If you take a thousand people and you get them to play a trading game...

Fortunately the supply of money increases over time and we redistritube money on top of that.

You guys retarded or some shit?
Regression towards the mean. The distribution of dollars will be normal(bell curve). Forever too.

No it won't because eventually someone will run out of money and can't continue playing the game. If the game continues long enough (millions of years) statistically more and more people are going to lose all of their money, until there is only one person with money.

No it won't tardo, you can't keep playing once your coin is gone so.

>i have a dollar
>i give my dollar to my friend james
>i now have no money
>apparently i can no longer make money if i have no money
Thats not how the economy works you dingus

Yeah it is nigga. How your boss gonna pay you if he just lost all his money flipping coins dawg?

Ya mind just got blown.

It's a pretty stupid analogy for real economies.

Don't overthink it.

Literally all op's greentext says is "long enough." You explain how you arrived at your conclusion that "long enough" VASTLY underestimates the time it would take.

>lmao capitalism sucks look at this strawman
>that strawman is fucking shit holy shit your a brainlet
>STOP LOOKING AT THE STRAWMAN STOP LOOKING AT THE STRAWMAN STOP LOOKING AT THE STRAWMAN

Stop reading so much into each single post. I only posted and . I never argued that OP was a good analogy.

by taking a credit from someone else, me giving him a credit or by earning money in the meantime

This becomes true because individuals with no money are eliminated, and for each individual eliminated the odds of the 'survivors' continuing to survive grows.

Which is not how actual economics work
Losing all your money doesn't mean you no longer exist

Its not intended as a comprehensive model of economics ya mong, its a representative model of how power is distributed through a competitive hierarchy structure; even substituting individual capability for complete random chance ends with a clear dominant individual.

100% false

>its a representative model of how power is distributed through a competitive hierarchy structure; even substituting individual capability for complete random chance ends with a clear dominant individual
No, because it takes the pursuit of resources to be a zero-sum game. Some of the people would have to be minting new coins (adding value) for it to be anywhere close to accurate. Even then it would only represent power dynamics in a low-scarcity (capitalist) system. Most of history could be represented by that game if coins were being destroyed about as fast as they were being created, because players had to destroy coins to stay in the game.

Also, players can't stay in the game forever, but can create other players.

The thing about explaining complex issues with simple analogies is that they don't offer basis for people to think out the real issues for themselves. You lull yourself into a sense of understanding and confort that keeps you from digging deeper.

OP presents the greentext as if the probabilistic fact in the rules of his scenario is some mind-blowing outcome, with the added implication this is at all reflected in the 1% figures and all that. It is vastly understated in the post just how much time it would take by brushing over how incredibly long it would take for this outcome to come close by only stating "long enough" as if the statement holds any meaning or relevance after learning of the time needed

>he posted on the humanities board
are you retarded?

What? This is a really stupid analogy

You should take this thread to Veeky Forums someone will set up calculation to see how many tosses it takes.

It doesn't work if an economy has growth (which in capitalism has been pretty much constant), and more wealth gets created to be traded.

However markets that have no or small growth tend to move towards few people owning most of the wealth. In the early middle ages for example, when land could be bought and sold, most areas ended up with a few big land owners and a lot of landless nobles.

To be fair today we also have pic related but it has more to do with wealth creation and a low level of redistribution.

This nigga gonna lend his own boss money so that his boss can pay him.

And I'm the dumb one...

I almost did that (in the sense of buying a partnership in the failing company), then I caught myself.

>Regression towards the mean
Why do you retards act like it's a hard rule of the universe ?

Why would it not work if money is created ?
Losing all your money usually means you can't join the game anymore, and often it does mean you die.
Some people do get money by chance or get loans, but most of the time the poorest have the hardest time getting money.
And even if you do get a new dollar you have a 50% chance to lose it again and face bad odds to restart once again.

But if we consider the real world instead of this model it doesn't get much better.
On one side it's true that most societies have put limits on impoverishment, because creating masses of people with nothing to lose and no stake in the game is dangerous.
But on the other side, all the objections that you guys raise are about mechanisms that favour the rich more than the poor : value creation brings more money to those who already have more money; it then lets them play more, while the poor's only return on their own small income is continued survival or additional consumption; and contrary to the model the stakes can be upped, no limit : the richest can make the others go all in, which reduces starkly the time needed to get very high concentration of money.

Even if it is still 50/50 it's only 5% false you fuckwit

This is only true if bankruptcy prevents you from playing the game, or if having more money than your opponent gives you an advantage. Otherwise, the game does not converge to anything.

This is an example of a multi-dimensional state space markov chain. You can run this simulation yourself using R.

The Law of Large Numbers applies to sample means, not to stochastic processes.

This is the correct answer. However, if negative money is allowed, we dont see this convergence

The Iron Law of Oligarchy and Pareto distribution are a broad historical trend

Technology (especially computers) has compressed time

not if people can get into the negative (debt) which creates a vicious cycle

Assuming people with 0 money left are eliminated, this sounds right. The proof would be something analogous to the proof that a simple 1D random walk crosses every point.

But it's exactly what's happening. As society becomes increasingly technical, the majority of value created will be by the savy. And increasingly, our system rewards innovation rather than effort.

Add to that that the personal finance of the average citizen is absolutely dismal, and is increasingly resulting in huge amounts of debt that's incompetently paid, you have the necessary pieces to create a society of intelligent professionals ruling debt slaves.

Funny that high IQ individuals tend to cluster in the same ZIP codes.

>TFW explained economics to other people in a settlers of catan game about supply and demand as well as how the free market works
The game triggers people who I play it with now.

Its true, but to getting to the point where only one person has all the money will take a fuck ton of time.
It's pretty easy to visualize really.
At the first round of coinflips, 50% people will lose their money.
500 people in 2nd round, they'll have to lose twice in row to lose all of their money. After 3th round 25% of the 500 have lost their money. The less people left, the more time/coinflips it's going to take for a person to lose their money.

It is a statistical inevitability. Players can't play the game if they have no money.