I can use this background: Following the utilitarian principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number – economic inequality is problematic. A house that provides less utility to a millionaire as a summer home than it would to a homeless family of five, is an example of reduced "distributive efficiency" within society, that decreases marginal utility of wealth and thus the sum total of personal utility. An additional dollar spent by a poor person will go to things providing a great deal of utility to that person, such as basic necessities like food, water, and healthcare; while, an additional dollar spent by a much richer person will very likely go to luxury items providing relatively less utility to that person. Thus, the marginal utility of wealth per person ("the additional dollar") decreases as a person becomes richer. From this standpoint, for any given amount of wealth in society, a society with more equality will have higher aggregate utility. Some studies[2][32] have found evidence for this theory, noting that in societies where inequality is lower, population-wide satisfaction and happiness tend to be higher.  Now, I have a new situation: Finland has one of the lowest economic inequality in the world. Finland's neighbor Russia has a different story. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia's economic inequality soared to the point that it has now one of the highest economic inequality in the world. John and Keith are residents of Finland. While John is rich, Keith is not so fortunate - he is poor. Similarly, David and Greg are residents of Russia. While David is rich, Greg is in poverty.  Answer this question please: Would Greg have larger or smaller marginal utility than David?

larger