pull down to refresh
32 sats \ 6 replies \ @Satosora 26 Sep \ on: The Comic Absurdity of a US Sovereign Wealth Fund econ
"Where the ruling class has no ownership of public assets, only the power and incentive to extract current income from those assets for their own purposes and at the expense of long-term value."
This explains our society perfectly.
We are just consumers, not caring about the long term effects.
Fiat incentivizes high time preference behaviors and attitudes.
reply
reply
We'd have to be really clear about what "work" means, in this context.
For reasons laid out in this article, they really can't work from the standpoint of improving overall well-being, compared to just taxing people less. Compared to other government spending, though, I'm sure they can look very effective.
The only one I know much about is Alaska's Permanent Fund. For most of it's history, the fund managers have earned very nice returns and it's funded by taxes on oil development, rather than direct taxes on the residents.
reply
reply
Probably Norway. It's an oil state, like Alaska. There very well may be good arguments that taxing oil revenues to finance a sovereign wealth fund could enhance the prosperity of that nation/state's citizens. Although, again, it would be better to just give people the money directly.