3 ms·
Saying it's an axiom is correct - economists generally pose this as a fact, but where would we end up if it was the opposite, if the utility of money rose with
by HarryHirsch 5y ago
Saying it's an axiom is correct - economists generally pose this as a fact, but where would we end up if it was the opposite, if the utility of money rose with the amount you have?
In other words: if the diminishing utility axiom were true we could start redistributing now, but one would predict the money owners would be against it.
It's proof by contradiction - everyone knows money is political power.
- skadiddle 5y ago> if the diminishing utility axiom were true we could start redistributing now, but one would predict the money owners would be against it. If something has diminishing *marginal* utility if doesn't follow that a third party has a right to seize it(property rights, different/tangential topic). Therefore this: > It's proof by contradiction - everyone knows money is political power. Is an inconsequential conclusion.