 '18 at 18:02
  • @Giter Updated, although the source is obviously biased. I'm asking for an unbiased review of the information presented. I didn't want people to get bogged down in the "who's better than who" debate, or the never-ending political stuff... – SnakeDoc Sep 10 '18 at 18:09
  • 22
    This is also a fantastic example of the [*post hoc ergo propter hoc* fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). – Nate Eldredge Sep 10 '18 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 '18 at 08:52
  • 2
    Be careful the Donald doesn't sue you for saying he is worth less than $10 billion ! – Mawg says reinstate Monica Sep 11 '18 at 12:47
  • @BruceWayne He claimed somewhere between $6-8 Billion, but the media claims $3-4 Billion based on known owned global assets. It's very possible there's more assets that aren't known and publicly accounted for - since he is a private citizen and his company is privately held. The public figures are merely estimations based on available data - only the Trump family knows their accuracy. I know it's popular to hate on Trump in these parts... but let's get facts straight, and keep cheap political jabs out of this discussion please. – SnakeDoc Sep 11 '18 at 17:12

1 Answers1

80

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.

awells
  • 1,821
  • 1
  • 11
  • 6
  • 2
    I'm not asking about the other assertions. Also, losing over $1 Billion seems to be rather unusual, and would seem to be difficult to make up in speeches after terming-out, if Clinton has only managed to make ~$100 Million in 25 years (doubtful Trump has 25 years left at his age). Are you sure the numbers are accurate? – SnakeDoc Sep 10 '18 at 17:52
  • 2
    According to the source, "net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable." There is no way to know for certain that the numbers are accurate, just that they are in the ballpark of what is estimated. – awells Sep 10 '18 at 18:56
  • 4
    @SnakeDoc: Actually, losing money as a president is not unusual (the amount may be, but that's just a magnitude) due to a lot of expenditures coming from the president's pocket, such as iirc, state dinners. Since they have left office, the Obamas and Clintons are free to pursue other avenues such as after-dinner speaking and commencement speeches. Note that the Presidents get a pension of 200K starting immediately after leaving office, and Hilary had a Senator's salary for years. – sharur Sep 10 '18 at 20:22
  • 42
    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 '18 at 20:24
  • 41
    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 '18 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 '18 at 02:37
  • Could more info be added to this answer, like a link to the official estimates mentioned, and details of why they are official etc? I know they are in the snope link, but it is best to have them in the answers. – Frames Catherine White Sep 11 '18 at 03:45
  • 2
    @Nobody It would *also* be interesting to know whether the second number for Trump includes or excludes the wealth/assets he put into a Revocable Trust when he became President (and can reclaim when he is out of office) – Chronocidal Sep 11 '18 at 07:28
  • 29
    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 '18 at 07:53
  • 3
    Also, neither Obama nor Clinton had significant Financial operations goind on which even could create a net negative balance, so it was almost impossible for them to loose Money as Tump did – Hobbamok Sep 11 '18 at 08:51
  • 4
    Where do they get their numbers? This information isn't public knowledge, and estimates of Trumps wealth have varied wildly, making it sound like this is nothing but wild speculation. – psusi Sep 11 '18 at 18:09
  • I can't find it now but saw one (in the economist) breaking it down by time periods showing his growth took a big hit when he started doing TV full time and presumably had a lot less time left to manage his real estate. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Sep 11 '18 at 21:27
  • 2
    It would be interesting to see direct evidence of the unfairness of the comparison -- i.e., by seeing numbers from 2 years into Obama's and Clinton's first terms. Your assertion that "All ex-presidents have lucrative opportunities in the private sector that Trump does not have access to" certainly seems reasonable, and I believe it, but isn't backed up by anything at the moment. – Matthew Read Sep 11 '18 at 22:46
  • 1
    Does anyone else believe that it is wrong and should be illegal to use the holding of public office to enrich themselves? In true liberal fashion Snopes reframes the issue to justify their desired conclusion "All ex-presidents have lucrative opportunities in the private sector". Why do they have lucrative opportunities? Because they are being paid for providing access that their former position has allowed them to position themselves to 'sell'. Seems crooked as can be to me. – Dunk Sep 11 '18 at 23:27
  • 1
    Sure, the ex-presidents did not acquire their wealth “illegally”, but in a “rigged system” some can win simply by sticking to the rules in their favor. One may also see slight support for the impossibility of a “pauper” ever becoming POTUS. – gwr Sep 16 '18 at 11:39