Sunday, October 26, 2008

Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics of Wealth Condensation

In the last Blog's comments BB-Idaho asked what "Redistribution Upwards" would be called.
"It has been said (rather ignorantly) that wealth redistribution downward is socialism. What are we going to call the last 30 years of redistribution upwards?"

Perhaps Applied Physics may have some observations of use.




Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics of Wealth Condensation

"We analyze wealth condensation for a wide class of stochastic economy models on the basis of the economic analog of thermodynamic potentials, termed transfer potentials. The economy model is based on three common transfers modes of wealth: random transfer, profit proportional to wealth and motivation of poor agents to work harder. The economies never reach steady state. Wealth condensation is the result of stochastic tunneling through a metastable transfer potential. In accordance with reality, both wealth and income distribution transiently show Pareto tails for high-income subjects. For metastable transfer potentials, exponential wealth condensation is a robust feature. For example with 10% annual profit 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth after 50 years. The time to reach such a strong wealth condensation is a hyperbolic function of the annual profit rate."
---Dieter Braun
Ludwig Maximilians University München, Germany
http://www.sciencedirect.com
(by the way it won't let me copy any part of the actual article)

My Okie Abstract goes something like this:
The rich get richer until there is nothing to be had and then it all collapses.


Parable:
Once a month the U.S. Army paid its troops in cash.
Before they handed out the cash they deducted anything you owed the army for lost equipments, fines, etc., then they deducted what you had set aside to send home to the wife, then they deducted what you owed the NCO or EM or Officers club from last month, and then they gave you what was left. Crap games, poker, whores, bars, paying of loans and basic entertainment ate up the rest generally within days or weeks. From that point on you lived on credit at the EM, NCO, etc. clubs or borrowed from the barracks loan shark. At the end of the month the cycle was repeated thus the equilibrium was restored.


"First, the skewed distribution of wealth has persisted, and it has become more concentrated at the top of the distribution over time. In the early 1960s, the average level of wealth held by the wealthiest fifth of all households was 15 times that of the overall median; by 2004 it was over
23 times. As would be expected, the distribution in the shares of wealth held by wealth
class is very unequal. The share of all wealth held by the bottom 80% was just 15.3% in
2004—down from 19.1% in the early 1960s—and, that 3.8% share of wealth shifted to
the top 5% of households."
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/swa06-ch05-wealth.pdf

Trouble is in the real world the redistribution gets out of whack and goes on too long, most generally historically upwards. Redistributions downward have been due to catastrophe or revolution. Equilibrium is obtained only in passing and is seldom notice. Wealth accumulation is not an evil, until it becomes wealth hording. That is a recipe for catastrophe for all sides.

4 comments:

BB-Idaho said...

If we go back to 1776, we note some historic writing:
US Declaration of Independence
Common Sense-Thomas Payne
Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire
-EdwardGibbon
The Wealth of Nations-Adam Smith
..all of which remain pertinent in one way or other. Most pertinent to our time is Smith, who defined
free market capitalism for the first time. Probably less known, Smith in the same work "invented" progressive taxation:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
..considering his last sentnece, shall we define Smith as a capitalist or marxist? Or like thoughtful folk, recognise the gray areas which abound in economic theory (as well as the human condition in general).

BB-Idaho said...

"We conclude that the concentration of wealth is natural and inevitable, and is periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution. In this view all economic history is the slow heartbeat of the social organism, a vast systole and diastole of concentrating wealth and compulsive redistribution."
-Will Durant
..sounds like thermodynamic equilibrium, sort of...

drlobojo said...

Yep, it has been said and done over and over. I look at the last 40 years and wonder why it took so long to even "see" the current redistribution. If Joe Six-Pack ever figures this out, it won't be a peaceful turn around. The current crop flying the Repulican banner are risking their very existance trying to keep the status quo.

drlobojo said...

Here is a woman who is ignorant, uneducated, and self serving and works for CNN. I guess anyone who wants a decent wage for a decent living will be a Marxist or Communist. So long as we educate our children to have thoughts no deeper than a bumpersticker or longer than a sound bite we will continue to be brain washed slaves.

From CNN's Emily Sherman
Sen. Biden had an interview with Barbara West Thursday.
(CNN)— An interview Sen. Joe Biden did with an Orlando television station is making headlines Sunday, after the reporter asked if Sen. Barack Obama's now famous conversation with 'Joe the plumber' about 'spreading the wealth' made the Democratic nominee seem like he was adopting Marxist principles.

"You may recognize this famous quote," WFTV Anchor Barbara West told Biden on Thursday. "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs, that's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden laughed himself out of the unusually tough interview asking in response, "are you joking? Is this a joke?"

"No," responds West.

"Is that a real question?" Biden continues.

"That's a question." West said.

With a chuckle, Biden firmly tells West, "He is not spreading the wealth around. He's talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have."

"We think middle class tax payers should get a break, that's what we think," Biden added. "That's a ridiculous comparison with all due respect."

The sad thing is that Ms. West will now be a hero to some and actually will believe she has hit upon a truth.