5 ms·

I’m not an expert at all, but I think I know how to answer your question in the somewhat mathy terms you’ve framed your it in. I think the main argument is to g

by egwynn 8y ago

I’m not an expert at all, but I think I know how to answer your question in the somewhat mathy terms you’ve framed your it in. I think the main argument is to get rid of a bi- (or multi-) modal distribution and move to a unimodal normal distribution that’s taller and narrower. That way you wouldn’t have a few people with tons of money while most people have no money. You’d instead of a lot of people who mostly have comparable spending power.

snappyTertle 8y ago
That's assuming the area under the curve remains constant, when it doesn't. Redistribution will make the total wealth shrink.
- egwynn 8y ago
  What sort of graph were you picturing? I was imagining wealth x population, in which case “area under the curve” would be “total population”, and wouldn’t change under a redistribution operation. I don’t know whether your claim about total wealth is true or not, but it seems like it relates to a slightly different idea than I was expressing.