Following my post of yesterday evening, Alex (@AlexSablay) suggested me to look at the Boltzman-Gibbs distribution (e.g. in Yakovenko & Rosser (2009)). There are indeed interesting ideas, and it looks it is more or less what we tried to do in our previous post
Again, I found that article hard to read, but at some point, it looks like they mention that the limiting distribution could be a discrete version that tends to the exponential distribution when the size of the population tends to infinity. Here we have 2000 people, so it should be possible to see it..
If we go for 100,000 rounds, the range of wealth is
so it is still hard to say about the upper bound… For the distribution of the wealth, at the end we obtain the following histogram
and the empirical cumulative distribution function is
Here the red line is the exponential distribution…
So, indeed, it seems that there is a limiting distribution, and it is the exponential one… And the good thing with stable distributions is that they are some sort of fixed point : if we start with that distribution, we should not move (too much) from is. For instance, if we start with an exponential distribution
x = rexp(n,1/init)
x = x*init/mean(round(x))
x = round(x)
the range of the wealth remains very stable
as well as the density (again, it is a (symmetric)-kernel based estimate, with a multiplicative bias in 0, and some negative values)
If we plot Lorenz curve, we can see that inequalities do not change here
In that case, it is well known that the Lorenz curve is u\mapsto u+(1-u)\log(1-u) and Gini coefficient is exactly 1/2.
Cite this blog post
Arthur Charpentier (2020, January 19). More on Random dollars for everyone ! Freakonometrics. Retrieved February 29, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.58079/ovef