QuoteChénier
Quotefrom: Uzamaki on Today at 04:42:41 AM
Uh. Do they not realize Canada has socialized medicine as well?
This is why we laugh at them pretty hard.
Why do people in the US think that socialism is such a horrible thing when the very thing they support the most, Social Security, is basically socialism defined?
Maybe they associate socialism with communism?
Communism = Soviet = Enemy? ;)
Yes, but socialism ISN'T communism. No matter how much certain people would like us to think it is.
Furthermore, communism isn't what most people in the US think of as communism.
When you say "socialism" or "communism" to most Americans, they think "Soviet Russia, Maoist China, North Korea".
By and large, those countries were not so much socialist as totalitarian—and it's the totalitarianism and the drive to maintain it that caused the problems and the terrible abuses and atrocities.
(Actually, sadly enough, if you said "socialism" or "communism" to far too many Americans, they'd think "Hitler." But that's another story.)
So that's the first part of the problem. The second part is that somehow (I can't say I understand exactly how), the far right wing in the US has, over the past 3-4 decades, managed to sell the idea that all wealth that people have they earned with the sweat of their brow, and that therefore, anyone who's poor (and thus would need the services that are, collectively, socialist) must simply not be working hard enough. Also, the only way to raise the money for those services is to steal it from the honest, hard-working Americans.
And yes, this glosses over the fact that the wealth in this country has become absurdly tilted toward the super-rich (vastly more so than in the Gilded Age of the late 19th century), and that at least a significant fraction of them, if not a clear majority (don't have numbers in front of me) obtained their money not by the sweat of their brow, but by inheriting it, getting lucrative jobs as high executives because of who they know and where they went to school, and, increasingly, exploiting various oddities in the financial system.
My best guess/understanding of how this manages to convince so many Americans to vote against what is demonstrably in their best financial interests is that there is a section of the population of America that wants things to be made very easy for the rich because they either honestly believe they will become rich someday, or just have some kind of vain, hopeless dream of it.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on October 18, 2012, 07:05:47 PM
when the very thing they support the most, Social Security,
Hm... you know very little about American politics if you think the "thing [Americans] support the most" is Social Security. It's a very divided issue with a lot of different opinions and view points surrounding it and what should be done about/with it.
well, I wouldn't say it's universally supported in the current form, but it isn't something most people want completely gotten rid of either...
Quote from: Anaris on October 18, 2012, 07:26:28 PM
(Actually, sadly enough, if you said "socialism" or "communism" to far too many Americans, they'd think "Hitler." But that's another story.)
What political party was Hitler a member of? Oh, that's right, the National
Socialist German Workers' Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party).
Germany wasn't really socialist, but you have to admit, having the word "socialist" in the party name...
Quote from: egamma on October 18, 2012, 08:02:25 PM
What political party was Hitler a member of? Oh, that's right, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party).
Germany wasn't really socialist, but you have to admit, having the word "socialist" in the party name...
It's funny, you can actually find posters where they emphasized different parts of the party name depending on their audience.
Speaking to a labor union? It's the
National Socialist German Worker's Party!
Speaking to a right-wring Freikorps? It's the
National Socialist German Worker's Party!
Quote from: Anaris on October 18, 2012, 07:26:28 PM
By and large, those countries were not so much socialist as totalitarian—and it's the totalitarianism and the drive to maintain it that caused the problems and the terrible abuses and atrocities.
Granted, this is largely because socialism and communism by necessity require levels of totalitarianism. When you try to implement a system to the extremity at which those regimes tried to implement it then by necessity the totalitarianism that comes with it becomes more extreme.
You can never have a socialist or communist system that isn't totalitarian in some way. Unless, of course, it's a completely voluntary association of individuals living in a commune-type environment.
Quote from: egamma on October 18, 2012, 08:02:25 PM
What political party was Hitler a member of? Oh, that's right, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party).
Germany wasn't really socialist, but you have to admit, having the word "socialist" in the party name...
But they were actually fascists.
Quote from: Perth on October 18, 2012, 08:42:32 PM
Granted, this is largely because socialism and communism by necessity require levels of totalitarianism. When you try to implement a system to the extremity at which those regimes tried to implement it then by necessity the totalitarianism that comes with it becomes more extreme.
You can never have a socialist or communist system that isn't totalitarian in some way. Unless, of course, it's a completely voluntary association of individuals living in a commune-type environment.
Erm...I suppose one might be able to argue that, by stretching the definition of "totalitarian" somewhat.
And yes,
true communism really is people living voluntarily together in a commune. Any kind of central government makes it no longer truly communist (at least, based on my understanding of communism).
Socialism does require a central government, but does not require totalitarianism, unless you want to define any level of government control as being "partly totalitarian," much as the social programs enacted in the US over the past century+ make us "partly socialist".
Quote from: Anaris on October 18, 2012, 09:02:37 PM
Erm...I suppose one might be able to argue that, by stretching the definition of "totalitarian" somewhat.
And yes, true communism really is people living voluntarily together in a commune. Any kind of central government makes it no longer truly communist (at least, based on my understanding of communism).
Socialism does require a central government, but does not require totalitarianism, unless you want to define any level of government control as being "partly totalitarian," much as the social programs enacted in the US over the past century+ make us "partly socialist".
Yep. Communism works in a small scale, small communities and villages, but it falls apart in a big scale, provinces and countries.
China, North Korea and Soviet Russia were not true communist countries as everyone became poor except their ruling classes. :p
Quote from: Zaki on October 18, 2012, 09:08:34 PM
Yep. Communism works in a small scale, small communities and villages, but it falls apart in a big scale, provinces and countries.
China, North Korea and Soviet Russia were not true communist countries as everyone became poor except their ruling classes. :p
Indeed.
Interestingly, one of the longest-lived and most successful utopian more-or-less-communist societies from the late 19th century was right near where I live: the Oneida Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community) mansion is just about half an hour's drive from here, and my family knows people who are descended from the original inhabitants.
Studying its history strongly indicates that the death of such societies occurs when the number of members who did not join voluntarily reaches a critical mass—that is, in most cases, those who were born into it. However, the Oneida Community grew to (IIRC) over 300 members at its peak, and when it dissolved as a community, it continued as a company producing tableware products (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Limited) that remains highly successful to this day.
Quote from: Anaris on October 18, 2012, 09:16:14 PM
Indeed.
