Even if he is a lot poorer than he claims, he is still rich compared to what we normally consider rich vs poor. I'm not sure why we would suddenly change the baseline in this particular case.
If you want to claim he isn't as rich as he claims, then then I'm not disputing that at all (I haven't a clue), but to claim he isn't rich does not align with existing evidence without fiddling with how we define rich and poor in ways we don't otherwise fiddle with such definitions.
The whole thread follows from a comment that the number of bankruptcies doesn't matter if he's rich. The point is not that he's rich. It's whether he's increased or decreased the fortune he was given. If he's given $413 million and now has less than that, he's not a good business man. Since we are blocked from all his finances, we don't know where he stands now, but the multiple bankruptcies and NYTimes investigation suggests he's not accumulated wealth more than spent it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-...
Whether or not he is rich tells you little unless you subtract out the effect of all of his inherited wealth.
Having, say $300 million sounds like a lot. But if you inherited $700 million (as Trump likely did), having only $300 left today is a catastrophic failure.
If you want to claim he isn't as rich as he claims, then then I'm not disputing that at all (I haven't a clue), but to claim he isn't rich does not align with existing evidence without fiddling with how we define rich and poor in ways we don't otherwise fiddle with such definitions.