>>>>Why on earth would he do all that if he is really 2 digits of billions net worth ?
>>>
>>>All of his holding are private, so we'll never know what he's worth.Tax returns certainly not.
>>
>>But comparing the estimated worth of property given as base figure to calculate property tax on might be interesting.
>>Dunno enough about US taxes for very rich, esp. if increased with property to get an idea, but a billiomaire sitting for a TV show cannot be a profit center for himself unless he is in dire need of name recognition. Math just cannot add up...
>
>Yes, it's unlikely that his true net worth - tangible assets less liabilities - is even one billion.

Then all his bragging about being able to finance a campaign is even more dubious. Wonder why nobody tried testing his nerves doubting him openly into another court hearing ;-)

In charge of a paper (goooood for numbers to be read AGAIN) read across the states I would prepare series of articles summarized with "Numbers do not Lie" and reflect on the biggest items/"deals" of Trump history - accompanied by a web site to put percentages (as in ROI, compared to that market, compared to that time, of his total worth and so on) - freely offering him space to counter with NUMBERS or number-validated comments ;-)))

>However, people often consider the present value of future earnings when assessing value.
>They certainly do that for a share of stock and he seems to be doing that for himself.

Nothing wrong with that in my book - that is the way to calculate the price at which you want to buy or sell. But as long as you do not have a partner agreeing to that price for goods on markets or a real market, claiming you have that net worth borders on fraudulent in my dictionary (esp. if you "forget" most of the debt you have to settle once the property is sold)

>That's why he can legitimately say that his perception of his net worth changes depending on how he feels that day.
>If someone said that about Apple Computer you wouldn't be so skeptical.

That a calculated net worth can vary wildly, esp. if leveraged with debt, is clear. But the way you present "Trump Math", I could buy a couple of thousand bottles of last years wine today (partly on credit) and call myself a billionaire because based on current data I can sell them for a lot in 2216 ;-)

If I look at the very rich and their pet projects, Musk cearly is the one who has started off on many new directions and where the final verdict on reaching profit or even something close to that is out - but that is due to hunting after currently non-existing technology. Others like Gates are not after profit any more, which is fine as it is their money.

But with Trump the numbers "available" to me suggest something more like a con or flim-flam man to me than an old lady harping on old illusions about the worth of the castle many people lived in 2 generations ago. Even if articles about his ghost writer suggest the ghost writer believes Trump has memory/attention problems (yupp, realize that I rely on 2nd + 3rd hand info of people clearly having [had] monetary side interests: but I will not buy anything about Trump or spend time to find/consume at least video material on him)

If you compare the states with ancient Rome, I'd say the time of "Carthago delenda est" (USSR imploded without major war, China ***currently*** no real military danger) was with the end of WWII, current War on Drugs and Terror is similar to Pompeius going after pirates - costly but no real danger to the state.

I won't try to match things by even more force (Gracchi were no race or student protestors, Trump is certainly way behind of Crassus in economic leverage), but the republic as stable form of gov went downhill and was abolished... And the downhill trend at least this century most agree on.