suiyuan31 wrote:My interpretation is that he values people's finances, particularly those who play the markets, more than human lives of typical people. To say that the human toll was "thankfully" greater than the financial certainly shows that in his mind the financial toll on everyday people is not as important as those who might have to sell their third home or sell their luxury car.
To my mind, the financial toll is also a human toll. People are losing their jobs, businesses, and livelihood. This isn't what he was concerned about either-he was concerned with the markets. While I don't believe for a second he is happy people died, he did show that he thinks money is more important than people and their lives. It is disgusting, though not as bad as you made it out to be.
That's fair enough, suiyuan. I think you stated your interpretation well. That's just not how I, personally, viewed the comments. I didn't watch the whole show though, and I don't know much about this person, so maybe I would have taken it differently if I had other information.
Your interpretation was that he thought "the human toll was 'thankfully' greater than the financial". If that was rephrased as "the financial toll was 'thankfully' less than the human" would it change the meaning for you? I don't know for sure if it would for me, but I think it might. Example 1: If I told you that my older son had broken his leg in an accident, but that my younger son had "thankfully" only suffered an ankle sprain, I think it would convey a different message than if I told you that my younger son had gotten an ankle sprain but that "thankfully" my older son had broken his leg.
To me those two statements are different, but I understand that you may not agree and that it's a matter of personal interpretation.Example 2:If you already knew that my older son had broken his leg, and then you asked me about my younger son, and I said "Well, thankfully, he only got a sprain", would you then believe that I cared more about my younger son than about my older son?
My reading of Kudlow's comment was that a terrible tragedy had happened in terms of human life, and that when the question was turned to the economic impact his view was that [a terrible human tragedy + a minor economic tragedy] was a better outcome than [a terrible human tragedy + a terrible economic tragedy]. Example 3: To put it in a different context (while staying in the realm of the IP forum), let's say this thing in Libya ends up in a worst case scenario, resulting in even greater human suffering than we're seeing now, but that things in Tunisia turn out better. If I wrote that we could be grateful that Tunisia didn't turn out as bad as Libya would you assume that I cared more about Tunisia than Libya? Maybe that's how you'd interpret it, but if so you'd be wrong, because if I were to say that, all I would mean is that the total amount of suffering was less than it could have been if things had gone differently.
Anyway, that's how I see it. As I said, I agree that it's a matter of personal interpretation, and if I were already pre-disposed to thinking this Kudlow guy was a jerk (as opposed to having no opinion about him one way or the other), then I might have taken his remarks differently.