Numbers, numbers, numbers. It should not be hard for someone with an economics degree from Wharton

President Trump has said repeatedly in recent weeks that he will be cutting the cost of pharmaceuticals made in Europe by up to as much as 14 hundred or 15 hundred percent.

He said it on July 22, referencing a maximum cut of 14 hundred percent. For emphasis, he said the cuts would not be “30, 40, 50 percent” but in percentages ranging from 700 percent to 14 hundred percent.

Nine days later, on Friday, he repeated his plan to cut the cost of drugs made in Europe, this time setting a top number for such cuts at “15 hundred percent,” and again emphasizing that he was not talking about cuts of 25 or 50 percent.

But what is he really talking about?

Let’s take a pharmaceutical that presently costs $1,000.

How much would it cost if he could cut the cost by 25 percent? Answer: $750.

How much would it cost if he could cut the cost by 50 percent? Answer: $500.

How much would it cost if he cut it by 15 hundred percent?

Answer: In reality, zero because there is nothing left to cut after the price is cut by 100 percent. One hundred percent is the amount of the entire price.

Technically, however, it might be argued that Trump’s plan is for the drugmaker to pay the consumer $15,000 because 15 hundred percent of $1,000 is, in fact, $15,000.

All right, maybe math is not his strong suit. Maybe that is too much to expect of a U.S. president who has a degree in economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, consistently ranked as one of the top business schools in the U.S.

But why didn’t his staff straighten him out after he said it the first time?

And even more important, why didn’t reporters call him on it at the scene, immediately after he made the absurd statement?

At least one of them should have been able to do that very quickly. This is not complicated math.

Speaking of numbers: In an environment where the president has fired the U.S. Department of Labor executive who recently updated the figures on jobs added in recent months – because the president did not like the numbers and said he believed them to be wrong . . .

After all, if getting the numbers wrong is a firing offense . . .

Enough said.

NOTE TO READERS: Arnold Garson: Second Thoughts is part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative, a unique assembly of more than 80 professional authors with Iowa roots. You can subscribe for free. However, it is greatly appreciated if you can show your support by becoming a paid subscriber at the level that feels right for you. Click on the “Subscribe now” button here. The cost can be less than $2 per newsletter. Net proceeds will be used to support nonprofit organizations committed to maintaining journalism in America as it has functioned for most of the past 250 years.

Meet the members of the Iowa Writers Collaborative