Interestingly, one of the longest-lived and most successful utopian more-or-less-communist societies from the late 19th century was right near where I live: the Oneida Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community) mansion is just about half an hour's drive from here, and my family knows people who are descended from the original inhabitants.
Studying its history strongly indicates that the death of such societies occurs when the number of members who did not join voluntarily reaches a critical mass—that is, in most cases, those who were born into it. However, the Oneida Community grew to (IIRC) over 300 members at its peak, and when it dissolved as a community, it continued as a company producing tableware products (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Limited) that remains highly successful to this day.
There is a Hutterite community in my province. They eat under the same roof and stuff. I've only heard about them from my professor but apparently they are the closest thing to a communist community. They would be a very interesting group to meet.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on October 18, 2012, 07:05:47 PM
This is why we laugh at them pretty hard.
Why do people in the US think that socialism is such a horrible thing when the very thing they support the most, Social Security, is basically socialism defined?
'Cause this is Murika. Our media distort facts and over complicates things for those who want to be told want to think. I remember watching the news and this guy was at a pro-Obama rally when he walked up to an anti-Obama protestor. She declared Obama a Communist, and when the reporter asked why she replied "Study up buddy! The facts are there, Study up!" he repeated the question "How is Obama a Communist?" She stalled and replied once again "Because he is! STUDY UP BUDDY!" She clearly watches too much Fox news.
She was an older woman, and there is still a trace of the Red Scare in this country amongst our older folks. I think the answer to your question is that Americans are either happy with being told what to think by our media masters or are too lazy or busy to actually STUDY UP, BUDDY!
Quote from: Zaki on October 18, 2012, 09:25:52 PM
There is a Hutterite community in my province. They eat under the same roof and stuff. I've only heard about them from my professor but apparently they are the closest thing to a communist community. They would be a very interesting group to meet.
Ever watch the show "The Hutterites" the acting is amazingly bad. The worst episode I saw was when the one chick wanted an I-Pad so she got a job and we were all proud of her. That show is still slightly amusing if you're like me and like watching shows and movies with bad acting for !@#$s and giggles.
Mostly because fear and misinformation is what gets ratings for the news media. This is evident with any controversial issue. Facts don't sell nearly as well as exaggeration and outright untruth. Also, the winner-takes-all two party system doesn't help this.
That being said, I believe individualism is more prized in America than in much of the rest of the developed world. A significant portion of Americans desire a much smaller federal government than what currently exists.
Quote from: T-Rex Messiah on October 19, 2012, 02:19:47 AM
'Cause this is Murika. Our media distort facts and over complicates things for those who want to be told want to think. I remember watching the news and this guy was at a pro-Obama rally when he walked up to an anti-Obama protestor. She declared Obama a Communist, and when the reporter asked why she replied "Study up buddy! The facts are there, Study up!" he repeated the question "How is Obama a Communist?" She stalled and replied once again "Because he is! STUDY UP BUDDY!" She clearly watches too much Fox news.
This goes both ways really. If she'd given a well thought out and reasonable answer, it wouldn't have been worthy of the 24 hour news overload.
Quote from: LGMAlpha on October 19, 2012, 03:07:07 AM
Mostly because fear and misinformation is what gets ratings for the news media. This is evident with any controversial issue. Facts don't sell nearly as well as exaggeration and outright untruth. Also, the winner-takes-all two party system doesn't help this.
That being said, I believe individualism is more prized in America than in much of the rest of the developed world. A significant portion of Americans desire a much smaller federal government than what currently exists.
This goes both ways really. If she'd given a well thought out and reasonable answer, it wouldn't have been worthy of the 24 hour news overload.
You hit the nail on the head on that one.
+1
Quote from: Anaris on October 18, 2012, 09:02:37 PM
Erm...I suppose one might be able to argue that, by stretching the definition of "totalitarian" somewhat.
And yes, true communism really is people living voluntarily together in a commune. Any kind of central government makes it no longer truly communist (at least, based on my understanding of communism).
Socialism does require a central government, but does not require totalitarianism, unless you want to define any level of government control as being "partly totalitarian," much as the social programs enacted in the US over the past century+ make us "partly socialist".
Not really.
Let's be clear– "redistributive" is not synonymous with "socialist." There are quite capitalist motivations and methods of redistribution. There are fascist motivations and methods. There are nationalist motivations and methods. Presuming that redistribution is necessarily latent socialism is wrong– it is just as wrong when right-wingers call Obama a socialist as when left-wingers claim Medicare or Social Security are socialist institutions.
Consider, for example, the rhetoric of the "trust fund." Americans deeply identify with Social Security as something they invest into, as a form of savings. They visualize it as basically a government retirement plan. And the SSA endorses that view. Get on the website, enter your SSN, and they'll tell you how much you have saved in YOUR account. Which is of course a lie. But Americans' support for Social Security
is predicated upon that lie. They desire to preserve benefits, because they regard it as something individually owned, something entitled, and
not as redistribution. Socialist redistribution, properly speaking, should not have defined benefits as Social Security does, nor be based on a quasi-regressive payroll tax.
But to the root issue, why Americans oppose socialism– it's because every instance where someone tried to implement it wherein it went poorly (that is, every instance it has been tried), it's advocates lop a gigantic "no true Scotsman" fallacy. When every negative part of the historical record is ignored, it doesn't really win you support. Few Americans (and IMHO few seriously thinking person) can believe that the USSR was not Socialist. No, it wasn't
perfectly Socialist– but nothing will
ever be perfectly Socialist. And sure, the USSR wasn't
only Socialist... but nothing will
ever be
only Socialist. Paradoxically, Socialism would be more acceptable if it were less preoccupied with divorcing itself from its negative history. You actually can criticize the USSR without ludicrously claiming it wasn't at all socialist.
Finally, regarding socialism as totalitarianism– Perth is right on here. But let's consider an easier example, the special US circuit court of appeals for patents. It was initiated simply to organize and sort out the crazy appellate districts. However, centralized power will tend to attract people who desire to use it; police jobs will draw people who enjoy the things the police do, courts designed to regulate patents will tend to draw people who like regulating patents. In the case of the patent court, the dominant interest is on the part of patent-holders: and thus, patent-holders have monopolized US patent law.
In the same way in a centralized system which is highly invasive in peoples' lives (socialism is, as the economy is the totality of our material lives, and much of the rest), the people most likely to run it are people who like to be involved in managing a centralized and invasive system. Power will concentrate on those people. Perhaps they will be benevolent in states with strong democratic institutions– I am skeptical of that, but maybe. The point is, however, that the natural course of political economy is not towards a decentralized system or a system of liberty, but of the most totalitarian system its constituents will find survivable– which is far more totalitarian than many of those people will find desirable.
