4 ms·

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 nat

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.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        Inflation is pretty key to your argument. If inflation matches the return, you haven't gotten anywhere and everyone would _not_ be wealthier. So putting it beyond your argument doesn't really make any sense. > it's not as though more money will make them poorer If I have 1000 dollars today and then have 2000 dollars in 10 years, but the dollar itself has dropped down to below 50% it's initial value, how exactly am I not poorer?
        4y ago
- 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.

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.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        Inflation is pretty key to your argument. If inflation matches the return, you haven't gotten anywhere and everyone would _not_ be wealthier. So putting it beyond your argument doesn't really make any sense. > it's not as though more money will make them poorer If I have 1000 dollars today and then have 2000 dollars in 10 years, but the dollar itself has dropped down to below 50% it's initial value, how exactly am I not poorer?
        4y ago
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.