Wealth is all relative.

We would look stupidly rich compared to someone in Africa living on less than a dollar a day, I probably look extremely wealthy next to some forum posters.

I think the important take away is that wealth doesn't equate to intelligence.
There are a ton of multi-billionaires who are wealthy due to circumstance rather than actually had made good investments or worked hard for it.

Yet a parent who is working on the (bullshit) $7 an hour minimum US wage and still manages to pay all their bills, feed their children... Are probably far more thrifty with money than someone born into privileged circumstance.

What Trump should do is appoint people based on merit, not on wealth. He should have drained the swamp, not filled it up twice as high with sharks.

I often get meaningul conversation out of him.

Just because I may not agree with allot of his perspectives, doesn't mean I should avoid coercing with him.

But he didn't say anything about how a person should be hired for being rich even if they don't have knowledge or qualifications, you're putting words into his mouth. Of course who Trump endorses in his mind does have qualifications, otherwise he wouldn't endorse them. And if he did say that ... 

it would be 

REALLY 

ironic

You should take a look at his cabinet picks lol

Not talking theoretically at all. I don't think anyone takes Trump's use of "poor" to be people who are actually legitimately poor. I mean a poor person would never have the opportunity to even be considered for a top government position. In the context he was using the word poor he obviously simply meant not rich. Because Trump has been rich since birth, so he considers anyone who doesn't have millions of dollars to be poor. Trump's "poor" person here could be a highly educated person who actually has the knowledge and experience to do the job, but oh they only make say $150k a year and aren't worth tens of millions so to Trump they are poor and Trump obviously doesn't give a damn about anyone unless they are rich so to him anyone who isn't rich has no worth, and therefore would not be worthy of a top government position, which is why he filled his cabinet with incompetant billionaires, because to him the only worth of a person is their net worth.

Obviously he's not gonna say all that. He's trying to defend his decisions of only hiring rich people, so he makes it out like the only other option would be to hire poor people, with no other options in between. You can also look at it as he was using the word poor to be extreme in order to try to convince people of his point but only offering a throw away option as the only alternative to his rich person idea, as in who would you rather have running the economy, someone who's dealt with a lot of money in their personal life because they are rich or a poor person who can't pay their bills.

If he was being realistic, he would have said who would you rather have running the economy, some know-nothing rich person who doesn't have a clue but has money so i picked them, or a highly educated and experienced person who is capable of the job, regardless of how much money they have because that has nothing to do with being able to run the economy. Then his "rich person" looks a lot shittier. But obviously he's gonna frame it in a way so that his stupid picks look better by offering up the only alternative as a poor person which as you pointed out, makes one think of not in good financial status.

To Trump money is the measure of a man's worth, nothing else. That is all his statement means. Which is why this statement caused an uproar. It was very obvious he was saying money, not merit, is what gets people positions in his adminisitration. But that was already clear if you look at his cabinet, he stocked it full of millionairies and billionaires that have no business running the country.

I'm not nitpicking. You're the one breaking my arguement up into multiple separate points when it's all supposed to contextually work together. Either way though, if you have to use such an extreme example to illustrate your point, then I feel that your arguement isn't very strong to begin with. And I'll leave it at that so that you don't have to waste an inordinate amount of time responding.

Wealth may not equate to intelligence but there's an undeniably pretty damn good correlation if we check out this study from Duke University (a very reputable institution) that 45% of the billionaires attended schools which required standardized test scores that were in the one percentile. That means if we extrapolate from the SAT scores then the vast majority of the 45% of the billionaires have an IQ of at least over 120 ...

I doubt those 'thrifty' with money would be working for $7.25/hr or have children ... (The latter is especially destructive to wealth growth in addition to dealing to getting minimum wage.)

@Bold One does not exclude the other ...

Meh, let him bad mouth me ...