Quote from: Zaki on October 18, 2012, 09:25:52 PM
There is a Hutterite community in my province. They eat under the same roof and stuff. I've only heard about them from my professor but apparently they are the closest thing to a communist community. They would be a very interesting group to meet.
I have the highest respect for the Hutterites. Also, they often have very good free-range chicken, eggs, and other things for sale. You really should go visit and get some real food for yourself--it's probably at a much better price than what you can get in a whole foods store.
Quote from: Vellos on October 19, 2012, 04:04:23 PM
Stuff
Sure, a lot of "socialist" countries were dictatorial. But that's to expect when the United States did everything they could to make "socialist" states fail. Those who weren't dictatorial just never stood a chance against the CIA and their puppets.
Quote from: Chénier on October 19, 2012, 07:02:24 PM
Sure, a lot of "socialist" countries were dictatorial. But that's to expect when the United States did everything they could to make "socialist" states fail. Those who weren't dictatorial just never stood a chance against the CIA and their puppets.
You don't think that the top-down control of agriculture could have been the primary cause of the inability of the USSR to feed itself?
Quote from: egamma on October 19, 2012, 07:25:50 PM
You don't think that the top-down control of agriculture could have been the primary cause of the inability of the USSR to feed itself?
Probably not, in and of itself.
The utter
stupidity of the people in charge of that top-down control—now, that could certainly have been the primary cause.
Yes, top-down control makes it more likely that stupidity in one or a small group of people can spell disaster for millions, but it is not inherently good or evil.
Quote from: Anaris on October 19, 2012, 07:44:20 PM
Probably not, in and of itself.
The utter stupidity of the people in charge of that top-down control—now, that could certainly have been the primary cause.
Yes, top-down control makes it more likely that stupidity in one or a small group of people can spell disaster for millions, but it is not inherently good or evil.
Indeed.
I also don't see how that point relates to my quote.
Quote from: Anaris on October 19, 2012, 07:44:20 PM
Probably not, in and of itself.
The utter stupidity of the people in charge of that top-down control—now, that could certainly have been the primary cause.
Yes, top-down control makes it more likely that stupidity in one or a small group of people can spell disaster for millions, but it is not inherently good or evil.
And you don't think top-down systems are uniquely likely to attract evil or selfish people?
I for one do think exactly that. I think that an institutional willingness to bestow significant power on one individual or one group will naturally lead to evil and stupid actions.
Also, top-down systems are not as efficient at allocating goods as markets. Yes, markets have flaws– but it's not political manipulation that has led the overwhelming majority of economists in every cultural setting in the world to conclude that markets are, in general, the optimal distributors of goods. No mind will every be able to organize an economy as well as all the minds of the economy. Spontaneous order ftw!
In sum: a system which basically is less efficient and less likely to get people what they want, which has a natural tendency towards increasing tyranny, and which creates massive disasters if a less than perfectly competent person runs it, is one that is, well, bad. And advocacy for it in the political arena is also bad. Good and bad economic policies are questions of marginal efficiency of delivering goods and services. Soviet administrators were fantastically competent; if you look at their publications, they were way better than most of their NATO counterparts at actually managing organizations, planning supply needs, determining prices, and any kind of mathematically or statistically rigorous element of economics. But it doesn't matter how excellent the people are in a system if the constraints of the system are suboptimal.
In fact, I would contend that, in an perfect system the aggregate results will be entirely independent of whether the most powerful people in it are benevolent or malicious. I think that essentially free markets in a mixed economy get us pretty much the closest to that we can get.
Quote from: Chénier on October 19, 2012, 07:51:56 PM
Indeed.
I also don't see how that point relates to my quote.
He was responding to me, not you.
Quote from: Anaris on October 19, 2012, 07:44:20 PM
Probably not, in and of itself.
The utter stupidity of the people in charge of that top-down control—now, that could certainly have been the primary cause.
Yes, top-down control makes it more likely that stupidity in one or a small group of people can spell disaster for millions, but it is not inherently good or evil.
The advantage of capitalism--of small, independent operators making their own decisions of how much water and fertilizer to use, whether to plant corn or soybeans or wheat, etc--is that several hundred people can make sub-optimal decisions and the US can still feed itself and produce a surplus.
Socialism only works if you have a technocracy--if the decision-makers for each segment of the economy are geniuses who have all the needed information to make all the decisions for their segment of the economy. If bureaucrats are in charge (and let's face it, any bureaucracy will promote itself), then decisions are made by people who aren't qualified to make those decisions.
Socialism works in theory; Capitalism works in practice.
Capitalism works so long as the economy is in working order. If it goes down the drain, however, like it did during the Great Depression, what do you think happens? Millions homeless, with little food, little to no work available, only the people with wealth outside the stock market being able to keep themselves afloat. You know what it took to really get the economy back to what it was in the 20's? A WORLD WAR...
I have a feeling that many of you are talking about completely different things. Would you care stating your definition of socialism? I think you may be surprised to see that the criticism of others in fact target something completely different than what you advocate (this goes for both sides).
Fair enough. I define socialism as total government control of the economy, determining how many car batteries to produce, how much wheat vs how much barley to grow, etc. That's what a country that called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did in practice.
If you want to call that Totalitarianism, fine. But that is what most people think of when they think of socialism.
Quote from: egamma on October 20, 2012, 07:14:12 PM
Fair enough. I define socialism as total government control of the economy, determining how many car batteries to produce, how much wheat vs how much barley to grow, etc. That's what a country that called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did in practice.
If you want to call that Totalitarianism, fine. But that is what most people think of when they think of socialism.
The Soviet Union has been described as state capitalism by many. Same for the PRC.
Also, names mean nothing. Unless you think that the People's Democratic Republic of Congo is the beacon of democracy for the world.
Quote from: Vellos on October 19, 2012, 04:04:23 PM
But to the root issue, why Americans oppose socialism– it's because every instance where someone tried to implement it wherein it went poorly (that is, every instance it has been tried)
Americans ought to look harder.
Kerala, a state in the south of India, was under a democratically elected Marxist government for a large part of the past 50 years. They conducted massive land reforms, in the face of substantial pressure from the central government, ensuring that that hundreds of thousands of peasants got their own plots of land to farm. The government also invested massively in public education system and public healthcare (that didnt forget to cater to the poor who couldn't afford it).
