ArticleIP_3540.txt

   
   
      
         
            

            
               ASK
PRUDENCE
            

            

               Prudence, drawing on her rich experience of life, will answer questions
submitted by readers. She will respond to questions about manners, personal
relations, politics, economics, and other subjects. Questions should be sent to
[email protected].
They should not exceed 200 words in length. Please indicate how you wish your
letter to be signed, preferably including your location.
            

            
               
                  Dear
Prudence,
               
            

            
               Is
there a cure for unrequited love? Also, could you fully explain the law of
diminishing returns? And, while you're at it, please share your opinion of the
plays of Tom Stoppard.
            

            
               --Too Much Time on Her
HandsSeattle
            

            Dear Too
Much Time,

            One cure for unrequited love
is requited love. There are other cures also, such as devotion to the study of
the Finnish language. If you are reflecting a personal problem, remember that
unrequited love is not fatal. As someone said, "Men have died from time to
time, and worms have eaten them, but not for love." This applies to women
also.

            The law of diminishing
returns says that if the amount of one input applied to a production process is
increased, the yield will not increase proportionately. For example, if your
boyfriend sends you a 2-pound box of candy, he will get more return than if he
sent you a 1-pound box, but not twice as much return.

            When I
was young I felt it necessary to pretend that I understood and liked the plays
of Tom Stoppard. I no longer do.

            --Prudence,
diminishingly

            
               
                  Dear
Prudence,
               
            

            
               You
have wisdom. Please tell me: Do you see an end to human suffering? If not, why?
If so, how will it unfold?
            

            
               Sincerely,--Jil
Christina
            

            Dear Jil
Christina,

            That much wisdom, or that
kind of wisdom, I don't claim to have. My judgment, for which I make no serious
claims, is that there will not be an end to human suffering. You can look at it
in an evolutionist kind of way and say that suffering is the stimulus to
adaptation and there is no reason to foresee an end to adaptation, or if the
adaptation of humans is complete, they will have ceased to be humans. You can
look at it in a religious way and say that humans were destined to suffer for
some sin, such as Adam and Eve's. But these religions typically hold out the
prospect of an end to suffering, either for individuals or for the species,
although they then cease to be humans.

            Maybe
suffering is a definition of "human." But adaptation and hope are also
definitions of human. Suffering need not overwhelm. To go to the mundane, I
quote from Ethel Merman in Annie Get Your Gun .

            Taking stock
of what I have and what I haven't,

            What do I
find?

            A healthy balance on the
credit side.

            --Prudence, brightly

            
               
                  Dear
Prudence,
               
            

            
               Why are politicians who
are so opposed to poverty programs in this country so in favor of bailouts for
crippled economies all over the globe? Especially at a time when welfare
recipients are being forced off the rolls and told that the government will no
longer subsidize those who refuse to help themselves. And at a time when
citizens of the District of Columbia are being further disenfranchised because
their elected officials are accused of being poor public servants and bad
financial managers.
            

            
               Now I read that South
Korea's economic crisis was brought on by corruption, nepotism, bad loans, poor
financial management, and people living above their means on borrowed dollars.
Am I missing something here? If not, why are all these politicians and
financial types, who've turned a cold shoulder to our own poor and the District
government, falling all over each other to rush cash to Seoul and roll over
their loans? After all, the "lazy," "poor," and "inept" District officials are
having to pay for their sins.
            

            
               Is
this a global repeat of the S & L fiasco? Does everybody pay except the
guys who built those glorious houses of cards, and the bankers whose reckless
loans allowed them to do it?
            

            
               --JoeFort Washington,
Md.
            

            Dear
Joe,

            You ask hard questions, and
Prudence is not sure that even she can answer them to your satisfaction.
However, she will try.

            Despite the recent changes
in the welfare system, federal, state, and local governments will still be
spending large amounts of money to assist poor people--not only through welfare
but also through Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and the
Earned Income Tax Credit. The reason given for the recent changes in the
welfare program for families was that the program as it was, promoted
self-destructive behavior--dropping out of school, dropping out of the work
force, and having children with no father present. New conditions were imposed
on the receipt of welfare in the belief that these conditions would lead to
behavior that was better for many of the people who would have received
benefits under the former system.

            We don't know yet how valid
that belief is, but there is sufficient evidence to support the view that it is
valid for some people. Probably the best guess is that under the new system
some people will be better off and some worse off, and no one knows the
relative numbers. We shall see. Prudence hopes and believes that if the number
of people significantly worse off turns out to be large, adjustments will be
made in the program.

            Now, as for assistance to
foreign governments: You should recognize that despite all the attention
"foreign aid" receives, expenditures for it in the whole postwar period have
been tiny relative to the size of the federal budget. Only a small part of the
aid now being extended to Korea will come out of the U.S. budget, and that aid
is being provided in the form of a loan and in the expectation that it will be
repaid. Like the changes in the welfare program, the aid to Korea is being
provided on the basis of certain beliefs that may or may not turn out to be
correct. In the case of Korea the belief is that there is danger of a panic, a
flight from the Korean currency in which the Korean economy would be forced
down to a level far below its true potential. The thought is that if the panic
is averted by the provision of temporary help, the Korean economy will recover
to a level at which it is able to repay its debts.

            This, also, may turn out to
be a mistake. There are well-informed people who think that the world economy
would be better off if no aid was provided and the Koreans and the
international investors who lent money there were forced to make their own
adjustment. Prudence doesn't know which of these views is correct, but she
understands the thinking of those who conclude that the risks of not giving
help are greater than the risks of giving help.

            There are
some inescapable losses in the Korean situation, and the foreign bankers who
invested there will share in those losses. But the hope is that the aid will
avoid losses that are caused only by irrational panic.

            --Prudence,
tentatively