[rgbrenner]

Yes... but even accounting for that.. the return for trump is roughly 8% annually since '82.

Oprah posted some great growth numbers early in her career with her TV show.. but if you start from when she reached $1B in 2004 to today, she has a return of 7.63% annually.

If I had to pick, IMO Oprah is more impressive. But it isn't like we're comparing Bill Gates and the owner of the local dry cleaner. Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. After 2004, Oprah--just like Trump--could have earned more money in an index fund.

If we're really looking for business leaders with good growth numbers, it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing.

[DashRattlesnake]

> These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. After 2004, Oprah--just like Trump--could have earned more money in an index fund.

You're just picking and choosing to get the comparison you want.

Oprah went from $0 -> billionare. If she'd investive passively, she'd still have basically nothing.

Trump went from something like $500 million -> billionare. If he'd invested passively he'd be ahead.

In conclusion: Trump is a shitty businessman, which was really my only point.

> Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns.

> ... it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing.

This is weird valley-think. Those people were lucky more than anything, being in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. They're not supermen. Running the country is not something I'd want any of them to be doing. Running a government sub-bureaucracy, maybe, but only one without much policy-making power.

[rgbrenner]

You're just picking and choosing to get the comparison you want.

My intention was to exclude her earnings from TV. She was successful at that, but a TV host is not a business person.. and the claim was that she was "wildly successful" at business. TV success != business success.. and Oprah has had a difficult time developing business outside of her TV success.

She's no more a great business person than Bieber or Taylor Swift. If Taylor Swift took her money and put it in an index fund that returned what Oprah and Trump have earned, she would be worth $3B when she's 60. Does this make Swift a great business person worthy of being president?

In conclusion: Trump is a shitty businessman, which was really my only point.

No disagreement on that.

Trump went from something like $500 million -> billionare

You're just picking $500m randomly. The highest number for his inheritance was thrown out by Rubio during a debate of $200m. Which is the number I used to calculate the 8%.

This is weird valley-think.

First, I don't live in the valley. Second, both Oprah and Trump have subpar growth. If you turn off your TV, you'll find the average business grows faster than these two. No need to go to SF, better business people are literally all over the country.

[ixtli]

>This is weird valley-think. Those people were lucky more than anything, being in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills.

_Yes._ A person with a billion dollars does not work a billion times harder than a person with 1 dollar. A programmer should be keenly aware of this, I think, given what a monumentally complex task it is to evaluate the value of labor in our industry. I also do not begrudge an individual their success carte blanche even if I am highly critical of capitalism (best to judge them for the specifics of their actions) but we should be clear about whether or not someone has shown evidence of being better than a coin flip before we start saying they're qualified for something.