[byearthithatius]

No, according to economic theory, the law of diminishing marginal utility generally does not apply to money. Please cite a source that says having more AUM somehow decreases potential yield. Sounds retarded. People say stuff that needs evidence then say obviously like its a source.

[dmoy]

I think GP doesn't mean "returns" as in investment returns. I think they're talking about like... living. The utility of buying a second (or tenth) house/car/whatever is drastically lower return than the utility of buying your first one.

[atmavatar]

However, the utility of money starts to drastically increase once you reach a tipping point where it can start allowing you to wield real political power.

The graph of monetary utility may look like a logarithmic graph at first glance, but that's just because it's more like a C1 + (x-C2)^3 graph where you haven't followed x far enough to the right.

[JetSpiegel]

Eh, it's not that linear.

Remember when Michael Bloomberg spent 500 million dollars to be on the Democratic debate, and Elizabeth Warren burned that money down with a single zinger?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD4csGWPo6o

[enragedcacti]

"The Marginal Utility of Income"

> We have thus confirmed the (cardinalist) assumption of nineteenth century economists that marginal utility of income declines with income.

https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp0784.pdf

People say stuff that needs evidence then say "according to economic theory" like its a source.

(fwiw I agree that this isn't a good argument for a log scale)