In his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump boasted about his actions to lower prescription drug prices. “I’m also ending the wildly inflated cost of prescription drugs.  Other presidents tried to do it, but they never could…. I got it done. Under my just-enacted ‘Most Favored Nation‘ agreements, Americans, who have for decades paid by far the highest prices of any nation anywhere in the world for prescription drugs, will now pay the lowest price anywhere in the world.”

The result of this program, Mr. Trump said, “is price differences of 300%, 400%, 500%, 600% and more, all available right now at a new website called TrumpRx.gov.” 

He’s made this absurd (and mathematically impossible) claim before. In May he said that  the “most favored nation” policy is going to reduce the price of prescription drugs by 1,000% or more. Here’s what he said in late August: “We have something coming up, favored nations, where I’m going to be reducing drug prices by 1,400 to 1,500%.” More recently:  “We’re gonna be reducing drug prices down to a level that nobody – not by 20%, 30% – by like 1,000%. Because, you know, we’re paying sometimes 10 times more than other nations, and we’re not doing it anymore.”  And a few days later: “We have something else called ‘favored nations,’ where I’m going to be reducing drug prices by 1,000% – by 900, 600, 500, 1,200%.”

Two days after the State of the Union speech, I had the opportunity to ask him about these remarkable (and mathematically impossible) price reductions. The occasion was a ‘gaggle,’ kind of an unofficial, impromptu press conference that occurs when Mr. Trump stops to chat with the press while he’s walking to his helicopter or to a meeting.  We all raise our hands and wave them, trying to catch his attention.  He likes gaggles because he can walk away at any time.

Here’s what happened:

“Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President,” I called out, waving my hand wildly. 

“Ok, you,” he said, pointing at me.  “You, the tall guy with the white hair. Aren’t you kind of old to be racing around with all these young reporters?”

ME: Trying to keep up, sir.  I want to ask you about your program to reduce prescription drugs.

TRUMP: It’s great.  And you’re gonna benefit.  You and other seniors.  600%, 700%.   What drugs do  you need?  Viagra, I’ll bet.

ME:  Sir, here’s my question: Suppose someone weighed 200 pounds and lost 10% of his weight.”

TRUMP: 200 pounds?  I’d take that in a heartbeat.  If he lost 10%, that’s 20 pounds, so he’d weigh 180.

ME: What if he lost 50% of his weight?

TRUMP: Then he’d weigh only 100 pounds.  What’s the point here? What’s that have to do with drug prices?

ME: And if he lost 100% of his weight?  What would he weigh?  

TRUMP: (stares angrily and shakes his head)

ME: And could he lose 200% or 300% of his weight?

TRUMP: You know what, you’re a pain in the ass. A troublemaker.  Who do you report for?  That’s it. I’m outa here.

That exchange did not happen.  I made all that up, of course, but isn’t it curious that not one reporter seems to have questioned Trump about his shoddy math, his mathematical illiteracy? This is a man who drove a half dozen casinos into bankruptcy, after all.

Unfortunately, mathematical illiteracy is not restricted to the current president of the United States.  Most schools do a lousy job of teaching most of our kids math.  Basically our children are taught and tested on math they will never use, which means we do not teach them what they need to know to survive and prosper and enjoy.  Instead of learning how to estimate and to judge probabilities, the difference between correlation and causation, and the paradox of the everpresent ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma,” children learn that they “can’t do math” and-worse yet–to hate math.  

Obviously, it’s tragic and dangerous when the President of the United States is mathematically illiterate, but in fact millions of adults get scammed out of billions of dollars because they don’t understand how numbers work.  They get misled by politicians and hucksters, with disastrous consequences all around.

(Here’s a personal example.  Someone in my own family, in his declining years, was persuaded to sign an expensive and unbreakable 25-year contract to rent solar panels on his home in Florida.  I’ll bet you have your own stories to tell.)

There is a way forward.  We can demand that our schools rethink how they teach mathematics.  And now there’s a terrific road map,  a wonderful new book, “Aftermath.”  In addition to the clever title, it has a subtitle that tells what awaits you:  “The Life-Changing Math That Schools Won’t Teach You.”  (Its official publication date is March 24, but you can pre-order at your local bookstore, B&N and Amazon.)

“Aftermath” is highly readable, clever and entertaining, but also immensely informative.  The author, Ted Dintersmith, is someone my wife and I have known for a dozen or so years.  Joan met Ted through his support of the African Leadership Academy, whose Board she served on; I met him through his support of High Tech High, the wonderful school in San Diego started by an American hero, Larry Rosenstock.  

I’m by no means the only fan of “Aftermath.”. Steve Levitt, the co-author of ‘Freakonomics,’ has this to say: “In the age of AI and data, we badly need to rethink the way we teach math in U.S. schools. Ted Dintersmith has joyfully illustrated how we can pull the subject out of irrelevance in the eyes of our students–a must read for teachers and parents alike.” 

Scratch that: I hope you will buy five or six copies of  “Aftermath” and put them in the hands of your local school board members.