Google's 'Democratic AI' Is Better At Redistributing Wealth Than America (vice.com) 274
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: It's no secret that the overwhelming majority of wealth in the United States is concentrated at the very top, creating staggering levels of poverty and inequality that vastly outpace other supposedly "wealthy" nations. But while the current political system ensures that this upward extraction of wealth continues, AI researchers have begun playing with a fascinating question: is machine learning better equipped than humans to create a society that divides resources more equitably? The answer, according to a recent paper published in Nature from researchers at Google's DeepMind, seems to be yes -- at least, as far as the study's participants are concerned.
The paper describes a series of experiments where a deep neural network was tasked with divvying up resources in a more equitable way that humans preferred. The humans participated in an online economic game -- called a "public goods game" in economics -- where each round they would choose whether to keep a monetary endowment, or contribute a chosen amount of coins into a collective fund. These funds would then be returned to the players under three different redistribution schemes based on different human economic systems -- and one additional scheme created entirely by the AI, called the Human Centered Redistribution Mechanism (HCRM). The humans would then vote to decide which system they preferred.
It turns out, the distribution scheme created by the AI was the one preferred by the majority of participants. While strict libertarian and egalitarian systems split the returns based on things like how much each player contributed, the AI's system redistributed wealth in a way that specifically addressed the advantages and disadvantages players had at the start of the game -- and ultimately won them over as the preferred method in a majoritarian vote. "Pursuing a broadly liberal egalitarian policy, [HCRM] sought to reduce pre-existing income disparities by compensating players in proportion to their contribution relative to endowment," the paper's authors wrote. "In other words, rather than simply maximizing efficiency, the mechanism was progressive: it promoted enfranchisement of those who began the game at a wealth disadvantage, at the expense of those with higher initial endowment." "In AI research, there is a growing realization that to build human-compatible systems, we need new research methods in which humans and agents interact, and an increased effort to learn values directly from humans to build value-aligned AI," the researchers wrote. "Instead of imbuing our agents with purportedly human values a priori, and thus potentially biasing systems towards the preferences of AI researchers, we train them to maximize a democratic objective: to design policies that humans prefer and thus will vote to implement in a majoritarian election."
The researchers say the AI's system "doesn't necessarily mean it would equitably satisfy the needs of humans on a larger scale," reports Motherboard. "The researchers are also quick to point out that the experiments are not a radical proposal for AI-based governance, but a framework for future research on how AI could intervene in public policy."
The paper describes a series of experiments where a deep neural network was tasked with divvying up resources in a more equitable way that humans preferred. The humans participated in an online economic game -- called a "public goods game" in economics -- where each round they would choose whether to keep a monetary endowment, or contribute a chosen amount of coins into a collective fund. These funds would then be returned to the players under three different redistribution schemes based on different human economic systems -- and one additional scheme created entirely by the AI, called the Human Centered Redistribution Mechanism (HCRM). The humans would then vote to decide which system they preferred.
It turns out, the distribution scheme created by the AI was the one preferred by the majority of participants. While strict libertarian and egalitarian systems split the returns based on things like how much each player contributed, the AI's system redistributed wealth in a way that specifically addressed the advantages and disadvantages players had at the start of the game -- and ultimately won them over as the preferred method in a majoritarian vote. "Pursuing a broadly liberal egalitarian policy, [HCRM] sought to reduce pre-existing income disparities by compensating players in proportion to their contribution relative to endowment," the paper's authors wrote. "In other words, rather than simply maximizing efficiency, the mechanism was progressive: it promoted enfranchisement of those who began the game at a wealth disadvantage, at the expense of those with higher initial endowment." "In AI research, there is a growing realization that to build human-compatible systems, we need new research methods in which humans and agents interact, and an increased effort to learn values directly from humans to build value-aligned AI," the researchers wrote. "Instead of imbuing our agents with purportedly human values a priori, and thus potentially biasing systems towards the preferences of AI researchers, we train them to maximize a democratic objective: to design policies that humans prefer and thus will vote to implement in a majoritarian election."
The researchers say the AI's system "doesn't necessarily mean it would equitably satisfy the needs of humans on a larger scale," reports Motherboard. "The researchers are also quick to point out that the experiments are not a radical proposal for AI-based governance, but a framework for future research on how AI could intervene in public policy."
