Is wealth inequality just…math?

[Audiophilip]

http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/?p=712

[dTal]

>10 “individuals”, and 2000 spheres. The individuals start with an equal sphere attraction value of 10. Every time a sphere collides with an individual, it gains an attraction value of 0.1, but the sphere can never go beyond 0.1, and loses its attraction value if it travels more than 49% of the distance between individuals.

Okay... what has any of that got to do with money? I take it this is meant to be a model of some kind... what do the parts of the model represent?

[gravy → dTal]

The idea being that equal opportunity leads to the same thing: inequality

[sharemywin]

I think lot is the process to raise money:

How many minimum wage people are you trying to raise money for your company? the amounts to small, it would be harder to sell them on it because $10 is more valuable to them than $5000 is to a millionaire, and its harder to reach them(transaction costs are much, much higher)

also, even if they had a 10x return they only made $100.

So, if the best opportunities to make money off your own money are only available to the rich than you do the math...

[sharemywin → sharemywin]

that's even without the regulations around unaccredited investors.

[fallingfrog]

This is a pretty neat thought experiment- good job on the simulation. The central thesis though that money attracts money, and without any feedbacks or corrections power and money tend to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, is pretty well understood, and intuitively obvious.

[alimw → fallingfrog]

A "preferential attachment" process can model this effect more simply.

[CptBland]

Interesting idea and nice implementation, but it seems like the premise presupposes the conclusion - money makes money.

[feborges]

You are definitely not an economist.