By Mary Jones and Ben Emos | Tuesday, September 3, 2024 | 5 min read
The law of diminishing marginal returns, a foundational concept in economics, explains that after a certain point, adding more of one factor of production results in progressively smaller increases in output. Initially, the addition of inputs like labor or resources may significantly boost production, but as more is added, the rate of return diminishes, and eventually, the process may even become counterproductive. While this principle is typically applied to economics, it also serves as an apt metaphor for understanding former President Donald Trump’s long-standing reliance on lies and misleading statements.
Throughout his time in politics, Trump has been known for his frequent use of falsehoods, which have been meticulously cataloged by fact-checkers. By the end of his presidency, Trump had reportedly made over 10,000 misleading statements or outright lies, according to sources like The Washington Post. While these tactics may have initially helped him gain attention and build a loyal following, the law of diminishing marginal returns suggests that over time, their effectiveness has decreased — and in some cases, backfired entirely.
The law of diminishing marginal returns states that in a production process, as more units of a variable input (like labor) are added to a fixed input (like capital), the additional output gained from each new unit will eventually decrease. For example, a factory may initially see significant production gains when new workers are hired, but after reaching an optimal number, additional workers may lead to overcrowding, inefficiency, and even a decline in overall productivity.
This principle highlights the importance of balance and suggests that more is not always better. When resources are overextended or improperly managed, the initial benefits can taper off, leading to diminishing — or even negative — returns.
The Initial Success of Trump’s Lies
When Donald Trump first entered the political scene, his unconventional approach and willingness to make outlandish statements set him apart from other candidates. During the 2016 presidential campaign, his strategy of making bold, often unverified claims helped him dominate the news cycle, draw massive crowds, and attract a base of supporters who viewed him as a breath of fresh air in a stagnant political system.
In the early stages of his political career, Trump’s use of falsehoods seemed to work in his favor. His claims, while frequently debunked, kept him in the spotlight and allowed him to control the narrative, often forcing his opponents to play defense. This unconventional tactic helped him win the Republican nomination and, ultimately, the presidency.
However, as Trump’s presidency progressed, the sheer volume of lies and misleading statements began to have diminishing returns. Fact-checkers, journalists, and even some former supporters started to push back against his rhetoric. As the frequency of his false claims increased, their impact lessened, and the public became more skeptical of his statements. In essence, the initial effectiveness of Trump’s misinformation strategy began to wane as it became more widespread.
One clear example of this can be seen in Trump’s repeated claims about the 2020 election being “stolen.” Despite providing no substantial evidence to support these allegations, Trump continued to push this narrative long after the election results were certified. While this tactic may have initially rallied a portion of his base, over time, it alienated a significant number of voters and political allies. The diminishing returns of this strategy were evident as his election fraud claims led to widespread criticism, legal challenges, and, ultimately, the January 6th Capitol insurrection, which resulted in further damage to his reputation.
At a certain point, the overuse of falsehoods can lead to negative returns, where the consequences outweigh any potential benefits. For Trump, this became evident as his constant stream of misinformation eroded trust in his leadership, even among some of his core supporters.
For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump’s misleading statements about the virus, potential treatments, and public health measures contributed to confusion and distrust in the government’s response. His downplaying of the pandemic’s severity and promotion of unverified treatments led to widespread criticism and likely hindered the effectiveness of the national response. In this case, the overuse of misinformation not only failed to produce positive outcomes but also actively harmed the public’s perception of his handling of the crisis.
Additionally, Trump’s continuous false claims about the election and his subsequent role in inciting the Capitol riot resulted in a historic second impeachment and a lasting stain on his legacy. The diminishing returns of his misinformation strategy ultimately culminated in significant political and legal consequences, demonstrating the limits of this approach.
The application of the law of diminishing marginal returns to Trump’s lies and misleading statements underscores a broader lesson about the dangers of relying too heavily on deception in politics. While misinformation may yield short-term gains, its effectiveness diminishes over time as the public becomes more attuned to the tactics being used. Eventually, the overuse of lies can lead to negative outcomes, such as the loss of trust, credibility, and support.
For political leaders, this serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of transparency, honesty, and accountability. While misinformation may provide temporary advantages, the long-term consequences of eroding public trust can be severe. In Trump’s case, the diminishing returns on his lies have led to significant damage to his reputation and political future.
The law of diminishing marginal returns offers a valuable framework for understanding the trajectory of Donald Trump’s reliance on lies and misleading statements. What initially served as an effective strategy has increasingly become a liability, with the overuse of falsehoods leading to diminishing — and eventually negative — returns. As the political landscape continues to evolve, leaders who prioritize transparency and honesty will likely find more success in the long run than those who rely on deception. The lesson from Trump’s experience is clear: there are limits to how much one can stretch the truth before the returns begin to diminish.