Broken link in TFA (Score:5, Informative)
This seems like it would be a great tool (Score:2)
for a country like china.
Ebenezer Scrooge (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No imagine you are working class chinese, and you end up in that hospital.
What you consider an easy tip, is often what they needed to feed their children.
divides resources more equitably (Score:3, Insightful)
1) "Human Centered Redistribution Mechanism" has nothing human.
2) It's a spoils system that showcases techno-communism when only the spoils (no real innovation or entrepreneurship) are at play.
3) A glimpse of what those in power have for you.
4) Why don't the shareholders share Google Equity instead?
"design policies that humans prefer and thus will vote to implement in a majoritarian election."
Sounds awful. Anyone that knows even a glimpse of machine learning knows why, leave it to you as exercise.
Re:divides resources more equitably (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You may be shocked to find you are probably in the top 1% globally - which requires a salary of about $35000 per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, wait... those were all hugely innovative enterpaneurs. But at least we know for sure that Capitalism produces the most lopsided distributive outcomes of any political-economy!
Oh, wait...
Sounds good. (Score:4, Interesting)
In general, I think economies should adopt a more balanced approach among the three mechanisms of market, command, and lottery. If you really have a good idea that benefits other people, you should be able to prosper in the market. If you really have a good idea that isn't suited to markets but is strongly arguable, you should be able to prosper from a command function (which encompasses both government and charity). And if you've just been shafted your whole life, there should be a rigorous lottery (i.e., one with tax funding, not just redistributing funds from the many poor to the fewer poor) available.
Money is like manure (Score:5, Insightful)
Money is like manure. Pile it up and it stinks. Spread it around and it fertilizes.
Re: Money is like manure (Score:2)
Re:Money is like manure (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh dear.
That must be why the communist regimes always do so well, by almost every measure, right?
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
Inequality of wealth does not necessarily equal poverty. The US overall is pretty wealthy; the super-wealthy tip the scales and make "inequality" seem worse than it is. And even "the poor" in America have it pretty good.
Re: The summary is incorrect (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The summary is incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
even "the poor" in America have it pretty good.
Do they have healthcare, etc.?
Over here I can remember walking into a hospital and being treated without them even asking my name.
Re: (Score:2)
The poor in America have it pretty good? Compared to what? Bangladesh? Nigeria?
Ok, compared to other shithole countries, yeah, I give you that. Compare it to a country that could credibly claim to be a first world country and, well, outlook not so good.
Re: (Score:2)
Xitler approves (Score:2)
Give Emperor Xi control and he will use his AI to redistribute the wealth "fairly." What a wonderful world that will be...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth makes you think that?
Its completely fukt in both places, because both are corrupt authoritarian regimes, heading rapidly to totalitarianism.
OK (Score:2, Interesting)
Wealth (Score:2)
If you own something that everyone wants, that makes you wealthy and taxable? Sounds stupid to me.
You know when covid hit, there was a frantic search for people who had powerful antibodies against it. Now let's say the same pandemic style shit happened, and guess what let's say my body makes the only antibody to it. It is worth billions, except they have to off me to get it. I am worth a billion dollars according to the wealth tax fools. How am I going to pay that? Do you know the example of how abortion is
It's called SOCIALISM (Score:5, Insightful)
At the heart of this project, and all others like it, is the assumption that 'society' has the right to redistribute the wealth of its members. This is not an idea that the writers of the US constitution would have accepted, yet since those days it has become the standard assumption in most minds.
We need to be honest about this. It is the logic of the French Revolution - that the peasants with pitchforks have the right to deprive the owners of the chateaux of their property. It may be legitimate, or it may be wrong, but we need to recognise the premise that is being used to justify this and many similar proposals.
Re:It's called SOCIALISM (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not an idea that the writers of the US constitution would have accepted,
But would they have accepted the immense exploitation of the population? Would they have accepted the 'trickle up' economy that has taken a grip in the US? Would they have accepted the corruption, the populism, the wars for profit?
Would they have accepted that religiously motivated judges have taken over the supreme court?
It's hard and painful to reflect on the constitution when you've built a hideous monster around it.
It is the logic of the French Revolution
It's more than that.
