[samhw]

> I have never ever read that anywhere. One could argue that rich people provide more value to society and then should be prioritise in some circumstances but what you are writing seems very unfounded.

Nor have I. It's such a remarkably stupid statement that it strikes me as stupid in itself to think anyone should be so stupid as to believe it.

It's also nothing whatsoever to do with expected utility theory (I don't know where they did get it from). 'Utility monsters' - per Rawls - are a valid objection; 'money monsters' are not, for the very reason that marginal economic gain is not equivalent to marginal gain in happiness/utility, nor would anyone think it is.