5 ms·

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-net-worth-in-office-is-down-300-million-in-10-decline https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-net-worth-in-office-is-down-300-million-in-10-decline https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-n... Seems to me that he has lost net worth while in office. Even though the biggest losses were this year, there is not a clear trend there to say he is profiting due to his position.

AaronFriel 6y ago
If, hypothetically, I enlist you to commit a crime like robbing a bank, and we abscond with say, $1,000,000 - that is a crime. If during the getaway we not only lose every dollar but total our Lamborghini, sure, we may have a net loss, but it doesn't make it not a crime.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  It would be fair to say that you didn’t profit from the robbery. A better example would be robbing the bank, keeping the money, but your $3,000,000 mansion burned down. Your net worth has dropped, but you did profit from the robbery.
  - AaronFriel 6y ago
    The crime was, and always was, the first action (transaction?) between the people doing the heist and the bank. Whatever happened afterward is irrelevant. For at least one instant, in the hypothetical we had $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains. I assume that's some sort of crime in whatever jurisdiction you are in, and if not, well, there are banks waiting for you friend.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      > For at least one instant, in the hypothetical we had $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains. Highly debatable. What does it mean to "have" $1,000,000? Is there even such a thing as instantaneous net worth? Being a millionaire for a brief instant with no ability to use the money seems a lot like having $0. Regardless, this just demonstrates that the bank robbery analogy is flawed. It's not illegal for the president to access the classified national security information. How he uses that information is where the crime may have occurred. So perhaps a better analogy is armored car drivers transporting the money. They're allowed to possess the money. They're not allowed to do whatever they want with it, like, say, lend it out for profit.
- eternalban 6y ago
  Best to take someone else's Lamborghini to a bank heist.
  - AaronFriel 6y ago
    No one said in this hypothetical we were smart criminals.
qchris 6y ago
Without jumping into the rest of the fray in this discussion, it does seem plausible for someone to profit while still losing part of their net worth, if the loss that they would have otherwise incurred is less than they otherwise would have due to an unfair advantage due to their position. If a person were to use insider information to sell off their stock just after the value of it began to plummet, they would still be guilty of insider trading regardless of the end result of the stock crash on their net worth.
abvdasker 6y ago
Is it possible that he would have lost even more without holding the presidency?
RIMR 6y ago
If I steal $1 million, and then I lose $3 million, I still stole $1 million.
monadic2 6y ago
You don't refrain from going after criminals because they're incompetent.
CamperBob2 6y ago
Not for lack of trying...

AaronFriel 6y ago

If, hypothetically, I enlist you to commit a crime like robbing a bank, and we abscond with say, $1,000,000 - that is a crime. If during the getaway we not only lose every dollar but total our Lamborghini, sure, we may have a net loss, but it doesn't make it not a crime.

cgriswald 6y ago
It would be fair to say that you didn’t profit from the robbery. A better example would be robbing the bank, keeping the money, but your $3,000,000 mansion burned down. Your net worth has dropped, but you did profit from the robbery.
- AaronFriel 6y ago
  The crime was, and always was, the first action (transaction?) between the people doing the heist and the bank. Whatever happened afterward is irrelevant. For at least one instant, in the hypothetical we had $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains. I assume that's some sort of crime in whatever jurisdiction you are in, and if not, well, there are banks waiting for you friend.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    > For at least one instant, in the hypothetical we had $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains. Highly debatable. What does it mean to "have" $1,000,000? Is there even such a thing as instantaneous net worth? Being a millionaire for a brief instant with no ability to use the money seems a lot like having $0. Regardless, this just demonstrates that the bank robbery analogy is flawed. It's not illegal for the president to access the classified national security information. How he uses that information is where the crime may have occurred. So perhaps a better analogy is armored car drivers transporting the money. They're allowed to possess the money. They're not allowed to do whatever they want with it, like, say, lend it out for profit.
eternalban 6y ago
Best to take someone else's Lamborghini to a bank heist.
- AaronFriel 6y ago
  No one said in this hypothetical we were smart criminals.

qchris 6y ago

Without jumping into the rest of the fray in this discussion, it does seem plausible for someone to profit while still losing part of their net worth, if the loss that they would have otherwise incurred is less than they otherwise would have due to an unfair advantage due to their position. If a person were to use insider information to sell off their stock just after the value of it began to plummet, they would still be guilty of insider trading regardless of the end result of the stock crash on their net worth.

abvdasker 6y ago

Is it possible that he would have lost even more without holding the presidency?

RIMR 6y ago

If I steal $1 million, and then I lose $3 million, I still stole $1 million.

monadic2 6y ago

You don't refrain from going after criminals because they're incompetent.

CamperBob2 6y ago

Not for lack of trying...