It's the logic of unhappy people that see the fruits of their labor vacuumed up by the societal layer above them, leaving them behind with nothing.
Remember, if you keep sucking people harder then at some point you'll draw blood.
that the peasants with pitchforks have the right to deprive the owners of the chateaux of their property.
You mean the chateaus that were built with the sweat and tears of the peasants? That were built on land taken by force from the farmers? That were built from the money forcibly taken from the already poor majority of the population?
You have to consider what right these owners had to the properties they declared they owned in the first place. I don't think the peasants had any say in the construction of these 'rights' the elite applies to itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh absolutely - I'm not questioning whether socialism is good or bad. I'm asking for us to be aware of the assumptions we are smuggling in; it's the unexamined assumptions that tend to kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're just eager to label a lower class movement as 'socialist' due to corporate indoctrination.
Re: (Score:2)
The poorest in the USA get free ebt food cards, welfare, free ACA Healthcare and emergency care, housing credits, dirt cheap internet, earned income credits. They just have to fill out forms.
The poorest also clean your toilets, bake your bread, distribute your amazon packages, work 2 shifts to pay rent, etc.
I am so tired of hearing about the wealthy making people poor. It's completely the opposite. Everyone benefits from those wealthy.
The point is that there should be a balance. In the US that balance is heavily biassed towards the wealthy.
You're basically forgetting that the wealthy benefit tremendously from the less wealthy. Somehow that side of the coin gets forgotten about structurally.
Re: (Score:2)
>The point is that there should be a balance. In the US that balance is heavily biassed towards the wealthy.
And in socialism its biased towards removing any reason for productivity, or effort.
Which one do you think ends up better?
The problem in the US is not capitalism, its political corruption. The two are not linked, unless you think communist countries have no corruption?
So a sort of competition (Score:2)
So the thought this gives me is that we should have a number of different AIs all work out a comprehensive set of policies, and then you have elected human representatives to debate and ultimately choose one of the packages.
No cherry-picking, because that's where human greed is going to come in once more.
I could honestly be okay with this.
Garbage in, garbage out (Score:2)
The problem with such a proposal is that the AIs would have to get their basic ethics from somewhere. Are they to be socialist - legitimating the redistribution of wealth? How much should society spend to save the life of a single individual? Should you negotiate with hostage takers? And lots more.
Poverty isn't created (Score:2)
Poverty is the default state of the universe - show me a gopher with a personal jet.
Wealth is created, by which poverty is destroyed.
we can change the quote (Score:3)
"For when the plebs discover that they can vote (for an ai that validates their choices in granting) themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invaderâ"the barbarians enter Rome."
There, now it's ready for 2022.
That is a low bar (Score:2)
Most of the things in the world are better at redistributing wealth than the USA. 120 countries, for a start. My coffee mug. Bit coin. You name it, it probably is.
This makes sense if all jobs are equally difficult (Score:2)
And the results mean absolutely nothing. (Score:3)
Not a good thing (Score:3)
Re:Not a zero sum game (Score:5, Insightful)
ItÃ(TM)s not a zero sum game.
It's a negative-sum game because we're using natural resources more rapidly than they can be replenished.
If I win, that doesnÃ(TM)t mean you lose. DonÃ(TM)t they teach the kids basic economics these days?
When the already wealthy win more, and then don't pay taxes, or even invest but instead sit on record cash reserves, then it does. I know that because they teach the kids basic economics these days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the already wealthy win more, and then don't pay taxes, or even invest but instead sit on record cash reserves
The top 1% own 32% of America's wealth (not "the overwhelming majority" as TFA claims), earn 19% of all income, and pay 40% of taxes.
So your logic is backward: The rich pay more than their "fair share," not less.
Also, rich people don't "sit on cash reserves." They are rich because they invest.
Re: (Score:2)
pay 40% of taxes.
How can that be, when Amazon pays almost zero tax?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can that be, when Amazon pays almost zero tax?
1. Amazon pays plenty of taxes.
2. Amazon is not part of "the 1%" since it is a corporation, not a human.
A corporation's taxes are ultimately paid by shareholders, who are mostly middle-class pension funds.
Re:Not a zero sum game (Score:4, Insightful)
A corporation's taxes are ultimately paid by shareholders, who are mostly middle-class pension funds.
