Critiquing Bernie's Sovereign Wealth Fund Proposal from the MMT Perspective
James Keenan
One of the Substack blogs that I follow most frequently -- and pay for -- is Hamilton Nolan's How Things Work. It's a mixture of hard reporting and sharp commentary on the state of the working class in the United States.
Today, Nolan has published a critique of Sen. Bernie Sanders's proposal for an AI-funded sovereign wealth fund in the U.S. What's interesting about this post is that he starts and hits hardest from the MMT perspective (without naming it explicitly, except in response to comments). A sample:
"The United States of America’s federal government does not need a sovereign wealth fund. We issue our own currency. Money is not a thing that the federal government needs to take from outside of itself and hoard in an investment fund like a retiree. If the federal government wants to spend money, then Congress just votes to do so, and the money is created. We did just that during Covid. Remember? And also to fund all those wars and things. If Congress wants to issue every American a $1,000 per month check, they don’t need to check an investment account that is populated with the stock of major companies and see what the balance is. They just do it. The meaningful constraint on the federal government’s spending is inflation. The meaningful constraint on our economic development in general is “what can humans do in the material world.” Money is just an accounting tool."
Read more at the link above.
Jay Mills
If AI companies are doing social harm, regulate them. If their profits are excessive or their market power is dangerous, tax them or break them up. But don’t tell people their income depends on the stock price of the firms you’re supposed to be disciplining.
Best,
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Modern Monetary Theory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to modern-monetary-t...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/modern-monetary-theory/5e120368-40a8-4a9b-a474-138b271652dfn%40googlegroups.com.
Warren Mosler
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/modern-monetary-theory/A16E48C4-2C29-4F70-8412-621D5EA32F30%40gmail.com.
Jay Mills
Hi Sandy,
Interesting thought experiment.
From an MMT perspective, my first reaction is that the federal government wouldn’t need a sovereign wealth fund to acquire UnitedHealth or establish a public option. Sovereign wealth funds are typically used by countries that are accumulating financial assets from commodity revenues or external surpluses. A currency issuer like the U.S. government does not need to “save” dollars before it can spend them.
That said, I think the more interesting question is whether acquiring UnitedHealth’s administrative infrastructure, claims processing systems, provider relationships, and operational expertise would provide a practical path toward a public healthcare system. In that sense, the proposal is less about financing and more about institutional capacity.
The main MMT question would probably be whether purchasing the company would improve the organization and delivery of healthcare relative to simply expanding Medicare directly. Ownership changes the financial structure, but it does not by itself create additional doctors, nurses, hospitals, or other real healthcare resources, which are ultimately the binding constraints.
So while I suspect many MMT scholars would view the sovereign wealth fund component as unnecessary, they might still find the institutional and administrative aspects of the proposal worth discussing.
On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:22 PM, Sanford Friedman <sanma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi groupHow about this far fetched idea: US sets up a "Soverigh Health Fund" ( just cause it rhymes 🙂)This becomes a means for acquiring all the shares of the United Healthcare Group providing an "easy" path to Medicare for all. (meaning all of the necessary and experienced resources UHC currently have become available for establishing a public option). And of course this would not be for collection of the company revenues, but to reduce the negative impacts capitalism from health care sector.I know this is very unrealistic, but I'm curious what the amazing MMT scholars on this list think of the idea.ThanksSandy
Sanford Friedman
Michael Graves
Does that not setup a problem like we have with the social security trust fund?
People would think that the fund is necessary, which implies potential future insolvency, etc.
Michael Graves