🚨Should the US create a Sovereign Wealth Fund? Chamath and Friedberg discuss
Ask about All-In Podcast
Episode Description
Full episode: https://youtu.be/2rXMqOobGtQ
Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg
Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod
Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod
Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod
Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg
Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect
Brief Summary
The episode argues for a sovereign wealth fund funded by tariff deals to address social security deficits without increasing government spending.
Key points
- Sovereign Wealth Fund Proposal. A call to establish a sovereign wealth fund using inbound capital.
- California's Budget Crisis. A cautionary tale about spending surplus funds too quickly.
- Social Security Bankruptcy Warning. A stark prediction about the future of social security funding.
Episode highlights
- California's Budget CrisisA cautionary tale about spending surplus funds too quickly.“They went and spent ahead of it and then all of a sudden they had a huge deficit.”0:47Aug 30, 2025
- Social Security Bankruptcy WarningA stark prediction about the future of social security funding.“Social security is going to go bankrupt sometime between 2030 and 2033.”0:58Aug 30, 2025
Transcript
Do you think we should have a sovereign wealth fund? I think that we should start a sovereign wealth fund right now. And who should fund it? The great news is that these Trump tariff deals come with huge amounts of capital that these other countries have committed to spending inside the United States. We've exceeded a trillion dollars of inbound capital on the investment side. We get 90% of the upside. A lot of that capital should be the seed capital for a sovereign wealth fund. The concern I have is anytime we create a new income stream at the federal government or we have some sort of growing asset that you mark up on the
book, someone tends to invest ahead of the curve on that. Meaning someone takes that and they're like, "Oh, great. I can spend more now." I mean, we even saw this in California. Gavin Newsome and the budget skyrocketed as the income went up and rather than take the surplus and book it for a rainy day. They went and spent ahead of it and then all of a sudden they had a huge deficit which is what happened with social security is it's like okay all these people are providing this income every year to the federal government which they're supposed to be paying into their social security trust fund which is going to go bankrupt sometime between 2030 and 2033.
But then what happened is we raided the coffers. We took all that money and we started spending it on random new programs. And the problem is by giving the government more assets, by giving the government more income, we set ourselves up for a circumstance where the federal government, the Congress says, "Great, we got more money to spend. Let's do X, Y, and Z program, and let's do this. Let's build a high-speed train. Let's do this. These are all good for American people." And all of a sudden, you know, you don't actually solve any real problems. And this is why my my argument is like we should use it
to fill the hole that we have for example in social security and that needs to become an asset that's strictly used as an offset on social security because if you don't put it in that box it just becomes another spending mechanism.
