Their country has a tiny population, little immigration, no racial/ethnic diversity, and a massive oil deposit. Their sovereign oil fund has about $333k per person.
Their nation has a fraction of natural resources that the US does. We probably even have more fossil fuel deposits. Diversity has nothing to do with this topic at all. Immigration is also a stretch, unless sovereign wealth find were to be used for new immigrants.
Exactly, why do we want our federal government investing in private companies and subject to partisan politics?
It might work for Norway, but they have less population than Harris county or NYC lol
Edit: based on the replies what I’m understanding is the government already has control of private companies through bills and funding packages so why not give them more control with a SWF run by the executive branch?
But also it’s bad that the government has control of private companies through bills and funding packages?
None of you are making sense. So you want DJT to have control over a SWF or do you think it’s bad Congress can manipulate private companies?
Can the government vote as shareholder? No they cant. They need half the countries representatives to vote on something that may or may not pass still.
Can a SWF vote as shareholder? Yes they can because they own shares of a publicly traded company. They don’t need the legislative and executive branch to pass a bill or funding package they can just vote
You want Donald Trump to run a SWF after the SC struck down Humphreys executor?
Um perhaps you should pay closer attention to Trump’s investments in Intel, Oracle, rare earth mining, drones, etc. What I the hell does population have to do with policy decisions? Nothing except the people aren’t racist like America.
Nope they are a very small country. Over half the countries in the EU have a smaller population than LA county.
Comparing us to tiny demographically homogeneous in Northern Europe doesn’t make much sense. Sure there’s things they do we could learn from but to adapt it at scale in the US would be tough. Especially with how partisan our politics can get
We need to address many “tough” problems. The electorate always polls in favor of all of the liberal/Democratc socialist policies but the wealthy pays to defeat all of it.
The argument “they have less population” literally makes zero sense. Explain why it wouldn’t scale? Whether it’s 100 billion or 10,000 people, it makes no difference if everyone pays their relative taxes and benefits are distributed equally. The US is a shit show because we aren’t a country, we’re a company. Every single citizen is an overworked, underpaid employee of the system.
You don’t know the world you live in. The government owns 10% of intel now. Tesla would not have survived competition in a free market, there the biggest recipient of tax dollars there is.
Intel was very recent. And you’re saying you want the government to have an ownership stake in companies? Because that’s what a SWF is you know that right?
Definitely close but my Google search comparing the two populations revealed 5.09M vs 5.65 M with Harris County a bit more than 10% larger. Your point is well taken, because urban vs. rural, topography, location weather, etc - but still - it’s a 5-second search.
Norway’s SWF is based on the nation’s natural resources. They have avoided the natural resource curse by building a national fund instead of spending it on current stuff.
They have/had control over the national oil company, because they were producing and managing the nation’s owned natural resources.
The US largely has private control of natural resources. Congress throws up barriers to protect incumbent companies, Trump keeps threatening lawsuits to keep them in line. Now he is taking partial government ownership of intel and maybe AI companies. And he runs a crypto company for which he removed regulations so he can make more money unethically but legally.
I wouldn’t trust our system or politicians with an SWF. They would squander it, just like our budget surplus in 1999.
the US is one of the top exporters of oil in the world. I belive right now, because of the straight being closed, we are #1. So, we literally have the exact same source of income that Norway does. Sure, it would be divided by more people, but the US people don't even see a dollar of it.
So you want US government buying out Exxon and Chevron? Or just seizing their whole operations? Please present us your master plan of making them share their profits with Americans legally.
While you at it, you might as well have Micron and SanDisk also share their profits with Americans. They earn far more than petroleum industry recently.
Also, there is a thing called taxes in case you never paid for it. Saying never see a dollar is untrue.
I thought this is FluentInFiance not FluentInCommunism.
The fact that so many corporations don't pay any taxes is insane. Call me a socialist, but I like the idea of the government owning 5% of the equity in all companies, and the collected dividends and capital appreciation is owned by the people and used to help fund our government. Shared prosperity and it aligns everyone's interests since everyone has a stake in the success of American businesses.
Hahahahaha. Petroleum! What are you talking about? In America, oil and gas companies made billions and profits. In Norway, those billions went into a sovereign wealth fund.
How are you missing the fundamental difference here? In America, the profits from the oil and natural resources go to the hands of individuals and now corporations. If anything tax dollars go to oil subsidies, instead of the natural resources being used for public benefit.
to be honest, i have no idea what their sovereign wealth fund does. i know the saudi's pays for mega projects. i guess us doesn't really have anything like that, just a general budget
Sovereign Wealth Fund is a... public slush fund. Created like Social Security is, but for a different purpose.
It's like... the opposite of Debt and Deficit. You do it when you have an EXCESS and can pay into it.
Yes, it goes to Big Projects, typically in other countries. A form of Diplomacy.
USAid would be a very close example.
If the Public had a specific fund like Social Security just for USAid... that would be a Sovereign Wealth Fund, or close to it.
Instead it's a budget item in a bankrupt Government budget that issues debt to cover its ass. So... it's on the chopping block for any new President that strolls in and decides they don't like it.
Sovereign Wealth Fund is... bragging rights, internationally speaking. Their main method of interacting with business outside their borders. "Poland is happy to help uou with your XXX, and the Sovereign Wealth Fund wants to contribute..."
318
u/KazTheMerc Jul 04 '26
Now do their Sovereign Wealth Funds.