That state has the highest literacy rate in the country, over 92%... Kind of impressive when the national average is 65%. The healthcare is miles ahead of the rest of the country, and income equality is better than the rest of the country. People actually can maintain a decent quality of living, and have good lives, unlike the rest of the country, which embraced the free market (this actually made people more poor, and widened income gaps).
Quote from: Vellos on October 19, 2012, 04:04:23 PM
Power will concentrate on those people.
Because that's not what happens in a capitalist society.
Quote from: Vellos on October 20, 2012, 02:35:39 AM
And you don't think top-down systems are uniquely likely to attract evil or selfish people?
How much better than a system which assumes that the greatest good of society will be brought about by a few people who are driven by greed?
Quote from: egamma on October 20, 2012, 07:14:12 PM
If you want to call that Totalitarianism, fine. But that is what most people think of when they think of socialism.
Maybe most people where you're from, but that doesn't mean most people overall.
I live in Geneva, where the right wing parties are discussing establishing a flat tax at 13%.
The Socialist Party (note the name) thinks it's unacceptable. They want to establish a flat tax at 15% instead.
In some places, that's called socialism. It's important to know what you are talking about.
Quote from: Lefanis on October 20, 2012, 07:57:08 PM
People actually can maintain a decent quality of living, and have good lives, unlike the rest of the country, which embraced the free market (this actually made people more poor, and widened income gaps).
Actually, what I learned in a video about India ( I can't even remember if it was high school history or college economics or what) is that there was a factory sitting idle. Because the government wouldn't allow electric lines to be ran to the factory, because that might disadvantage some other factory. So 150 jobs were lost.
To me, that's not capitalism. That's not socialism, either. That's excessive bureaucracy, an inefficient restraint on unfettered capitalism. Don't blame capitalism when it's the government bureaucracy that's the true cause of the problem.
In that same video, Singapore was lauded as an example of a good capitalist economy. Almost no restraints on the creation of new companies, and enough safety net to ensure that people didn't starve. So people weren't afraid to take risks, in by taking risks, they often succeeded.
Countries which adapted democracy after the WW2 are mostly suffering from corruption. India is extremely corrupted sadly.
One system is not necessarily superior to another. One system might work well for one country but a totally different system might not work at all.
Also, you can't blame the system. You can blame people who work under the system.
Quote from: egamma on October 21, 2012, 04:36:38 AM
Actually, what I learned in a video about India ( I can't even remember if it was high school history or college economics or what) is that there was a factory sitting idle. Because the government wouldn't allow electric lines to be ran to the factory, because that might disadvantage some other factory. So 150 jobs were lost.
To me, that's not capitalism. That's not socialism, either. That's excessive bureaucracy, an inefficient restraint on unfettered capitalism. Don't blame capitalism when it's the government bureaucracy that's the true cause of the problem.
In that same video, Singapore was lauded as an example of a good capitalist economy. Almost no restraints on the creation of new companies, and enough safety net to ensure that people didn't starve. So people weren't afraid to take risks, in by taking risks, they often succeeded.
Since you obviously failed to pay attention, I will state what the person you are replying to stated. It was a SPECIFIC STATE within India. It was NOT India as a whole. You want to know what true unfettered capitalism is, you should look back at the Gilded Age in the United States. Sure, our economy itself was booming. But the average worker was in horrid, underdeveloped housing because he had no legal ability to protest such conditions. There was no union to balance out the company he was working for. Unions were practically illegal because the government wouldn't step in when the companies used groups such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency to intimidate any worker group.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on October 21, 2012, 05:07:34 AM
Since you obviously failed to pay attention, I will state what the person you are replying to stated. It was a SPECIFIC STATE within India. It was NOT India as a whole.
I paid attention. You used a specific state as an example; I used the entire country as a counter-example.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on October 21, 2012, 05:07:34 AM
You want to know what true unfettered capitalism is, you should look back at the Gilded Age in the United States. Sure, our economy itself was booming. But the average worker was in horrid, underdeveloped housing because he had no legal ability to protest such conditions. There was no union to balance out the company he was working for. Unions were practically illegal because the government wouldn't step in when the companies used groups such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency to intimidate any worker group.
So there is such a thing as proper regulation and improper regulation; I'm glad we agree on that. Assaulting striking workers should be covered as assault, plain and simple, and those responsible should be charged the same as anyone else. We now have building codes that put a minimum (a very good minimum) quality requirement in place, so that fire departments typically spend 80% of their time on medical calls and not fire calls. And of the fires we do have, about 75% aren't structure fires (source: Texas Department of Insurance, in 2011 1038 fire departments responded to 102799 fires, of which 23672 were structure fires). So I'd say that the building codes we have in place are sufficient to prevent abuses in that area. I wouldn't call building codes "fettered capitalism"; builders and homeowners can build whatever kind of house they like, as long as it is safe.
Quote from: Lefanis on October 20, 2012, 07:57:08 PM
Americans ought to look harder.
Kerala, a state in the south of India, was under a democratically elected Marxist government for a large part of the past 50 years. They conducted massive land reforms, in the face of substantial pressure from the central government, ensuring that that hundreds of thousands of peasants got their own plots of land to farm. The government also invested massively in public education system and public healthcare (that didnt forget to cater to the poor who couldn't afford it).
That state has the highest literacy rate in the country, over 92%... Kind of impressive when the national average is 65%. The healthcare is miles ahead of the rest of the country, and income equality is better than the rest of the country. People actually can maintain a decent quality of living, and have good lives, unlike the rest of the country, which embraced the free market (this actually made people more poor, and widened income gaps).
Is there a dataset I can dig up anywhere on this? Because what empirical evidence I have seen about Indian states (and I'll readily admit I haven't seen much) has suggested that more liberalized economies have produced markedly better results, but I haven't seen any large datasets.
Quote from: Lefanis on October 20, 2012, 07:57:08 PM
Because that's not what happens in a capitalist society.
No. It's not. Capitalist societies have middle classes. They're the only societies with large and dominant middle classes. Indeed, the defining feature of a modern market economy
is the middle class, and especially a service-sector middle class.
Quote from: Lefanis on October 20, 2012, 07:57:08 PM
How much better than a system which assumes that the greatest good of society will be brought about by a few people who are driven by greed?
