In a sense, it is semantics. It’s mathematically wrong but it’s correct in terms of messaging. If you say that prices increased by 100%, then decreased by 50%, to a lot of people it sounds like they are still higher than the original.
It’s sort of like how the 1/3 pound burger failed in America because people thought it was smaller than the equally priced 1/4 pound burger.
People are dumb is the point.
And if there is one competency Trump has, it’s communicating to dumb people.
It might be correct in a technical sense but it’s first and foremost misleading. If something costs $150 and the seller offers for the price to come down 50%, you’d rightfully expect the price to be $75, not $100. The seller could argue that it’s some 50% markup being removed but would you believe that to be a genuine explanation, or that the seller is trying to mislead or scam you?
In a sense, it is semantics. It’s mathematically wrong but it’s correct in terms of messaging. If you say that prices increased by 100%, then decreased by 50%, to a lot of people it sounds like they are still higher than the original.
It’s sort of like how the 1/3 pound burger failed in America because people thought it was smaller than the equally priced 1/4 pound burger.
People are dumb is the point.
And if there is one competency Trump has, it’s communicating to dumb people.
It might be correct in a technical sense but it’s first and foremost misleading. If something costs $150 and the seller offers for the price to come down 50%, you’d rightfully expect the price to be $75, not $100. The seller could argue that it’s some 50% markup being removed but would you believe that to be a genuine explanation, or that the seller is trying to mislead or scam you?
I’m pretty sure we’re saying the same thing