[vetleen]

This is a fun experiment, but in real life transactions create wealth. If a buyer doesn’t feel that the widget she's been offered at a certain price is worth more than the price then she won't buy it. Similarily, if the seller feels the widget is worth more than the price, he won't sell. Therefore, a transaction means wealth wads created since both parties' wealth has increased after the transaction.

I’m pointing this out because it is quite a common misunderstanding that a certain amount of wealth exists in the world, and that it is a zero sum game, where someone has to loose every time someone wins.

[capisce]

How does buying a can of pringles or a pack of cigarettes create wealth for the buyer?

[juanre]

Economists call it "increasing utility". When, in a free market with perfect information, you part with your money in exchange of a good it is assumed to be because the good has higher utility for you than the money it costs. A transaction increases utility for the two parts concerned, otherwise it will not happen.

[kriro]

You expect to be better off after the exchange (which is precisely it happens). You can however regret your decision so ex ante and ex post have to be differentiated.

[asgard1024]

You can try to improve that model, but I would bet that you will get rising inequality as well, it will just be masked by the growth ad infinitum. And unlike in the Norvig's model, in your model the inequality will not be bounded.

Of course, in the real world, people need upkeep (which could be modeled as a fixed amount subtracting from their wealth over time). So not all transactions are net positive, because at some point you have no choice as to whether or not to buy food. Which would even exacerbate the effects of inequality for low income people.