No, capitalism asserts that the greatest good of society will be brought about by
all people being driven by greed. It's why it works.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on October 21, 2012, 05:07:34 AM
You want to know what true unfettered capitalism is, you should look back at the Gilded Age in the United States. Sure, our economy itself was booming. But the average worker was in horrid, underdeveloped housing because he had no legal ability to protest such conditions. There was no union to balance out the company he was working for.
Nobody here has suggested "unfettered capitalism." We aren't debating "absolute economic control by government" vs. "no government."
Quote from: egamma on October 22, 2012, 05:50:04 AM
So there is such a thing as proper regulation and improper regulation; I'm glad we agree on that. Assaulting striking workers should be covered as assault, plain and simple, and those responsible should be charged the same as anyone else. We now have building codes that put a minimum (a very good minimum) quality requirement in place, so that fire departments typically spend 80% of their time on medical calls and not fire calls. And of the fires we do have, about 75% aren't structure fires (source: Texas Department of Insurance, in 2011 1038 fire departments responded to 102799 fires, of which 23672 were structure fires). So I'd say that the building codes we have in place are sufficient to prevent abuses in that area. I wouldn't call building codes "fettered capitalism"; builders and homeowners can build whatever kind of house they like, as long as it is safe.
I have a hard time parsing that as anything other than "Regulations I agree with are a normal part of Capitalism; regulations I don't agree with are Socialism, which is totalitarian."
Just as a warning, I am next to ignorant when it comes to economics and politics. At least I feel that way. I always find these kind of discussions hard as it is so difficult to separate economic systems (capitalism/communism) from political systems (Democracy/Dictatorship).
As I understand it, Socialism is about the Government owning land and means of production and deciding how to use that. Like deciding that they need more corn and less iron. I do not think, however, that it has to be tied to a particular government system. From what I have read here, it seems that, historically, socialism is tied together with some form of totalitarianism or dictatorship. I am guessing that this does not always have to be the case. Are there not Scandinavian countries that are very socialist but have a republic/democratic form of governance?
As far as America's view of the word socialism goes, I do not think it is fair to make a blanket statement. I would venture to say that only a sight majority of Americans have the "socialism is bad" mindset. A lot of that is probably doe to many of the factors already listed - education, media, perspective, definition and all that. Many other Americans are eager to see America adopt more socialist policies. Some simply see it as being just another means to an end. Do we tax Americans and give them the money later when they retire or let them keep their money and save for their own retirement? I can not claim to know enough to say which is the better solution, if either.
I will say, however, that It irritates me when a private company is given a localized monopoly. Garbage service in Washington state feels like this. It seems like each garbage collection company is given a local monopoly. As a consumer I can use the single approved private garbage collection service or none at all. I have yet to live in an area in washington in which I really had a choice in garbage collection services. Either privitize and step back or do not!
Quote from: Vellos on October 22, 2012, 07:07:28 AM
No. It's not. Capitalist societies have middle classes. They're the only societies with large and dominant middle classes. Indeed, the defining feature of a modern market economy is the middle class, and especially a service-sector middle class.
Many studies show the decline of the middle class, at least in the West, crumbling under the pressures of outsourcing to third-world countries (thank you globalization) and due to the more profitable companies needing less and less manpower as time passes by (so they don't have to share their profits with their employees anymore, or with much of anyone). Not to mention the myth of how we'll be better with globalization thanks to a brain-based economy, where we'll just ship our danky jobs nobody wants and we'll just get more better-paid high-tech jobs (as if India and China aren't catching up or can't copy our technology for cheaper), gradually leveling workers's condition to the level of the poorest involved in the free-trade agreements (because obviously, signing free-trade agreements with no regards to minimum legal working conditions and minimum wage is a great way to improve our workers' quality of life on the long term).
I also wouldn't compare the "middle class" of the western countries with the middle class of the rest of the capitalist countries in terms of wealth and prosperity...
Quote from: Unwin on October 22, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
I will say, however, that It irritates me when a private company is given a localized monopoly. Garbage service in Washington state feels like this. It seems like each garbage collection company is given a local monopoly. As a consumer I can use the single approved private garbage collection service or none at all. I have yet to live in an area in washington in which I really had a choice in garbage collection services. Either privitize and step back or do not!
Right, it's just been revealed in Québec that the private engineering companies bribed Montreal's civil engineer in order for him to over-evaluate the costs of infrastructure projects... Because of this, the city had to pay up to twice as much (500 000 vs 250 000 for the first time it happened)! A bunch of cartels are set up. All of this thanks to the Liberals' "reengineering" (what a pun) of the state, which kicked out most of the public-sector engineers in order to post the jobs for tenders. What a winner move that was... I guess it was for them, considering how these crooked engineering firms gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Liberal party.
Then there's all the great examples on the federal level, where they cut public jobs because the public sector unions are too far and they weigh on the economy, only to have the federal government then hire private-sector consultants and firms to do the same job, usually for greater cost and much lesser quality.
Damn neoliberals and their religious obsession of attacking the public sector to hand it all over on a silver platter to private-sector buddies.
Quote from: Unwin on October 22, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
As I understand it, Socialism is about the Government owning land and means of production and deciding how to use that. Like deciding that they need more corn and less iron. I do not think, however, that it has to be tied to a particular government system. From what I have read here, it seems that, historically, socialism is tied together with some form of totalitarianism or dictatorship. I am guessing that this does not always have to be the case. Are there not Scandinavian countries that are very socialist but have a republic/democratic form of governance?
Scandinavian countries are socialist in that they have a strong welfare state. There are also more government-owned companies there than in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Sweden), but in no way are all the "means of production" ruled by the government. Private land ownership is also possible and common.
You are right that it is confusing: socialist economic governance in quite independent from socialist governance (marxist). Most Socialist parties today are not socialist according to a textbook definition, which is why I asked people to clarify their definitions.
Chenier, as OP I will ask you not to attack specific political parties or entities that you do not happen to agree with. While you may feel that they are the biggest evil to walk the lands, this is not the correct topic, as this is about the United States view of socialism in general, whether it is seen badly or not in the United States, and not a place to blast out about your personal opinions regarding a specific party or group of people regarding their beliefs.
Quote from: Chénier on October 22, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
Many studies show the decline of the middle class, at least in the West, crumbling under the pressures of outsourcing to third-world countries (thank you globalization) and due to the more profitable companies needing less and less manpower as time passes by (so they don't have to share their profits with their employees anymore, or with much of anyone). Not to mention the myth of how we'll be better with globalization thanks to a brain-based economy, where we'll just ship our danky jobs nobody wants and we'll just get more better-paid high-tech jobs (as if India and China aren't catching up or can't copy our technology for cheaper), gradually leveling workers's condition to the level of the poorest involved in the free-trade agreements (because obviously, signing free-trade agreements with no regards to minimum legal working conditions and minimum wage is a great way to improve our workers' quality of life on the long term).