A corporation's taxes are ultimately paid partly by shareholders (in the form of lower gains or dividends), partly by customers (in the form of higher prices) and partly by employees (in the form of lower compensation). The allocation across these sources depends on market conditions and on decisions by corporate execs.
Corporate taxes are a fraud perpetrated by politicians. Lawmakers tell voters it's "free revenue" that can be used to fund government services, without hitting the voters' own pockets. Except that all three categories of the actual payers of corporate taxes are, in fact, groups of individual voters.
So corporate taxes are just another form of taxation on individuals, but it's a hidden form. Voters don't see the money coming out of their pockets. Indeed, it's impossible to determine how much any given person is paying. This means that we can't really know whether corporate taxes are progressive, proportional or regressive, in general.
It probably varies widely by company, actually. Taxes on companies with lower-class workers and customers in low-margin businesses that generate returns that are at or below market averages are almost certainly very regressive; they can't pass the cost to shareholders without lowering their returns so much that investors move their capital elsewhere, so they have to keep prices higher and costs lower than they might if untaxed. Taxes on companies with highly-paid workers, selling goods to high-income customers and generating high margins are probably quite progressive -- in some cases the shareholders may be the lowest-income group, since as Bill said, the shareholders are mostly middle-class pension funds. Other companies have other situations.
This is why I think corporate taxes are a bad idea, and should be completely abolished. Rather than use the free money fiction, lawmakers should honestly levy the taxes on people directly, in a progressive structure, both so that the taxes can better serve the purpose of reducing inequality and so that voters can see what they're paying. Because the people are paying either way; corporate taxes just hide the fact that people are paying, and make it very difficult to determine which people are paying.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Amazon pays plenty of taxes.
false [oxfamamerica.org]
2. Amazon is not part of "the 1%" since it is a corporation, not a human.
Amazon is controlled by people who are arguably human, though by some definitions they might well fail. Those people are able to conceal wealth that they control in these corporate structures and direct it in the same ways that they would if it were in their own accounts, and they had been taxed on it. Using corporations for tax evasion is as old as corporations.
A corporation's taxes are ultimately paid by shareholders, who are mostly middle-class pension funds.
The people at the top get to weasel out of paying much of their tax burden were it not for being able to disguise their activity as corporat
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon is not part of "the 1%" since it is a corporation, not a human.
Corporations are people, my friend.
Re:Not a zero sum game (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon pays zero tax, so obviously all wealthy people also pay zero tax. Great logic there.
Actually the vast majority of federal income taxes collected are from individuals, not corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon spent years burning money operating at a loss before becoming profitable. But they had those carryover losses to offset profits for a while. That will run out.
Re:Not a zero sum game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well here's some hard numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Scroll down to the median figures. Median eliminates any skewing towards either having a few very rich people or a huge number of very poor people. Disposable income also accounts for what you have after mandatory expenses, including health care, education, taxes, etc. This is also a household figure, so it also controls for people who do not and don't need to have an income. So for example, suppose you had a country where every household had tw
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The median in US is a small fraction of the mean. All the wealth is concentrated at the top, the people at the bottom have nothing...
Re: Not a zero sum game (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that 'trading stocks' is a zero sum game right? You seem to be under the illusion that everyone can get rich doing it - but by definition, no.
Try towork out how long a working class person needs to accummulate to get to 10 million, let alone a billion.
Of course that does make this stupid 'wealth redistribution' bs from google any more sane - because they are missing the main point - reward for effort.
But hey, thats because they are mostly low effort/high reward people, who dont understand tha
Re: (Score:3)
buying, holding for the long term and then selling has outperformed inflation consistently. Because companies can grow. You know, become bigger companies worth more and thus their stock is worth more...
Negative sum game again. Corporate growth is destroying the biosphere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Pareto Distribution will by conquered by our tech overlords in every place it exists. Everything from animal species, to astronomical phenomena, the Pareto Distribution is unfair, and must be stopped!!!
Reality must never have the last word!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like many, I think defining it as bearing a portion of the total tax burden that's roughly equivalent to their share of total wealth or income is the proper definition. And I have yet to encounter anyone complaining about the wealthy not paying their "fair share" who cares to define it in any way. Of course there is a reason for that, and it is because it is a political slogan intended to play upon and deepen economic resentment in order to make the politician spewing it more powerfu
Re: (Score:3)
For the sake of argument and having a well rounded discussion, why should "fair" be based on earned income and not something else like used collective resources?
