It's unequivocally true, diminishing marginal utility of money is basically an axiom.
I'm simply stating that money does not have fewer uses as one gets more of it. Usually the person's scope changes to include new uses that were not previously possible. The important thing to note is that utility is being used in mixed definition here. Strictly speaking it's definition is happiness or satisfaction. The part about having less use doesn't necessarily match this.
Heck, this exact fact is the very reason why Bill Gates engages in philanthropy. He realizes that other people need the money more than he does.
"Money also has diminishing marginal utility, so as you accumulate more of it, at some point it has less use."
The additional money does not have less use. It's just not going to add as much to quality of life or dictate "life and death". There are still many uses for it, so of which may not be possible with lower amounts.
Yes, $10 buys the same Mcdonald's lunch regardless of how much money one has, but two people, one with $0 and one with $1bn in net worth will be excited about that lunch to very different degrees.
This thread in response to this, to point out that the use of money is not the same as the marginal utility.
"Money also has diminishing marginal utility, so as you accumulate more of it, at some point it has less use."
The additional money does not have less use. It's just not going to add as much to quality of life. There are still many uses for it.
You seem to be interpreting utility in terms of the quantity of things the money can be used for or in terms of the societal benefit that can be obtained from the money, it is not entirely clear.
This thread is in response to this, to point out that the use of money is not the same as the marginal utility. Its mot like having a bunch of money makes it less useful or have fewer uses.
Yes, but as I said above, in this case having use is defined relative to promoting your own satisfaction as a consumer.
I think you are trying to tease apart "utility" vs "use", but to have utility is the property of having use. It's a question of what the utility/use is in reference to, and for economists, that utility is in reference to preference satisfaction by the consumers.
I think, the idea that getting rich does not create a lot of additional joy from diminishing utility is one the best fairy tales ever invented.
It's diminishing marginal utility. Every single comment I've gotten disputing this either misinterprets the word "marginal" or the word "utility", I encourage all of y'all to take an economics course.
Edit: granted, there are a lot of observable situations that do indeed show diminishing marginal utility, but I think the concept is often too much taken at face value when actual data or analysis is scarce and the marginal utility might behave in a more complex way
That said, the empirical evidence is pretty overwhelming in favor of diminishing marginal utility of money, in addition to the fact that it just makes sense. Actual data on this phenomena is not actual as scarce as you seem to be suggesting.
I personally have found that there were times when the marginal utility of my additional wealth was growing as I could suddenly do things I could not do before... (while it other times it almost felt like 0)
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.
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.