Yes, power laws are everywhere. The exact shape of each distribution varies, however, and little is known empirically about the distribution of trading profits in financial markets.

▲

amelius an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah if you look at the Boltzmann Wealth Model, where every actor gives away 1 dollar to a random person, and you repeat this, then if you start with an equal wealth distribution, you end up with an exponential wealth distribution. That shows how strong exponential curves are :) A few "lucky" individuals become very wealthy, while the vast majority of people end up with very little or nothing.

The effect is so strong that I'm starting to wonder if we should have laws against power laws, like we have in engineering when we try to make things stable.

▲

Balgair 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I mean, do we want the economy to be stable?

Not in a 'oh the rich don't so they control the media and so we don't' sorta way. But like in a 'lets educate people on the pluses and minuses, debate a while, and then come to an informed conclusion' sorta way.

Like, deep down, does the average person actually want a stable economy? Because it seems to me that there is an even split historically between the folks that want stability and a little patch of land and weekly rhythms, and the folks that just want to drunkenly burn couches in the street every full moon, or some such thing.

Not to be glib here at all. I like, would actually like to know the answer. Sorry if this comes off the cuff seeming.

	▲	pstuart 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I have a dumbed down version of this question as variant of the Voight-Kampff test (Bladerunner) that goes like this. You have 2 choice for how the world is shaped, pick 1: A. You have a modest but comfortable home, a job that pays you enough so that you have what you need and can afford occasional luxuries (e.g., an annual holiday abroad), have good health insurance, access to education and childcare, etc. Everybody else has the same thing, and because of this you live in communities where the arts flourish because nobody has to worry about becoming homeless or destitute. B. You live in magnificent mansion, one of dozens you own around the world. You have more money then you could ever spend in a lifetime (even recklessly). Your homes are staffed with obedient servants who cater to your every desire. I mean anything. You own them. Your mansions are on palatial estates with secure walls and guards to keep out the rabble outside -- who fight for scraps and are desperate enough to do any kind of work to keep your factories humming and printing cash. I wouldn't hesitate to choose A because that's a world I'd love to live in and the world of B horrifies me. I don't say this as virtue signaling, it's my innate reaction. I think that a significant portion of the population would love to choose B. And in some ways, some already have.

▲

bee_rider 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Sigmoid wealth tax maybe?

	▲	trgn 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		that's what progressive taxation is