National territory has a psychological and strategic value that cannot be bought and sold. Countries have gone to war over infinitesimally tiny pieces of land (Gaza, Falklands, Northern Ireland)... we do not need to look to a crystal ball to see why Denmark holds onto a gigantic landmass like Greenland.
Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
11–20 of 165 posts
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#12In today's value it's worth -16B according to this. If we're going to base things on how negative they are, then this article should assume that the United States land is worth -10K per acre (22 trillion debt with 2.3 billion acres of land). So negative values aside, the math to consider how much something is worth should never be based on the drain it has on society - otherwise why do we even have 22T of debt? So sh…
It's not just that your math is ridiculous (as you acknowledge), it doesn't make any sense.
Greenland has almost no economy, a mere $2.7b in GDP, and few assets. You can't use negative $22 trillion as the basis with the US while ignoring the $110 trillion in household wealth and massive corporate & government assets (stacked against $50t-$55t in total debt between household + corporate + government). That's the part that makes no sense.
The asset value of everything in the US is at least $150t in the positive after you remove all debt. That's while ignoring additional value that should be applied to the annual output of the economic activity - and considerations for future gains - within the US territory and any other fringe benefits that go with it all as a package deal (USD global reserve currency, US military, 50 top universities, etc).
Greenland has 56,000 people producing a GDP per capita of $48,000. The US has 330 million people producing a GDP per capita of ~$63,500 or so (about 119% higher than Europe's $29,000 per capita). You get the people with the territory in the US, and they're among the most productive on earth in terms of per capita output.
A better number would be $65,000+ per acre before you include consideration for annual output and other benefits. If you count everything, it'd be far over $100,000 per acre.
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#13Wild idea: I think we should turn Greenland into an into a new frontier nation with completely open borders for refugees and people who are up for the challenge of settling a new place. Sure, there's nothing there, but if you want to build something and there's nowhere else for you, have at it.
EDIT: Out of curiosity, I started looking at Greenland on Google Maps and found this sweet shadow of the buggy they used to street view (dirt-road view) it: https://www.google.com/maps/@67.0111595,-50.7379435,3a,75y,9...
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#14Wild idea: I think we should turn Greenland into an into a new frontier nation with completely open borders for refugees and people who are up for the challenge of settling a new place. Sure, there's nothing there, but if you want to build something and there's nowhere else for you, have at it. EDIT: Out of curiosity, I started looking at Greenland on Google Maps and found this sweet shadow of the buggy they used to…
That could be a solution for the asylum seekers in the US, too... settle them in the Alaskan wild. If you’re willing to go from Honduras to Nome that’s a clear cut sign that what you’re fleeing is a very real danger.
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#15It does make me wonder what it would have been like if Denmark had not sold the US Virgin Islands. Although, I feel the islands might be doing better today than they are now.
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#16I think, in hindsight, it will turn out to have been an exceptionally good call to retain Greenland. They have an interesting setup - there is no land ownership other than by the state, and you can only get permission to build by winning a lottery. There are minor exceptions for building small hunting cabins in the fjords, but this is negligible. The reason is to prevent private ownership from hindering possible oppo…
How much of that water is glacial though and will be gone when Greenland melts?
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#17I think, in hindsight, it will turn out to have been an exceptionally good call to retain Greenland. They have an interesting setup - there is no land ownership other than by the state, and you can only get permission to build by winning a lottery. There are minor exceptions for building small hunting cabins in the fjords, but this is negligible. The reason is to prevent private ownership from hindering possible oppo…
So far Greenland is a relatively poor and miserable place, with a population of only 56,674.
Comparatively, Alaska offers a much better role model for arctic governance.
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#18I heard that some Danes are proud of having the largest country in Europe. Selling Greenland would certainly change that.
But as I am not a Dane myself, take it with a grain of salt (and it might not be true either, depending on how you measure other countries e.g. Russia).
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#19National territory has a psychological and strategic value that cannot be bought and sold. Countries have gone to war over infinitesimally tiny pieces of land (Gaza, Falklands, Northern Ireland)... we do not need to look to a crystal ball to see why Denmark holds onto a gigantic landmass like Greenland.
Agreed. Greenland is 836,300 mi², while Denmark is 16,577 mi². Imagine the effects of climate change in 200+ years - Greenland could be VERY valuable and important then.
Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?
#20I think, in hindsight, it will turn out to have been an exceptionally good call to retain Greenland. They have an interesting setup - there is no land ownership other than by the state, and you can only get permission to build by winning a lottery. There are minor exceptions for building small hunting cabins in the fjords, but this is negligible. The reason is to prevent private ownership from hindering possible oppo…
How much of that water is glacial though and will be gone when Greenland melts?
Forget the melting - how do you even make any use of glacial fresh water? You're not going to start growing wheat in Greenland, that's for sure, so you're not getting much use out of it on the spot. Move it elsewhere? No one's ever accomplished the 'tow an iceberg to sell it' thing before (and icebergs are much more convenient than glaciers), and if they do, it'll be a relatively tiny industry since it has to compete with stuff like reverse osmosis.