  Income and wealth allocation are foundational components of how economies
operate. These are complex distributions, and it is hard to get a real sense
for their dynamics using simplifications like average or median. One metric
that characterizes such distributions better is the Gini Index, which on one
extreme is 0, a completely equitable distribution, and on the other extreme is
1, the most inequitable, where a single individual has all the resources. Most
experts agree that viable economies cannot exist at either extreme, but
identifying a preferred range has historically been a matter of conflicting
political philosophies and emotional appeals. This research explores instead
whether there might be a theoretical and empirical basis for a preferred Gini
Index. Specifically, I explore a simple question: Before financial systems
existed, how were natural assets allocated? Intrinsic human attributes such as
height, strength, & beauty were the original measures of value in which human
social groups traded. Each of these attributes is distributed in a diverse and
characteristic way, which I propose has gradually established the acceptable
bounds of inequality through evolutionary psychology. I collect data for a wide
array of such traits and calculate a Gini Index for them in a novel way
assuming their magnitudes to be analogous to levels of financial wealth. The
values fall into a surprisingly intuitive pattern ranging from Gini=0.02 to
0.51. Income distributions in many countries are within the top half of this
range after taxes and transfers are applied (0.2 to 0.4). Wealth distributions
on the other hand are mostly outside of this range, with the United States at a
very inequitable 0.82. Additional research is needed on the interconnections
between this range of "natural" Gini Indexes and human contentment; and whether
any explicit policy goals should be considered to target them.
