As oil prices fall, so does a socialist lament

Under Hugo Chavez and bouyed by high crude oil prices, Venezuala has grown into a petro-welfare state with cash to spare for political patronage and regional clout. But, since oil prices have taken a nose dive as of late, Chavez and Venezuela will have a very difficult time funding massive social programs and political promises made to countries and politicians (some in the U.S.) friendly to Chavez' leftist rantings. There is a lesson to be learned from Venezuela's situation as noted by Ian Vasquez of the Cato Institute: "When you have an economic situation that depends on wealth distribution rather than wealth creation you expose yourself to being in a very precarious situation."

Best post I've read today on a national health care plan...

From Cafe Hayek on the idea of having national health care because it will free businesses from an added expense:

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, perhaps channeling Malcolm Gladwell, commits a truly bad economic mistake. Like all such mistakes, it's one that results when someone looks only at the surface, with no analytical penetration beyond what is most easily seen.

Here's Dionne:

"Few investments would help businesses more than offloading a share of their health-care costs to the government. It's social justice with an economic kick."

Rather than explain in detail the flaws that saturate this idea, I content myself now only to ask: If Dionne is correct that the efficiency of American businesses would generally be improved if government paid for all workers' health insurance - that is, if government paid part of firms' costs of employing workers - then is it also true that the efficiency of American businesses would be further improved if government paid firms' full wages bill?

Put differently, if the U.S. economy would get "an economic kick" from government paying part of firms' costs of employing workers, why would the economy not get an even bigger kick if government announces to all employers: 'From now on, government will pay all of the expenses you incur in hiring and maintaining employees. Government will pay not only one type of fringe benefit, as Mr. Dionne proposes, but all of your costs of employing workers.'

So no firm would any longer have to pay as much as a single cent to hire and maintain workers. Wages, salaries, and fringe benefits - all benefits from health-insurance premiums to office holiday parties - would be fully covered by government.

Advice on Charity

I found an interesting article by Sudhir Venkatesh on charity in the New York Times. An excerpt:

I told the three people who came to me for advice that, in my opinion, prospective donors had two traits working against them.

First, they confused charity with commerce: that is, they uncritically applied the language of outcome-oriented investment to efforts to change human behavior in social settings. Humans, alas, don’t operate neatly according to market logic, though incentives can shift behavior.

Second, donors seem reluctant to talk about their own self interest. Instead of admitting their personal desires, they speak of selfless charity. Of course, donors can do whatever they want with their money, but this attitude doesn’t help them grow.