4 ms·

If you have $1, you have to give it away, but you receive less than $1 back on average (because some people have no money to give you). So the poor get poorer.

If you have $1, you have to give it away, but you receive less than $1 back on average (because some people have no money to give you). So the poor get poorer. But wait, by the same argument the rich get poorer and this simulates a system of stochastic handouts to the very poorest - those with $0. Alternatively, it simulates a lottery. From the point of view of any individual, every turn you spend $1 on a lottery ticket and get a prize of between 0 and $99. Viewed that way, it's not surprising that some people end up rich in the simulation.

IshKebab 9y ago
The poor have an advantage under this system - they always have an equal change of receiving money but sometimes they don't have to pay any.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Considering that in order to get this advantage you have to at one point end up with $0, it seems like a bit of a phyrric victory
  - cwp 9y ago
    Not at all. If you want to become wealthy, being broke is way better than being in debt.
    - rtpg 9y ago
      If you know you'll either be broke or in debt, sure. But the alternative is making sure nobody's broke
leddt 9y ago
Ah, the lottery analogy does make it more obvious to me. Thanks!