Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

A US Sovereign Wealth Fund Is a Bad Idea

by February 6, 2025
February 6, 2025
A US Sovereign Wealth Fund Is a Bad Idea

Tad DeHaven

President Trump issued an executive order planning the establishment of a US sovereign wealth fund. A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment fund that manages public assets, typically financed from surplus or natural resource revenues, to generate long-term financial returns for state aims. Think Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund or Norway’s Government Pension Global Fund.

Not only are the potential funding options dubious, but a federal investment fund would also be economically counterproductive and an invitation for political malfeasance.

To put it mildly, the United States isn’t Saudi Arabia or Norway. Some states have such funds, but like Norway, they’re financed through natural resource proceeds like the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. On the other hand, the United States is heavily in debt and on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. There are no budget surpluses to fund one, as the US federal government is set to run a nearly $2 trillion deficit this year. Indeed, “extraordinary measures” are currently being employed to prevent a default on $36 trillion in federal debt.

Trump has mentioned using tariff revenues to finance an SWF on the campaign trail. But he’s also suggested that tariffs could replace the income tax (a “dangerously foolish” idea). Trump has even suggested higher import taxes could help lower the price of groceries (a “deranged” idea). Only in a fantasyland can tariffs be the solution to everything. And even if tariffs could adequately finance an SWF, it would be a marriage of two undesirables.

Perhaps trying to be the adult in the room, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested monetizing federal assets. Sure, downsize the federal government, sell off federal lands and buildings, etc. However, any proceeds should be used for deficit reduction and making the tax code friendlier for private investment.

Others have suggested that an SWF could be financed with debt if the fund generates stock market returns exceeding the government’s borrowing rate. But as Romina Boccia points out, rather than generating wealth for the country, “it would simply transfer economic activity from the private sector to the government.” Borrowing money to buy stocks from Americans would require future taxpayers to repay the debt, while the investment returns would go to the government instead.

Trump has floated the federal government taking a 50 percent ownership stake in TikTok and possibly putting it in the SWF. That would be a “soft” nationalization of a social media company, opening Pandora’s box to large government stakes in other companies. For example, Trump supports the Biden administration’s foolish efforts to block Nippon Steel from purchasing US Steel. As US Steel circles the drain, it’s not inconceivable Trump sees an opportunity to “make a deal.” Going further down this road would, as Tyler Cowen says, “essentially bring the US a kind of socialism, with extensive government ownership of the economy.”

Speaking of the Biden administration, it was reportedly exploring an SWF last year. That alone should give Trump’s backers pause. Republicans who go along with Trump’s plan should understand that it will eventually become a vehicle for future Democratic administrations to support the “green” and “woke” policies that the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, initiative is currently trying to root out.

What about “draining the swamp”? It’s hard to imagine anything swampier than establishing a federal investment fund. The susceptibility to political interference, cronyism, and outright corruption is undeniable. In an extreme example, Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund became embroiled in a massive corruption scandal. Officials were accused of misappropriating $4.5 billion, leading to a 12-year prison sentence for the country’s prime minister.

Beltway lawyers and lobbyists are probably smiling like a butcher’s dog at the prospect of it.

Wanting to have a big toy because other countries have a big toy is not a sound basis for policymaking. The United States is already one of the wealthiest in the world despite the federal government’s best (worst?) efforts. Dominic Pino sums it up perfectly: “The federal government is a poor steward of the chunk of it that it already controls. It should control less, not more. US wealth is best off in private hands.”

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Senate DOGE Republican pushes bill to bring government computer systems ‘out of the stone age’
next post
On Transgender Athletes and the Federal Government

You may also like

No CBDC, Says Canadian, Australian, and Colombian Central...

September 24, 2024

Modi’s India Is Better in Economics than History

June 21, 2023

Will Trump’s “Reciprocal Trade” Only Go One Way?

February 7, 2025

The Government Can’t Revoke a Visa Because of...

April 30, 2025

Corporate Transparency Act Compels Americans to Incriminate Themselves

May 28, 2024

The Original Sin of U.S. Health Policy

July 24, 2023

Henry Kissinger as ‘The Man Who Loved Power’

December 4, 2023

Jimmy Lai: Prisoner of the State

May 30, 2023

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

February 13, 2024

There Is No “Little Secret” Speaker Power over...

October 29, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Trump’s Debanking Order Calls for Investigation, Something Tennessee Should Have Done

      August 9, 2025
    • MIKE DAVIS: Eric Tung is Trump’s pick to bring sanity to the Ninth Circuit

      August 9, 2025
    • How Europe’s car industry can survive the Chinese EV challenge

      August 9, 2025
    • Hiring Software & JavaScript Developers: Skills, Costs, and Best Practices

      August 9, 2025
    • Rakhi Butani on Skincare, Cooking, and the Power of Balance

      August 9, 2025
    • Jeremy Clarkson warns of ‘catastrophic’ UK harvest as farmers battle extreme weather and rising costs

      August 9, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,728)
    • Investing (2,191)
    • Politics (16,345)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved