It has an equivalent to wireheading - namely hyperinflation.

This is a difference to utility. Not a similarity. Wireheading gives low utility (for most plausible utility functions) but huge measures for other things that are not utility, like 'happiness'. It is the reason it would be utterly absurd to say "The federal government can print arbitrarily large amounts of utility".

And we have maximisers of share value - namely companies.

You can approximate (or legislate) companies that way and. It wouldn't be quite as inaccurate as saying "we have homo economicus" but it'd be a similar error.

So:

The statements following "So" do not follow from the statements preceding it. The preceding statements are respectively negatively relevant and irrelevant. So "So" does not fit between them.

money is a kind of utility - though obviously not the utility of people.

There is a relationship between money and utility. It is not an "is a kind of" relationship. (If Nyan takes a crack at explaining what the actual relationship is between fungible resources and utility it will most likely be worth reading.)