I also wouldn't compare the "middle class" of the western countries with the middle class of the rest of the capitalist countries in terms of wealth and prosperity...
lol.
Repeated empirical studies have failed to identify the supposed link between globalization and inequality on any conclusive basis. But even if they have, I personally care far less about the have/have-not gap in-country than the have/have-not gap cross-country.
Free trade has lifted more people out of poverty into the middle class than any other program ever. China has hundreds of millions of middle class people now because of liberalization (and if they liberalized more, they'd be even better off). Companies in China or India which export to western states have higher wages and better working conditions than other firms (Foxconn is a great example of this).
Furthermore– even if I grant your argument that the middle class is crumbling because of capitalism (which it isn't), you still are missing the point. The middle class only exists to crumble in places that are capitalist. Insofar as a middle class exists, it exists because of capitalism. See the rising middle class of China– it exists since the late 80's. See the bulk of the population of the US and western Europe– capitalist states have produced middle classes. Non-capitalist states... far less so. Eastern Europe does have some, but even that has rapidly expanded since the fall of communism. The middle class is one of the defining features of a modern market economy.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 22, 2012, 08:50:40 AM
I have a hard time parsing that as anything other than "Regulations I agree with are a normal part of Capitalism; regulations I don't agree with are Socialism, which is totalitarian."
No, what he's asserting is that "Regulation is not everywhere and always a socialist phenomenon." The burden of proof rests on the person who believes that all regulation is essentially socialist– they must prove that all regulation is predicated upon and/or aimed towards central control of the means of production, or some de facto equivalent. I can have motivations for regulation which have nothing in kind with central control of the means of production. I can favor standardized weights and measures and rules against contract violation without favoring radical redistribution.
Quote from: Vellos on October 22, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
No, what he's asserting is that "Regulation is not everywhere and always a socialist phenomenon." The burden of proof rests on the person who believes that all regulation is essentially socialist– they must prove that all regulation is predicated upon and/or aimed towards central control of the means of production, or some de facto equivalent. I can have motivations for regulation which have nothing in kind with central control of the means of production. I can favor standardized weights and measures and rules against contract violation without favoring radical redistribution.
Thank you. What I was asserting is that a socialist economic policy is one where the government interferes with prices and quantities of goods and services. Other interference in the market (such as lead paint standards for childens' toys), particularly when they are properly designed to protect the lives and health of humans, is not socialist, is not anti-capitalist.
Quote from: egamma on October 22, 2012, 04:44:49 PM
Thank you. What I was asserting is that a socialist economic policy is one where the government interferes with prices and quantities of goods and services. Other interference in the market (such as lead paint standards for childens' toys), particularly when they are properly designed to protect the lives and health of humans, is not socialist, is not anti-capitalist.
Them evil socialists! They might stop our babies growing immunities to lead poisoning! *Shakes Fist*
Quote from: Vellos on October 22, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
No, what he's asserting is that "Regulation is not everywhere and always a socialist phenomenon." The burden of proof rests on the person who believes that all regulation is essentially socialist– they must prove that all regulation is predicated upon and/or aimed towards central control of the means of production, or some de facto equivalent. I can have motivations for regulation which have nothing in kind with central control of the means of production. I can favor standardized weights and measures and rules against contract violation without favoring radical redistribution.
Well, I fully agree with that: some measures are socialists in intent, and aim at redistributing wealth, while others aim at defining a safe and fair playing field for a capitalist society to thrive in. That may be the crux of Gustav's question: socialism is seen as horrible because once the word socialism is attached to a measure, people see it as fundamentally redistributive in nature, while in other places the tag has evolved and refers to a different intent.
Take socialized medicine as an example. I make the argument that presenting a bill for a necessary surgery is basically blackmail: it is threatening violence, as those unable to pay will suffer. Therefore it is necessary for the government to step in to ensure a fair treatment.
Of course, socialized medicine can also be used as a wealth redistribution tool. Most people will require hospitalization at some point in their lives, and these costs are a significant fraction of GNP; therefore how you pay for it will affect the distribution of wealth in society.
The same analysis can be made of social security. In the end, intent matters, and detail matters.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 22, 2012, 07:10:20 PM
Well, I fully agree with that: some measures are socialists in intent, and aim at redistributing wealth, while others aim at defining a safe and fair playing field for a capitalist society to thrive in. That may be the crux of Gustav's question: socialism is seen as horrible because once the word socialism is attached to a measure, people see it as fundamentally redistributive in nature, while in other places the tag has evolved and refers to a different intent.
Take socialized medicine as an example. I make the argument that presenting a bill for a necessary surgery is basically blackmail: it is threatening violence, as those unable to pay will suffer. Therefore it is necessary for the government to step in to ensure a fair treatment.
Of course, socialized medicine can also be used as a wealth redistribution tool. Most people will require hospitalization at some point in their lives, and these costs are a significant fraction of GNP; therefore how you pay for it will affect the distribution of wealth in society.
The same analysis can be made of social security. In the end, intent matters, and detail matters.
I concur. However, it's more complex than that– there is such a thing as non-socialist redistribution. Hell, there's such a thing as capitalist redistribution: if markets are less than perfectly efficient (at least some markets fit that bill), some degree of redistribution can be welfare-improve and market-making. However, I've only heard a very few politicians argue for redistribution that way. Usually they make arguments decrying inequality as bad of itself, or asserting a rhetoric of economic rights and entitlements– and that rhetoric undoubtedly is socialist in origin (if not always in final practice).
Quote from: vonGenf on October 22, 2012, 07:10:20 PM
Of course, socialized medicine can also be used as a wealth redistribution tool. Most people will require hospitalization at some point in their lives, and these costs are a significant fraction of GNP; therefore how you pay for it will affect the distribution of wealth in society.
And though I agree with the spirit in which you approach the issue, this is where I part ways. I regard the issue as so large that socialized medicine cannot help but be a vast step towards state control of the means of production. In the US, combined local-state-federal spending is about 43% of GDP. If healthcare were fully socialized (it's already about 50% socialized), that would rise to about 50% of GDP. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable at the 43% mark already– when you talk about the state having direct, fiat control of so many entire industries vital to everyday living, and direct control of half or more of the entire economy... yeah, I have a hard time seeing that as anything less than socialist.
