Posted 2 months ago on Aug. 15, 2018, 7:24 p.m. EST by agkaiser
from Fredericksburg, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
T ≡ total wealth, valued in dollars.
M ≡ total money in existence. Must be no greater than T or it won't be worth it's face value. Well, the way ficticious capital works neo liberal economists would just appreciate the value in dollars of T, wouldn't they? In any case we can ignore M and just deal with the real thing itself.
U ≡ an economic unit. U may be a family, partnership, other close knit group or individual. It cannot be a corporation. Corporations or their stocks and/or bonds are owned by other economic units. [Un].
N ≡ the total count of U. A given U ≡ Un.
W ≡ average wealth: W=T/(NxU).
We will primarily consider T, U, N, W and n in the study of wealth distribution probabilities.
P ≡ net worth of a given U. Axiomatically, ∑ Pn = T.
To be determined:
What % T (or Pn; may be denominated in monitary units) must a Un possess to be considered very wealthy?
What % of NxU can be very wealth if everyone else has P = 0?
We won't consider negative P, [net debt] because to do so would introduce a singularity that would appear, if allowed, to introduce infinite wealth. Of course it wouldn't really be wealth. It would only be money.
I'll leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader. My readers, if any, are intelligent. You know how this must end.