3 ms·

> This tells me that having debt and no way to reliably pay it off is a really bad situation to be in. How do you get that from this model? In this model it's

by bko 4y ago

> This tells me that having debt and no way to reliably pay it off is a really bad situation to be in. How do you get that from this model? In this model it's equally as likely to go from -50 to 50 as it is to go from 100 to 150. What I get from this model is there may be natural discrepancies in wealth not necessarily attributable to a systematic bias. It's what Taleb likes to call Mediocristan vs Extremistan. The tallest person won't be 100 times taller than the median person, but the richest person may be well over 100 times richer than the median person. https://albertoguerrero.net/mediocristan-vs-extremistan/ https://albertoguerrero.net/mediocristan-vs-extremistan/

roenxi 4y ago
> In this model it's equally as likely to go from -50 to 50 as it is to go from 100 to 150. It isn't. You can see that the distribution isn't symmetric, that the individual bars aren't random walks and the equations used are explained down below the graphs.
- Applejinx 4y ago
  I think by definition it is, but people assume because it is, that means the distribution will be relatively sane. The whole problem is that it's just as likely to go from -50 to 50 as it is to go from 100 to 150, but this does NOT in any way change the fact that actors will exist within the system that end up at 1000 for no good reason, causing lots of other actors to be at -50 for no good reason. The fact that it's just as likely for one of 'em to randomly get lucky and start surging up to 1000, as it is for the actor at 1000 to go to 2000, is not the point. Point being, it's not about merit, it's about the automatic emergence of that distribution when it's not warranted and is in fact harmful. (assuming that the points being awarded in an economic model have anything to do with existence and the ability to function, create and innovate versus being stifled and unable to execute on ideas)

by bko 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

> In this model it's equally as likely to go from -50 to 50 as it is to go from 100 to 150. It isn't. You can see that the distribution isn't symmetric, that the individual bars aren't random walks and the equations used are explained down below the graphs.

Applejinx 4y ago
I think by definition it is, but people assume because it is, that means the distribution will be relatively sane. The whole problem is that it's just as likely to go from -50 to 50 as it is to go from 100 to 150, but this does NOT in any way change the fact that actors will exist within the system that end up at 1000 for no good reason, causing lots of other actors to be at -50 for no good reason. The fact that it's just as likely for one of 'em to randomly get lucky and start surging up to 1000, as it is for the actor at 1000 to go to 2000, is not the point. Point being, it's not about merit, it's about the automatic emergence of that distribution when it's not warranted and is in fact harmful. (assuming that the points being awarded in an economic model have anything to do with existence and the ability to function, create and innovate versus being stifled and unable to execute on ideas)