IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/auu/dpaper/676.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Inadequacy of Friedman and Savage’s Critique of Diminishing Marginal Utility

Author

Listed:
  • William Coleman

Abstract

In a well-known paper Friedman and Savage (1948) advocated a utility function in which the marginal utility of wealth is increasing in wealth above some critical level of wealth. In order to win a reception for this novel conception of the utility function Friedman and Savage took some pains in the first part of their paper to try to shake the grip that the 'law of diminishing marginal utility ' had on the mind of their fellow economists. To that end they criticised a classic 'elemental argument' in favour marginal utility being diminishing in wealth. Friedman and Savage's attempt to reconcile the rich man's avoidance of pain with increasing marginal utility is inadequate. We find that the 'elemental argument' that concludes in favour of diminishing marginal utility - on the basis of a comparison of rich and poor - is valid.

Suggested Citation

  • William Coleman, 2012. "The Inadequacy of Friedman and Savage’s Critique of Diminishing Marginal Utility," CEPR Discussion Papers 676, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    • Handle: RePEc:auu:dpaper:676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cbe.anu.edu.au/researchpapers/CEPR/DP676.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:auu:dpaper:676. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cpanuau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.