As an example, if you and I both have a similar sized house/property with the same number of children in the same school, we drive a similar number of miles, have a similar incidence of use of police/fire/ems services.
We have an almost identical "footprint" for services supplied by the government.
But one of us has a household income that is 30% more
Re: (Score:3)
totally agree!
they never report of the property tax, personal property tax, and other taxes that you end up paying, just income tax.
The other end of it is, they aren't cheating on their tax, that is actually more common in lower income, they are just taking advantage of incentives that the same elected politicians that complain that they pay too little put in place.
Portions of this you can take advantage of too, but a lot of people don't.. Likely because they see it as risky to own a business, or to own pro
Re: (Score:3)
Could we at least try to be accurate?
https://taxfoundation.org/publ... [taxfoundation.org]
Now in a broader sense, how much actual labor did the top 1% crank out individually? Like was that tax money from investments or fat paychecks to work 4-hour days and do "business" on a golf course? In the end, that's what all this comes down to, isn't it? Seems like no amount of taxation of the top 1% will ever be enough if we're not satisfied with HOW they earn their money. None of which really matters since American society was founde
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not a zero sum game (Score:5, Insightful)
The wealthy do not have cash reserves.
LOL! Who sold you that line? A clue for you. [smartasset.com]
Many millionaires keep a lot of their money in cash or highly liquid cash equivalents. They establish an emergency account before ever starting to invest.
They hold assets like stock and real estate. Taxing those assets will destroy their value
What?! Taxing real estate will destroy its value, eh? Wow. There are no words.
Wait until you see what happens when the boomers liquidate their stocks
HaHa! This post is pure gold! I have to know. How do you think stocks work?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually if you read your article, it states that they keep about 25% of it in cash, which isn't a whole lot, but also I suspect that is a pretty dubious figure to have it even that high. Whatever they do keep in cash gets eaten by inflation, so they don't like to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of investors are in cash or cash-equivalents right now, until the markets settle out. 8%+ inflation is bad, but 20-30%+ market downturns are even worse. Metals were a decent play for people that got in at the right time - about eight months ago?
Cash equivalent means "pay for your house" (mortag (Score:2)
It should be noted that "cash or cash equivalent" means they put it in the bank. The bank then loans it to someone who wants to buy a house or car.
If you have a house with a mortgage, that house was purchased with somebody's "cash or cash equivalent".
Re: (Score:3)
If you have a house with a mortgage, that house was purchased with somebody's "cash or cash equivalent"
Banks haven't issued loans against cash reserves for a long, long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are other ways to hold cash. Banks have been known to do this as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a whole lot? We must have very different definitions of "not a whole lot".
Re: (Score:3)
That's the whole problem of economy right now. There is no profit in producing. Producing makes me poor. Selling makes me rich. The profit is generated when I sell something to you.
If you don't have money to buy, how am I supposed to get rich?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>If I win, that doesn't mean you lose.
It doesn't *have* to - but you win more if it does. At least in the short-to-medium term.
Besides, unless you're pushing a million dollars a year in income you're on the losing end of the game - or at best breaking even. And those on the winning end have been steadily tilting the game ever further in their favor for the better part of a century.
Re: (Score:2)
That's insane. You can live extremely well in this country on $200-$300k yearly household income. Especially if you manage that outside of generally high-income areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I build a company based on a fantastic idea, and it gets valuated at $1B, who did I take that $1B from?
You see, the problem is that you think in terms of cash (and that's why you mention hoarding), but that's not how things work. I can be super rich without having a single dime, and most rich people have relatively little cash, because it makes absolutely no sense to sit on wads of money.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mary buys $100 worth of flour, salt, apples, etc, and uses it to bake apple pies, which she can sell for $200. Mary just converted some hours of her effort into $100 of new wealth.
Yes, because they decided that this thing was worth more to them then the othe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And all the people who bought her pies are now (collectively) $200 poorer...
If I take some money out of my right pocket and put it in my left. How much wealth did my left pocket make?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't they teach the kids basic economics these days?
