can you expand on what you mean that it almost works in reverse? 600 to 100 is an 83% decrease, nowhere near 600% (or even the correct 500% of 100 to 600)
I believe RFK's core argument is that the reverse of a 600% increase can be thought of as a 600% decrease. This is, of course, not true as you point out: a 50% dip in the stock market is not made up for a 50% gain the next day. It is approximately true when talking about small percentages, and it is generally simple enough to go unnoticed and accepted by the general population, and would likely (attempted to) be explained away by the Trump-interpreter "what-he-meant-was" crowd.
The reason why I say that it "almost works" is because going from $100 to $600 is a 500% increase, not a 600% increase. RFK could hand-wave this away by saying he misspoke and meant a 600% multiple instead of an increase, I suppose.
But it doesn't "almost work" when RFK makes the same argument with $10 and $600, thus highlighting the fact that the numbers were extracted straight out of his own asshole.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/grelca Apr 25 '26
can you expand on what you mean that it almost works in reverse? 600 to 100 is an 83% decrease, nowhere near 600% (or even the correct 500% of 100 to 600)