The marginal utility of money is presumably diminishing for any entity. But the curve is stretched when you look at the whole of society (or any larger group) rather than an individual, for two reasons. 1. Having $1M isn't 1000 times as good as having $1K, but giving $1K to 1K people is about 1000 times as good as giving $1K to one person if all the people matter roughly equally. You're not moving so far along their utility curves. 2. There may be big projects that deliver lots of value at very high cost. (The fact that this is possible is basically a consequence of #1.)
I'm not sure this has very much to do with whether the Mint guys would have done better to keep going independently rather than taking the $170M, though.
I'm not sure this has very much to do with whether the Mint guys would have done better to keep going independently rather than taking the $170M, though.