The source cited, Benhockers book (http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Eco...), was a great introduction to "complexity economics". However, if you are more interested in the actual work, head to amazon and buy Growing Artificial Societies (http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Artificial-Societies-Science-A...) or head to Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=8sXENe8QrmYC&dq=growing...).

I am sorry, but this is a serious stretch--comparing the results of this simulation with a startup situation. I don't see a link to the original study, but my question with simulations and AI results is to ask to see your wastebasket--tell me also what did not work. It would be a little surprising if twiddling with some of the parameters in this approach didn't markedly change the result.

I agree that it's a stretch, but the idea that wealth inequality is an emergent property of economies makes sense to me, due to the simple fact that money invested grows exponentially. If you make more than you need to survive, and you invest the money you don't need to survive, that money grows exponentially. You'll get wealthier and wealthier over time, while someone who makes just enough to survive will never "break out" of that way of living.

I agree with you but, what is your point?

"Overall, better agents fared better"

So no need to forget about it :), if our fate does not put us on the path to a big sugar mountain, I am sure there are other smaller sugar hills that we can find on our own :)