Recent statements concerning US pharmaceutical pricing have drawn renewed attention to an entirely new horizon in mathematics. The method, associated with remarks by Donald Trump and repeated by several of his sycophants, departs from standard arithmetic in a manner that is rhetorically vigorous but mathematically ridiculous.
Percentage change is defined relative to a single, clearly specified baseline. A decrease from $600 to $100 is therefore calculated as (600-100)/600×100 = 83.3%. In other words, the price falls by 83.3% relative to the original $600 price. This is the method used in economics, finance, accounting, retail pricing, and presumably even by the secondary-school mathematics teachers who attempted to educate Trump.
However, the new alternative math proceeds differently. It implicitly combines two distinct operations: first, the increase from $100 to $600, correctly described as a 500% rise when measured against the initial $100; and second, the subsequent decrease from $600 back to $100. Rather than evaluating this decrease against the higher price, however, the method appears to retain the earlier, lower baseline, thereby generating a claim of a “600% saving.” The arithmetic equivalent of moving the goalposts and then declaring victory by an even larger margin.
Within standard mathematics, this shift in baseline is not permissible. Percentage changes are inherently asymmetric because they depend entirely on the reference point selected. The same absolute difference – in this case, $500 – produces different percentage values depending on whether it is measured relative to $100 or $600. This is not a technical loophole but the entire point of percentages.
The problem with this approach becomes clearer if one follows it to its logical conclusion. Under standard arithmetic, a 100% price reduction means the price has fallen all the way to zero: a $100 product reduced by 100% costs nothing. A reduction greater than 100% would therefore produce a negative price, meaning the seller would have to pay the customer to accept the product. If one claims that a fall from $600 to $100 represents a 600% decrease, the numbers cease to correspond to any coherent pricing system. The calculation implies that prices can fall not merely to zero, but to values several times smaller than zero.
The attraction of the Trump method is easy to understand. By selecting whichever baseline produces the largest possible percentage, the resulting figure acquires an air of spectacular achievement. It transforms an already substantial price reduction into something approaching numerical performance art.
Trump’s alternative arithmetic therefore succeeds in generating impressively large numbers by abandoning the one feature percentages require most: consistency. The result is as unsound as most things about Trump. Yet it seems rhetorically effective – particularly with “low IQ people”, as Trump likes to call his followers.
In other words, by cherry-picking the baseline for maximum impact, the Trump method turns an already solid 83% cut into a sensational “600% savings”. It sacrifices precision for hype – effective populism perhaps, poor math for sure!
None of this would be worth mentioning, of course, if it were the only incident where Trump misleads his public. Sadly, he is telling multiple and often much more consequential untruths on a daily basis.
12 Responses to “Alternative Mathematics” According to Donald J. Trump
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
We live in Golders Green London where there have a number of anti-semitic horror attacks. Why have none of my friends or colleagues enquired about our welfare?
Thanks Mike. That’s a good question.
Personally, I feel very strongly about what is going on and hope you and your family are fine. Perhaps I did not inquire directly because I am so ashamed that this is happening in the country of my choice. I hope you would not hesitate to contact me if ever I can help out in a difficult situation.
Thank you for your kind and sympathetic response. I guessed you would feel that way.
Anti-Semitism has taken root in the UK, and this attack is only one of many.
I live in the US
but on London-time, so I care, too.
(one small voice, among many)
I got a giggle out of this post, so thank you, again.
My sister-in-law was a maths professor, and when she purchased her dream car, it may have had something to do with the vanity plates: ACCUR8.
At the exact moment, her husband’s week-old mid-life crisis was sitting in their garage, leaking antifreeze, undrivable.
(last part of real-life joke: brother-in-law was a surgeon)
Nothing new here, homeopathy has been applying alternative mathematics for hundreds of years, by claiming that a 1:10^60 dilution is fundamentally different from e.g. a 1:10^400 dilution. Which is like claiming that ten times zero has a different outcome than a billion times zero.
Blame the Democrats.
If they had the sense to field a sensible and reasonable candidate, none of this would have happened. Nope, they selected a blithering idiot who could not put together comprehensible speeches, but rabbitted on about “being unburdened”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Like Labour in the UK and Labor in Australia, they have abandoned labour in favour of the fake Left virtue-signalling feeble-minded progressives who talk about equity while sipping their lattes and Rieslings in salubrious surroundings. But for the narcissism of these nongs, alternatives would not have been surging in popularity.
I suggest more people enquire in their mirrors rather railing against outcomes, not causes.
Thanks for the laugh Frank. Republicans who nominated Trump a second time despite his mismanagement of the pandemic response and attempts to overthrow the will of the people are blameless.
Talker, do you really not understand the point of my post, that had the Democrats fielded a credible candidate, Trump may not have been elected?
What can I say other than to defer to Einstein when he said human stupidity is infinite.
Einstein was right. Clearly, some people are too stupid to realize when a counterargument slaps them on their face.
The only thing I see is you punching yourself in the face, but keep on digging a deeper hole.
If there is a point somewhere in your drivel, perhaps explaining it to make sense may help.
Explain what? Frankie. I have already made my point. Apparently you are just too dumb to grasp it.