Quote from: Vellos on October 22, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
And though I agree with the spirit in which you approach the issue, this is where I part ways. I regard the issue as so large that socialized medicine cannot help but be a vast step towards state control of the means of production. In the US, combined local-state-federal spending is about 43% of GDP. If healthcare were fully socialized (it's already about 50% socialized), that would rise to about 50% of GDP. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable at the 43% mark already– when you talk about the state having direct, fiat control of so many entire industries vital to everyday living, and direct control of half or more of the entire economy... yeah, I have a hard time seeing that as anything less than socialist.
But again, you are simply taking as given that "socialism"—in this case equating to the spending of the government surpassing the combined spending of the private sector—is, in and of itself, inherently wrong or bad for the country.
Which brings us full circle, back to the original topic: Why?
I'm actually quite surprised this thread hasn't devolved into flaming so far. ^_^ good job guys.
Quote from: Anaris on October 22, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
But again, you are simply taking as given that "socialism"—in this case equating to the spending of the government surpassing the combined spending of the private sector—is, in and of itself, inherently wrong or bad for the country.
Which brings us full circle, back to the original topic: Why?
Yerp. Now that is a long discussion. I believe it because that's what the strong majority of the empirical econometric evidence and most even semi-mainstream economic theory suggests (Krugman notwithstanding). But this debate is just going to consist of us lining up our Nobel winners and throwing quotes at one another. That won't be a very fair debate, because I probably spend more time piddling around with this data than most here.
To offer a very brief explanation: in times of normal economic output with neutral monetary policy, the difference in spending multipliers on consumption between an additional dollar spent on government purchases and an additional dollar spent on investment is negative, suggesting that an additional dollar spent autonomously on investment is better, in terms of promoting consumption by consumers (which is ultimately the point of economies). This is not accounting for the source of funds, is excluding significant amounts of government spending (most notably transfers), and does not account for debt effects or substititionary effects. It's just allocative and marginal propensity to consume effects. Including transfers could conceivably tilt the balance in favor of government spending, source of funds considerations would have various effects depending on the exact source, and debt and substititionary effects would tend to tilt the balance in favor of investment.
The debate over the relative size of these various effects is one of the central disputes of macroeconomics. A practical example of what these debates "mean" in context: the most recent edition of the Journal of Economic Policy ran two articles discussing federal relief to states under the US' stimulus package in 2009. One argued, based on its methodology and theoretical underpinnings, that the stimulus created 1 "job" for every $38,000 spent. The other disagreed, arguing the stimulus created 1 "job" for every $140,000 spent. If it's the first (and if we assume that a "job" is in line with current US cost of employment indexes, so with a private cost of usually around $40,000), then the stimulus spending was an effective stimulant and created more jobs for less money via multiplier effects. If it's the first, however, it suggests we may have been better off not spending the money at all ("may" have because one also needs to consider the context– jobs may be more "valuable" than their pay or product in a recession; also we can't be sure what long-run effects that lack of employment might have caused– surely negative ones).
Stimulus in a recession is a special case of course; we're talking about general levels in, I'm assuming "normal time." FWIW, most econometric studies which I have read (and this is admittedly not my central academic focus; I do trade issues mostly) done on this topic suggest government spending over 40% reduces GDP growth by about 1% for every 3% above that threshold, when there are no exogenous shocks (naturally that's an oversimplification– it's kinda the cocktail party version of that number). Naturally, exogenous shocks, like a financial crisis, can change that in the shorter ter,– we're talking about long-run issues here.
And yes, the above three paragraphs were a "very brief" reason that I think high levels of government spending are bad.
Vellos is giving reasons why socialism is bad, which is fine but the truth of the it being good or bad isn't hugely important when talking why it's viewed as bad. IMO, socialism is viewed negatively because the government control of that much is against the mentality of freedom. With redistribution, it is generally viewed negatively because it is forcing me to do something with my money and everyone still has that "rebellious teenager" feeling in them where they rebel for the sake of control. Autonomy is something that humans naturally want, which is basically control of themselves. The government doing redistribution is frowned upon generally because of it is taking away control by forcing them to do something with their money, which is against autonomy. Now that is true for all humans the autonomy, but if you are wondering why Americans especially have a negative view is that it infringes on our freedom unnecessarily which is considered against the American way. Lastly, as has been said, what people think socialism is and what it actually is are not always the same and it is what they think it is that creates their opinion not the actuality of it.
I think that Americans (at least this American) tend to be a lot more individualistic than most of the worlds population. My wife is German and we are constantly seeing the differences in culture - even though US-German is a lot closer to US-China culture wise. Germans are willing to sacrifice a lot more for the community. I am always grumbling about class fundraising when half my money goes to the German government. She is all about the state stepping in and handing out mandates and I get paranoid when governments start telling me what to do. Personal rights and freedom of speech and all that are baked in to many Americans. Hugely.
So whenever the word socialism comes up I think that most Americans become cautious. For the average American the word socialism brings images of USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba (maybe this one is just my uneducated self), and the like. Thoughts turn to taking ones hard earned money and giving it to others without ones input or consent. Thoughts of freeloaders living off of the efforts of staunch producers. Not saying any of this is right or true but that is what I think many Americans come to and, combined with the individualistic makeup of Americans, the word can spark resistance.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on October 18, 2012, 07:05:47 PM
This is why we laugh at them pretty hard.
Why do people in the US think that socialism is such a horrible thing when the very thing they support the most, Social Security, is basically socialism defined?
To the Social Security, I see the retirement part of it as more of a savings account for when I retire kinda thing, the rest I have mixed feelings about due to people living off the system unnecessarily which makes me think of the hard worker giving his money to the person who sits on their butt doing nothing. Some people just work the system so they don't have to work even though they are perfectly capable of doing so. The mixed feelings about it comes from me knowing there are valid cases though where it is deserved.
Quote from: Vellos on October 22, 2012, 09:18:46 PM
And yes, the above three paragraphs were a "very brief" reason that I think high levels of government spending are bad.
