I don’t think this is as good a model as you or the oop seem to think it is. Nobody is under the impression that you can make even by buying and selling random things. And gambling your money against other people isn’t something people can afford to do unless the already have money to live comfortably. Real people have fixed needs they have to buy and usually a fixed value they can create to make money.

I don’t a model that doesn’t share any similarities with the system can be used to prove that inequality is baked into the system. I don’t mean that it isn’t, but I couldn’t in good conscience claim so based on this alone. Please keep your standards for evidence high yall.

Also the article completely misses the reason why wealth accumulates in the model. It has nothing to do with compound ratios being confusing or the amount one can afford to wager. This is simply a normal distribution with flipped axes and a bottom cap of 0. Inequality arises even if you change the game so that richer people give more when they lose and receive less when they win.

If it’s not a good model, then you are welcome to pick it apart. However, the study that applied it for the 2017 paper in Scientific American found that it matches observed data about our economy stunningly well when applied.

As the author of that study was quoted here saying, the simple Yard Sale Model here can’t begin to explain a complex economy, but its function is like an X-ray to cut through the complexity to see the bones of the thing.

In any case, we know empirically that Trickle Up is the actual effect of the capitalist system. If there’s a model that can explain the mechanism more accurately, I’d be happy to hear it.

Scientific American isn’t an academic journal and there’s no paper about this published in 2017. There’s a Scientific American article about it written in 2019 though. I think you’re referring to the part in the article that says it matched real world data remarkably after they modified it in 2017.

I don’t think this model is an x-ray that reveals the bones of the system, as its premise about how it works is plainly inaccurate. Maybe scientists can gain actual insight by studying it further but I don’t think drawing conclusions such as the title on social media is healthy.

At best the model teaches why gambling is a bad idea even if the chances are perfectly even. At worst someone looks at this and decides all anti capitalist evidence must be flimsy

Yes, I misrembered the year. And while Scientific American is not a journal, at least the article explained the work in some depth and provided evidence. Here, you’ve given your opinion which boils down to, “No, it doesn’t.” Totally valid, as opinions go, but not very edifying to us readers.

It is not an opinion that people don’t earn money by randomly trading with others, wtf are talking about??

I’m actually triggered about this