A Model Economy Proves The Statistical Bias of Capitalism

My model economy programs use stochastic (i.e., equal chance) methods with economic agents who own equal amounts of wealth initially. Economic agents follow the following simple paradigm: 

1. Agents make investments.
2. Agents make monetary exchanges.
3. Agents receive returns on investment.

Answer: According to the model,                        

• The top 1% will own 35% of the wealth                       
• The top 5% will own 64% of the wealth                       
• The top 10% will own 75% of the wealth                       
• The top 20% will own 84% of the wealth                       
• The bottom 60% will own 5% of the wealth                       
• The bottom 40% will own .013% of the wealth 

Let me make a few more observations about capitalism as illuminated by the model economy: 

1. The investment process itself causes wealth inequality for the entire population. Moshe Levy of the Jerusalem School of Business proved that success in investing was independent of investment ability for the wealthiest people. My paradigm generalizes this idea for the whole economy because it takes trade into account, and because it shows that all people are investors. 
2. If people are equal in every respect, and if they can make even the most basic decisions to increase their wealth, then a wealth distribution such as the one I have described has to develop. This distribution appears in every real free market capitalist economy
3. All members of an economy are investors. Even though people at the bottom get most of their money through labor income, they still have to invest at the same rate as the wealthiest people if they are going to maintain their relative wealth (i.e., their piece of the pie). An example of how an ordinary person invests could be: a person pays someone to remodel their kitchen, and then their house is sold for a profit or loss when taking the original house cost plus the remodeling cost into account.
4. The neo liberal idea that if the trade rate increases, then the wealth inequality decreases is true, but it doesn't work well in a real economy. If there were no hierarchy (bosses and workers), then neo liberalism would work (but the environment would be damaged since increasing the investment rate increases consumption proportionally). The hierarchy's effect on increasing wealth inequality far outweighs trade's ability to decrease wealth inequality.
5. The vast majority of wealth inequality is caused by the hierarchy (bosses and workers). However, it would be impractical to remove the intermediary agents between investors and producers because economies have large numbers of people, and single people would have great difficulty making exchanges with tens of thousands of people.
6. Progressive taxation is the best way to reduce wealth inequality in a free market capitalist system. The easiest way to do this is to tax the income of the wealthy, but a wealth tax would work too. Taxation though, has to redistribute wealth, or it won't work.

There is much more to all of this, but I have run out of time tonight to explain it all. Thanks for taking the time to read this article.