Live data from Hacker News

The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

bbc.com

141–150 of 217 posts

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#141
post #8

There are a few things that confuse me about this potential acquisition: 1. You won't govern it. Greenland has it's own Self-Government Act. [0] 2. You won't own the land. Almost all land is owned by the State. [1] 3. The Danes have no special land ownership rights. [2] 4. Land use rights, however, are granted for different activities (fishing, mining) subject to approval. [3] I'd imagine none of this changes under a…

Everything that's been said publicly is just pretence, just like Maduro's/Venezuela's supposed drug trafficking. This is about Trump being and old man in his waning days who wants to create a legacy. Those around him have ambitions of empire.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#142
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's an entire body of work, starting with Ayn Rand, that vehemently argues that government interference in the economy is what leads to monopolies.

There are entire bodies of work that argue against the heliocentric nature of the solar system - that doesn't make them credible or relevant.

The person you're replying to was using an example to show how there isn't consensus, they weren't saying they agree with Ayn Rand. In fact, given their tone, if I had to make I guess, I'd say they disagree with her take.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the liberal view of security, yes, but in my opinion it's naive and it lacks explanatory power, for the reasons I gave in my previous post.

But for example, Venezuelan oil is worth very little to China. It's literally stupid to use violence to prevent them from accessing it. Meanwhile it's sort of becoming very clear that Venezuela is about Cuba.

It's worth little at its current flows, but this ignores the temporal dimension which is where stock is more important because the flows can be built up over time. Only 20%-30% of China's oil is secure, the rest suffers from the Malacca dilemma which is why the US focuses on naval power projection as part of its Pacific containment policy, a lesson they learned with the oil blockade against Japan in WW2.

Oil is also not the only security dimension, the other dimension is to deny China a physical staging ground near to US territory for air, missiles or radar and SIGINT. Not a problem right now, but again these calculations need to involve the temporal dimension. If you believe there's a 25% chance of conflict over Taiwan, using the status quo of peace to justify decision-making is an "assume the best" doctrine which is a terrible security doctrine.

This isn't to say that security calculations are the only factor involved in this Venezuela operation. It is one piece of it. It's also somewhat besides the point because I am discussing underlying causal mechanisms, not fixating on a specific conflict.

As for how this relates to those mechanisms: the only reason these "security calculations" are even considered is because the US no longer holds a monopoly on world power. In the 1990s, it was a foregone conclusion. In that security, "cooperation" could occur. Then liberals osberve that cooperation and mistake it as the cause, when it's really the effect.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really basic economics that free market leads to monopolies? I thought this is not something where there is a strong consensus about ; free market advocates will actually argue that this is regulation that leads to monopolies.

I didn't say that free markets lead to monopolies: I qualified that with the need for economies of scale. Those may not exist - but look at most of the markets you interact with in your daily life and try and find the ones that don't. I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly. Are you referring to "regulation" in the form of state-endorsed/controlled monopolies? Those usually exist…

> I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly

Competitive markets will always tend toward monopoly because that is the state at which the highest profits can be extracted. Regulation can, in some cases, help push it a bit faster in that direction by making barriers to enter the market even more onerous and expensive thus limiting or even eliminating new competitors. This allows the existing large competitors to either continue to knock out or buy up smaller ones, and the few remaining large ones to either merge to a single entity or settle into a state of non-competitive action (effectively collusion) where the market then either is or behaves as a monopoly.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that free markets lead to monopolies: I qualified that with the need for economies of scale. Those may not exist - but look at most of the markets you interact with in your daily life and try and find the ones that don't. I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly. Are you referring to "regulation" in the form of state-endorsed/controlled monopolies? Those usually exist…

> I'm not aware of how regulation of competitive markets would lead to monopoly. It depends what you mean by regulation, right? Many industries have extremely onerous and costly regulation which creates barriers for new entrants to those markets.

Yes onerous regulation can definitely hurt the competitiveness of a market, it is just another barrier to entry.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#146
The resources are currently under ice - but fear not. US is working hard at it by sabotaging green energy, drilling like crazy, and now also expanding it's oil reserves in the Venezuelan colony. It is a smart, pragmatic and self-consistent approach. Just for a different utility function.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All "free market" ideals require no/low barriers to entry in order for the market to be "self regulating". Said absence of barriers to entry almost never exists, hence the idea of completely free markets is completely naive - you need regulation. Markets also cannot account for externalities. If those externalities are something you care about (e.g. the environment you live in) - you need regulation. Economies of sca…

>Markets also cannot account for externalities. If those externalities are something you care about (e.g. the environment you live in) - you need regulation. Markets account for externalities via ownership and torts. This was gutted in the 1800s in the US where a judge ruled people couldn't sue for the impact of environmental pollution, in the name of the "greater good" of industrialization.

I'd disagree with the framing of this: The ownership and torts _were_ the regulation. I'm using a narrow definition of "market" that really only concerns supply and demand (because this is what "free market" ideals all revolve around).

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or wmd, or poor locals need saving from chemical weapons attacks from their own govt. the funniest spin i heard was some clown trying to say that by taking greenland the us would be strengthening nato!

Speaking of wmd - there are probably secret nuclear missile bases buried under the ice... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Century

nice find

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#149
post #13

The events of the past 12 months, culminating in Venezuela and now Greenland, has made me reevaluate a lot of my beliefs about unimpeded competition between free agents (i.e. a free market) leading to the best and most peaceful outcomes. Clearly, a few participants becoming disproportionately powerful is a failure mode. The way I've tried to reconcile my beliefs with what are clearly contradictory observations in the…

You're comparing one leader sending special forces in to capture another leader to a free market? That's not a market, it's a brawl. Markets take place within civil societies. "Raw competition is the same as war", well OK, but that's got nothing to do with trade.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are entire bodies of work that argue against the heliocentric nature of the solar system - that doesn't make them credible or relevant.

The person you're replying to was using an example to show how there isn't consensus, they weren't saying they agree with Ayn Rand. In fact, given their tone, if I had to make I guess, I'd say they disagree with her take.

I think we've been far too generous in the last decade with whose opinion is relevant to whether there is a meaningful "consensus" on a matter or not. Hence why I say that Ayn Rand is to economics as geocentrists are to astronomy - they're simply not relevant to a definition of consensus that has any value to me.
Post reply on HN