Yes, they do. It goes like this: rich whitey has all your stuff and won't give you any. End of Basic Economics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're lucky and they didn't have beans for dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Aww, how cute, he thinks working could make him rich.
Still in the American dream? Hope you never wake up to the American nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't in 2007 during the housing bubble. Rents were pretty flat back then, at least around here. Now it's a different story, though it has more to do with availability of low-end apartments and less to do with individual housing prices.
As for building more prisons? You have a rather dim view of how these things will work out. Already there are volunteers moving the homeless off of public land and into tiny homes. We'll see how long that can last. Many of those who are and will remain homeless ha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a lot of right-wing nonsense intended to erode faith in our democratic institutions. We have a democracy, for now, but it is very much in danger from people like you who hate our country and want to see it destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you babbling about? I'm not familiar with that particular insane conspiracy.
Supposedly liberals have come to the conclusion that prisons are expensive, don't actually reform criminals, actually making them worse, so it's best to have as few people in them as practical.
As a result, they presume that because criminals are being released quicker, that more crime will occur because of that. To be fair, they get true anecdotal stories of newly released criminals committing some horrible crime on a regular basis, but that's generally what happens when you release enough of them, you nev
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You misspelled oligarchy.
The US was founded as a representative democratic republic. And in any form of democracy the actions of the government should at least somewhat reflect the will of the people. The evidence indicates that that is no longer the case in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
It's been very carefully designed as a Republic in opposition to being a Democracy. It's stated very clearly in the Federalist papers, leaving no room for interpretation.
Your 'Founding Fathers' were very keen on NOT giving power to the people at large : Democracy was seen as Mob Rule. Read your own History, this is no secret or conspiracy.
That said, to be fair, this volontary obfuscating of the reality of the 'democracies' of the world is pretty everywhere you say a co
Re:Thats because (Score:5, Informative)
the USA Is not a Democracy but a Republic...
A republic is not an alternative to being a democracy. A country can be both, either, or neither.
America is a representative democracy and a republic.
Canada is a representative democracy but not a republic since they have a monarch.
China is a republic but not a democracy.
Saudi Arabia is neither a republic nor a democracy.
Republic [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
A republic is not an alternative to being a democracy. A country can be both, either, or neither.
This is not correct.
The definition of republic (from the Wikipedia link you provided) is "a form of government in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives". So elections are a required element of any republic, meaning it's impossible to be a republic without also being a democracy, though it is possible to be a democracy without being a republic.
America is a representative democracy and a republic.
Yes, more specifically a presidential republic (to distinguish from parliamentary republics).
Canada is a representative democracy but not a republic since they have a monarch.
On paper Canada is a parliamentary
Re:Thats because (Score:4, Insightful)
the USA Is not a Democracy but a Republic...
And how are the representatives in this Republic chosen???
Re: (Score:2)
And how are the representatives in this Republic chosen???
By an elite of "representatives". This also makes sure that no real democratic political parties ever stand a chance
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because we allow it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If only the ones that proffered as such would apply the same to their own preferred wealth-distributing system: capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be that as it may, it makes the statement "every wealth-distributing system eventually becomes corrupt" a meaningless statement.
Further, if you concede capitalism is also corrupt, by what means do you intend to curb it; with your courts, laws and regulations?
The exact same entity you distrust to redistribute wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is the worst economic system possible, except for all the others that have been tried.
Nope. That's "political system" & "democracy." Wasn't it Churchill who said it? Also, there's no such thing as monolithic economic or political systems. The USA, like all the other OECD countries has a mixed economy & a variety of political systems in different regions & levels of government (some of it is quite socialist when you think about it). The problem with the USA is that it has too much of one & not enough of the others. It's based more on ideologies (of the wealthy few) rather than
A corrupt one is better than NONE (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nordic countries suggest otherwise. They have high, progressive taxes, big government, and while there are always going to be incidents they overall do a good job of creating a pleasant and prosperous place to live.
They key to preventing the corruption seems to be to distribute power. A democratic system that dilutes power and requires many people to be involved in decisions makes corruption much more difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's also the conservative definition: Steal it from those that work for it to give it to those that don't do fuck all for the rest of the population but we like.
The only difference is who they like.