Except that, in the real-world, wealthy people will spend more money than the poor. I wonder what we outcume would be if each agent spends a random amount of money that depends on their current wealth (say, anything between $1 and 5% of the total).
Also wealthy people have much bigger gains from investment (what money they already have), which will ultimately cause the distribution to be much more exponential than the one from the simulation.
I suspect giving away a proportion would have no significant effect on the result, because poor and wealthy have still the same likelihood of receiving money.
True, but typically he will spend more than _one_ single person with a dollar.
I created a gist (https://gist.github.com/lou1306/1041ed6cd4eed433cfabf45f666b...) to try and prove my point a little better: when people are only allowed to pay $1 to one another, the resulting distribution is quite unfair (as shown in the original post).
However, when payments can be as big as, say, 2-10% of the player's wealth, there is a noticeable decrease in the Gini coefficient.
