This is some of the best economic modeling I've seen, period, so obviously it's NOT being done by economists 🤔

tl;dr Even in idealized conditions where everyone starts out on equal footing, and all transactions are fair, market economies will inevitably tend towards highly unequal wealth distribution (i.e. oligarchy), simply due to quirks of statistics. If anyone paid attention, this would be the end of all talk of "meritocracy".

This also points to the necessity of organizing our lives on some other basis than that of self-interested transactions...*even if those transactions take the form of barter, timebanking, etc.* Those forms of transaction might be more inclusive, but the statistics apply just the same.

As Saint Billie Holiday sings, "Them that's got shall get/them that's not shall lose..." and unless and until we start approaching our livlihoods in a *very different way* that will remain the case.

@GuerillaOntologist in Republic, Plato claims that the seeds of tyranny, which encourages the drone's desire for a champion is the socio-economic divide btw the rich & the poor. This divide depends on oligarchies in which the wealthy, driven by their greed, buy properties from those who cannot keep them, or lend money with the property as security, & become richer. This drives the exploited into debt and disenfranchisement, creating a class of drones. The seeds are always found in oligarchies.

Therefore, any resistance to tyranny relies on preventing the structural inequalities that are characteristic of oligarchies.

That's what I think is so interesting about this research, it shows that even in a situation with zero structural inequalities, a system based on transactions between self-interested agents will always lead to oligarchy. The only way to avoid total oligarchy is constant transfers between the wealthier-than-average and the poorer-than-average, but that trend is always there, so long as there are *any variations* in wealth at all.

@GuerillaOntologist thoroughly interesting, seems almost too simple to be true (though I think it is).

I swear physicists are better economists than economists, ecologists are better economists than economists, every other academic discipline has more valuable things to add to the study of economics than the propaganda that is normally called economics

I did a BA in econ, and spent the majority of my time knowing that most of what I was learning was BS, and saying as much, and having all but one of my profs poo-poo my critiques. I mean, I knew something besides science was going on when I said "but the assumptions your model is built on are demonstrably false" and got as a reply "Milton Friedman says assumptions don't matter." 🤔

Oh yeah. I mean, I chose that major specifically so I could "know my enemy," so I did kind of know what was coming...but I wasn't prepared for how nonchalantly my liberal profs could just accept such obviously crazy shit...and believe it enough to teach it with a straight face. Needless to say, I couldn't bring myself to pursue grad studies.

I've learned far, far more about how the economy actually functions since exiting the academy.

Sign in to participate in the conversation is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.

If you are interested in joining our community, please review our Bylaws and Code of Conduct. If you agree with them, you may apply for membership on our instance via this link

Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here