The 1,000% truth behind Trump’s mathematically impossible promise to cut drug prices

[0:00] All right, it's time for a little math. Back in the 1980s, Donald Trump used to say that his [0:04] penthouse luxury apartment in Trump Tower in New York City was 30,000 square feet. He even upped [0:09] it to Forbes once, claiming that it was a sprawling 33,000 square feet. But public records show that [0:16] that apartment is 10,996 square feet. When it comes to how many rooms make up that penthouse [0:23] apartment, Thomas Wells, a former Trump real estate lawyer, once noticed that different [0:27] publications had wildly different counts of the number of rooms. Shouldn't be that hard to figure [0:31] out how many rooms there are in your house. Wells said in the 1980s, some press reports had Trump [0:35] living in an apartment with eight rooms. Some said 16, maybe 20 or even 30. So Wells asked Trump how [0:42] many rooms were actually in his apartment. According to Wells, Trump said, quote, however many they will [0:48] print. Math doesn't seem to be Donald Trump's strong suit. Let's start with his calculation of [0:53] percentages, particularly when it comes to how much he claims to have reduced prescription drug [0:59] prices. This is what he said he was going to do to drug prices last year. Now drug prices are going [1:06] to be going down 100 percent, 400 percent, 600 percent, a thousand percent in some cases, a thousand [1:17] percent in some cases. And here's how he tried to justify his calculations during a recent event. [1:22] I took a lot of heat and say 500, 600, 700. But we also say sometimes 50 percent, 60 percent, different [1:32] kind of calculation, 70, 80 and 90 percent. And people understand that better. But there are two [1:39] ways of calculating it. But either way, it doesn't make any difference, whether it's 60, 70 or 80 percent. [1:44] Nobody's ever heard of it. But it's also 500, 600, 700, depending on the way you want to look at it. [1:50] So the way the way you word the calculation, the way you word the calculation, what he's saying, I think, [2:00] or at least he's trying to say, is that his administration has lowered drug prices by 500, 600 or even [2:06] 700 percent, as you heard earlier, maybe even thousand percent. But sometimes it's 50 percent or 60 percent. [2:11] So let's do a little math. If something is 100 percent off, it is free. It is being given away. [2:18] No money is exchanging hands at all. Reducing drug prices or any prices really by more than 100 percent [2:26] is generally speaking, mathematically impossible. If you reduce the price of anything by more than [2:32] 100 percent, that means when you go to buy that thing, you get the thing and you get money back. [2:37] There is no alternative calculation that helps make sense of any of this. It's the kind of [2:43] exaggeration that Trump, the businessman and publicity hog has been using for decades to attract [2:48] attention. But now not only is the president doing this, but a slew of underlings who are willing to [2:53] dignify his arithmetical nonsense are offering similar explanations. Well, if the drug was $100 [3:00] and it raised the price to $600, that would be a 600 percent rise. If it drops from 600 to 100, [3:09] that's a 600 percent savings. Now, if we were in middle school, RFK Jr. might get partial credit for [3:16] showing his work. But he would fail the class because his calculations and indeed his entire [3:21] conceptualization are all wrong. Let's do a quick math lesson here. If the price of something goes [3:27] from $100 to $600, it's an increase of $500. By use as the denominator, it is an increase of 500 percent, [3:36] not 600 percent, as RFK Jr. says. Now, if you take the 500 percent, you divide 500 by 600, [3:44] the increase by the final price, you get 0.833. Multiply that by 100, it's an 83 percent savings, [3:53] which means if a price drops from $600 to $100, it's an 83 percent discount, which is certainly [3:59] something. But it's not 400 percent, 500 percent, 600 percent or a thousand percent. And no, you can't [4:04] use those things interchangeably. Trump and RFK Jr., by the way, are not the only ones engaging in bad [4:10] math. It's caught on with other top government officials, too. In this case, what you're about [4:14] to hear, not only is the math wrong, but the person doing the math thing is referring to himself [4:19] in the third person. This FBI director has been on the job twice as many days as every director [4:28] before me. What that means is I've taken half as many days off as those before me. What that means is [4:35] I've taken a third less vacation than those before me. None of those things are connected. [4:42] Setting aside the fact that that, too, is mathematical nonsense, this might be a good [4:47] time to point out that Kash Patel has been on the job as FBI director for 518 days. [4:52] J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI for 17,524 days. There's sure to be a spirited debate [4:59] about around which FBI director was more interesting in his exploits. But generally, [5:02] if I were Kash Patel, I'd stay away from the how hard I work comparisons. But even that is all [5:08] besides the point. This administration simply does not use real numbers to support its political [5:13] stances. It throws numbers and percentages and fractions around to manipulate how you should [5:18] feel about the job that it's doing or about a particular issue. And the numbers, if they're [5:22] inconvenient, they just ignore them altogether. Do you know how much it will cost Americans in terms [5:30] of their increased cost in gas and food over the next year because of the Iran war? [5:38] I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian nuclear bomb. [5:41] I'm going to give you that opportunity. [5:42] I would simply ask you what the... You're playing gotcha questions about domestic things. [5:46] I'm not... [5:47] You're asking... You're saying it's a gotcha question to ask what it's going to be in terms [5:51] of the increased... [5:51] Why won't you answer what it costs to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? [5:55] I give you that, sir. But let me... [5:56] What would it cost? What would you pay to ensure Iran doesn't get a nuclear bomb? [5:59] Sir, can I reclaim my time? Do you not know? You had no one do the analysis of what the [6:04] increased cost of gas and food on the American people are going to be? [6:08] What is the cost of Iran holding that straight at issue with nuclear weapons? [6:12] It's $631 billion, which means it's an increase of $5,000 a year for American households. [6:20] You deal with vague platitudes. I'm just asking you about numbers. Like, you don't know what gas [6:25] costs. You don't know what food costs. You don't know what the operation costs. You know, [6:29] I get sound bites, but how about numbers?