Thanks, that's interesting information, some of it quite new to me. I hope you'll forgive me for taking some of it with a grain of salt—not saying I distrust it, at least not any more than I distrust anything, just that I hold it as one possibility, and this one with more actual data than those I've seen to date :)
Partly in response to this, partly to Unwin and Penchant's following posts:
Personally, while I am to some extent an idealist, the ideal I wish to attain is one that fits within the bounds of practicality. As such, I am willing to support anything that really shows serious possibilities of creating meaningful improvements in the overall lot of the country. Freedom is good, but not when it comes significantly at the expense of other people. That means that if taking away your freedom (and that of the whole group like you, possibly including me)
not to pay an extra 2% each year in taxes means that an extra 5 million children get a better education that year, I'm pleased with that tradeoff. (Obviously, numbers completely made up.)
Quote from: Penchant on October 23, 2012, 12:06:35 AM
To the Social Security, I see the retirement part of it as more of a savings account for when I retire kinda thing, the rest I have mixed feelings about due to people living off the system unnecessarily which makes me think of the hard worker giving his money to the person who sits on their butt doing nothing. Some people just work the system so they don't have to work even though they are perfectly capable of doing so. The mixed feelings about it comes from me knowing there are valid cases though where it is deserved.
I have never seen any study that showed any significant amount of welfare fraud. I'm well aware that it goes on, but all the data I've ever seen (which I'll admit is not a lot, and not recent, but I have seen some) strongly indicates that welfare fraud, like voter fraud, is primarily used as a boogeyman to scare people into accepting new rules that make it harder for people legitimately on welfare.
Quote from: Anaris on October 23, 2012, 03:20:42 AM
Personally, while I am to some extent an idealist, the ideal I wish to attain is one that fits within the bounds of practicality. As such, I am willing to support anything that really shows serious possibilities of creating meaningful improvements in the overall lot of the country. Freedom is good, but not when it comes significantly at the expense of other people. That means that if taking away your freedom (and that of the whole group like you, possibly including me) not to pay an extra 2% each year in taxes means that an extra 5 million children get a better education that year, I'm pleased with that tradeoff. (Obviously, numbers completely made up.)
I share that sentiment. I am aware that extra taxes and government spending result in lower economic growth. These things don't come for free, they're not
just redistributing an already present wealth. They have an actual cost.
And sometimes, that cost is worth paying. Sometimes it isn't. It's up to each society to decide which costs they are willing to pay.
As a famous republican-appointed supreme court justice once said, "
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
I certainly agree. The problem is that it is so incredibly hard, and sometimes simply impossible, to clearly show what works and what does not. There are simply too many factors. And what works for people of one cultural mindset might not work as well for another culture. I just can not imagine how big someones brain would have to be for them to definitively prove that a particular measure taken had particular results.
At the same time I also like paying my taxes. I like have public libraries, education assistance, police, fire and military service and more. I like the idea of having a safety net sufficient enough encourage people to make a leap and try that innovative new business idea. If all of that is socialist I welcome a bit of socialism in my life. At the same time I also like the idea of a lean government that mostly stays out of my way.
As long as the government is being steered by the will of it's people I am quite open. Unfortunately, it is too often the case that governments end up serving the will of a small subset of the people. Things like big corporation campaign contributions, the massive campaign costs, professional lobbyists and all that make me nervous. I can not truly claim to know what impact it all has but I often feel that the US government is sometimes serving nig companies more that the people. If that is capitalism, I want a bit less of it.
I think it all relates to the whole communal living thing I think. As long as a majority of people are buying into the system, things are good. People will continue to buy into the system as long as they feel they are fairly benifiting and as long as they can at least identify with it all.
Quote from: Anaris on October 23, 2012, 03:20:42 AM
Thanks, that's interesting information, some of it quite new to me. I hope you'll forgive me for taking some of it with a grain of salt—not saying I distrust it, at least not any more than I distrust anything, just that I hold it as one possibility, and this one with more actual data than those I've seen to date :)
I encourage a large grain of salt. What I offered was simplistic, and much of it quite contentious. Obviously, I think the better argument is for "my" side (which, for the curious, would be market monetarism)– but there are certainly well-reasoned opinions on the other side, to which I cannot always offer convincing rebuttals.
Quote from: vonGenf on October 23, 2012, 10:22:41 AM
I share that sentiment. I am aware that extra taxes and government spending result in lower economic growth. These things don't come for free, they're not just redistributing an already present wealth. They have an actual cost.
And sometimes, that cost is worth paying. Sometimes it isn't. It's up to each society to decide which costs they are willing to pay.
As a famous republican-appointed supreme court justice once said, "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
I also concur. I just happen to think that we are rather near the threshold where the cost is exceeding the benefit.
Quote from: Anaris on October 23, 2012, 03:20:42 AM
I have never seen any study that showed any significant amount of welfare fraud. I'm well aware that it goes on, but all the data I've ever seen (which I'll admit is not a lot, and not recent, but I have seen some) strongly indicates that welfare fraud, like voter fraud, is primarily used as a boogeyman to scare people into accepting new rules that make it harder for people legitimately on welfare.
This is correct but perhaps misunderstands the issue.
Much of what conservtives call "fraud" is not strictly fraud. For example, if I intentionally abstain from getting a job in order to maintain a certain level of benefits (yes, "welfare cliffs" of this kind where rising wages can cause lower incomes do exist), it isn't fraud. It's still an abuse of the system. But much harder to identify. A welfare-economics course I took last year had a central debate being, "What constitutes appropriate use of welfare?" It's actually a convoluted question– conservatives tend to view nearly any adaptive response to welfare as abuse. Consider an example: if I receive $100 in foodstamps, I will buy less food. If I buy less food, I may buy more cigarettes. If food stamps result in an increase in my cigarette consumption, it is essentially food stamps buying cigarettes (even if it isn't fraud). The question is: are these changes acceptable? What degree of "welfare behavioralism" is appropriate, as opposed to "welfare paternalism"?
My textbook suggested that, if our otherwise identical welfare system existed, but was redesigned to have zero "welfare cliffs" (which are the starkest but not only example of problems in welfare), we would see a 5-10% reduction in caseload, and a rise in incomes and employment (note: that number dated from 2007, using a dataset running from 1983 to 2004– today may be different).
Regarding actual "fraud" rates– the food stamp program is the easiest program to defraud probably given the fungibility of EBT cards. As of June 2012, it had a fraud rate of around 1% of it's total funding, if I remember correctly. That is a large amount of money, but, again, it's an exceptionally easy program to defraud (and most fraud was not by recipients per se, but by places of business doing illegal cash back– which is economically interesting for completely different reasons, but I'm already off topic, so I'll stop here).