5 ms·

Sure, low expectations may contribute, but Norway also has the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, with a value of US$1 trillion, effectively investing US$18

Sure, low expectations may contribute, but Norway also has the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, with a value of US$1 trillion, effectively investing US$184,322.62 for each and every Norwegian citizen. That can't hurt, and it is maddening that the US entirely lacks a sovereign wealth fund for its citizens. Come on.

stefanfisk 4y ago
what about the other 3 countries?
Bostonian 4y ago
Norway is a special case with huge oil wealth relative to its population. The U.S. cannot sensibly have a "sovereign wealth fund" before it extinguishes the national debt, which it continues to increase with large budget deficits.
- Maursault 4y ago
  We can do both. If every US citizen was required to pay a one-time tax of $200 towards the fund, that'd be close to $70B, which is a good start. At a conservative 5% annual return, the fund would begin growing by $3.5B/yr. After 3 generations, or 60 years, the fund would probably be over half a trillion dollars and increasing faster than ever. In another 3 generations, just part of the return could pay everyones' taxes and still have plenty left to keep growing the fund.
  - strix_varius 4y ago
    This is some truly magical thinking, in which there's a magic box that citizens can put $200 into, once, and then later expect to withdraw $100k out of!
    - Maursault 4y ago
      You weren't paying close enough attention, so you have constructed a straw man. No one alive sees a return on the $200 investment, but for a lousy $200, or less than 55¢ a day for a year, your great great great grandrelatives won't need to pay taxes, and their great great great grandrelatives won't need to work or ever worry about housing and feeding themselves.
      - strix_varius 4y ago
        I'm sorry but that simply isn't how money works. If it were, then anyone whose great -grandfather set aside $20 in 1950 would get a huge windfall today.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        Maursault 4y ago
        Your $20 invested at 5% for 70 years with compounding interest would only build to ~$600. Contrary to this straw man, I was suggesting a principle of $70B invested with compounding annual interest over 140 and 280 years, which would build to ~$64T and ~$60Q respectively. Assuming the US population nearly doubles in 14 generations to 600M, there would be $100M per citizen in the sovereign wealth fund, which at 5% interest, would generate $5M per citizen annually.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        Do you expect that ~$64T to go as far in 140 years as today? Maybe it will go as far as $70B does today. Maybe it won’t even go that far.
        Maursault 4y ago
        Inflation would get pretty ridiculous if the poorest individuals, a group of newborns, were all worth $5M each. But interest rates will increase right along with the increase in inflation. But as I wasn't arguing about inflation, it is beyond my argument. Regardless, everyone will be wealthier; it's not as though more money will make them poorer, if that is what you are suggesting.
  - matt-attack 4y ago
    By this logic, you alone should be able to take $200 and ingest it into a family trust and have the expectation that in 4 generations your distant progeny will find it lucrative. Not necessarily saying you’re wrong, but just that you alone are free to do so today. Don’t really need the government to help you. All you’re really advocating is that each individual should follow your lead and do the same. Again no real need to get the government involved.
  - Qem 4y ago
    Good luck keeping 5% annual returns long term, under the looming demographic transition/crash. The returns are a function of economic growth, and with a shrinking customer base, not many businesses should get sustained growth to fuel investments with large returns.
krapp 4y ago
> and it is maddening that the US entirely lacks a sovereign wealth fund for its citizens. Come on But that would be socialism and socialism is bad. Better to have everyone pull themselves up by their bootstraps than have them be debased by a government that actually provides for their welfare, like they're babies. Americans aren't babies, Americans are cowboys. Cowboys don't need a sovereign wealth fund or a nanny state, they just need a Bible, a gun and a good horse. All of which they're welcome to purchase at free market value.
- mech987 4y ago
  You're free to give as much extra taxes to the government as you want to help reduce the debt and get us closer to that sovereign wealth fund. I'd appreciate it.
dagw 4y ago
The article is mostly about Finland, which doesn't have a large sovereign wealth fund.

stefanfisk 4y ago

what about the other 3 countries?

Bostonian 4y ago

Norway is a special case with huge oil wealth relative to its population. The U.S. cannot sensibly have a "sovereign wealth fund" before it extinguishes the national debt, which it continues to increase with large budget deficits.

Maursault 4y ago
We can do both. If every US citizen was required to pay a one-time tax of $200 towards the fund, that'd be close to $70B, which is a good start. At a conservative 5% annual return, the fund would begin growing by $3.5B/yr. After 3 generations, or 60 years, the fund would probably be over half a trillion dollars and increasing faster than ever. In another 3 generations, just part of the return could pay everyones' taxes and still have plenty left to keep growing the fund.
- strix_varius 4y ago
  This is some truly magical thinking, in which there's a magic box that citizens can put $200 into, once, and then later expect to withdraw $100k out of!
  - Maursault 4y ago
    You weren't paying close enough attention, so you have constructed a straw man. No one alive sees a return on the $200 investment, but for a lousy $200, or less than 55¢ a day for a year, your great great great grandrelatives won't need to pay taxes, and their great great great grandrelatives won't need to work or ever worry about housing and feeding themselves.
    - strix_varius 4y ago
      I'm sorry but that simply isn't how money works. If it were, then anyone whose great -grandfather set aside $20 in 1950 would get a huge windfall today.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Maursault 4y ago
        Your $20 invested at 5% for 70 years with compounding interest would only build to ~$600. Contrary to this straw man, I was suggesting a principle of $70B invested with compounding annual interest over 140 and 280 years, which would build to ~$64T and ~$60Q respectively. Assuming the US population nearly doubles in 14 generations to 600M, there would be $100M per citizen in the sovereign wealth fund, which at 5% interest, would generate $5M per citizen annually.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        Do you expect that ~$64T to go as far in 140 years as today? Maybe it will go as far as $70B does today. Maybe it won’t even go that far.
        Maursault 4y ago
        Inflation would get pretty ridiculous if the poorest individuals, a group of newborns, were all worth $5M each. But interest rates will increase right along with the increase in inflation. But as I wasn't arguing about inflation, it is beyond my argument. Regardless, everyone will be wealthier; it's not as though more money will make them poorer, if that is what you are suggesting.
- matt-attack 4y ago
  By this logic, you alone should be able to take $200 and ingest it into a family trust and have the expectation that in 4 generations your distant progeny will find it lucrative. Not necessarily saying you’re wrong, but just that you alone are free to do so today. Don’t really need the government to help you. All you’re really advocating is that each individual should follow your lead and do the same. Again no real need to get the government involved.
- Qem 4y ago
  Good luck keeping 5% annual returns long term, under the looming demographic transition/crash. The returns are a function of economic growth, and with a shrinking customer base, not many businesses should get sustained growth to fuel investments with large returns.

krapp 4y ago

> and it is maddening that the US entirely lacks a sovereign wealth fund for its citizens. Come on But that would be socialism and socialism is bad. Better to have everyone pull themselves up by their bootstraps than have them be debased by a government that actually provides for their welfare, like they're babies. Americans aren't babies, Americans are cowboys. Cowboys don't need a sovereign wealth fund or a nanny state, they just need a Bible, a gun and a good horse. All of which they're welcome to purchase at free market value.

mech987 4y ago
You're free to give as much extra taxes to the government as you want to help reduce the debt and get us closer to that sovereign wealth fund. I'd appreciate it.

dagw 4y ago

The article is mostly about Finland, which doesn't have a large sovereign wealth fund.