Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 217 posts

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#161

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

throwaway132448 wrote: post #150
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My opinion of Ayn Rand is no more flattering than yours, but I accept that she has quite a few powerful 'followers'. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of the current administration were big Ayn Rand fans. Their opinions may be absurd but, sadly, they are also relevant.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#162

Post by tock »

joakleaf wrote: post #82
haritha-j wrote: post #50

For decades Europe has cheered on, if not actively aided as America bullied smaller nations. Now they’ve come to realise they aren’t so special.

Europe has not just "cheered on". There were demonstrations throughout Europe against the wars in the middle east and both e.g. France and Germany openly opposed the war in Iraq. The Europeans I know (from all over) have generally been opposed to American geopolitics both in the Middle East, South East Asia, and South America. The US has traditionally been seen as an ally, but that doesn't mean we "cheer on" its acti…

Many EU countries did send troops did it not? And what happened when it became clear the war was a farce? There were zero consequences right? It's a "told ya" moment for a lot of asian countries who didn't fully trust the US.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#163

Post by ChoGGi »

Ginden wrote: post #41

Mining in Arctic is a technical nightmare. Typical alloys become brittle in these temperatures, darkness severely limits operations and/or workplace accidents, transport requires ice-breakers, permafrost is fundamentally unstable (heat from buildings melts it, causing sinking), and you need to pay people a lot to work there.

I wouldn't be too worried, ICE is collecting the workforce as we speak.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#164

Post by ninalanyon »

Rainbooow wrote: post #53
throwaway132448 wrote: post #30

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…

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.

Of course they lead to monopolies. If you start with a large number of equally capable suppliers and one somehow gains an edge then that one will be more profitable than the rest allowing it to invest and reduce its costs. This makes it even more competitive and provides a positive feedback loop. Eventually its competitors go bankrupt or get bought out by it.

Regulation can certainly exacerbate the problem, for instance rules that have a fixed annual cost or where the costs do not increase in line with volume favour larger concerns.

The idea that a totally free market can exist is a fantasy based on assumptions that simply cannot hold water. Regulation is necessary in order to prevent the powerful from abusing the weak. The fact that there are poor regulations does not invalidate the concept.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#165

Post by ChoGGi »

TrackerFF wrote: post #85

My prediction of how a hostile takeover would work out - i.e. all US offers to purchase Greenland are flat rejected: 0. USA invades Greenland by shipping thousands of troops there, Denmark does the same. I don't believe there will be any direct conflict, but rather that US simply declares they now control Greenland. 1. Denmark invokes a number of NATO articles, immediately. 2. NATO crisis, all members meet in hopes t…

10.

That's more hopeful than my thoughts of world war III and the Trump family presidency. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#166

Post by gbuk2013 »

flr03 wrote: post #67
gbuk2013 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no similarity whatsoever.

One similarity is, if I'm correct, Russia claimed that the naval base of Sevastopol was vital for Russian security. The protection of the population and the illegitimacy of the current government was an argument developed by Russia at the time, it has not been yet by USA but I suspect this might start develop in the next few weeks. The common ingredients to justify an invasion/annexation is a mix of: - Self-Defense,…

Greenland was not part of the USA for a 150 years. It is also not mostly populated by ethnic Americans who speak English as their mother tongue. Nor is there a large American military base there that Greenland / Denmark is trying to evict them from and potentially hand over to a geopolitical adversary. Greenland is also an island a couple thousand miles away from Denmark.

Honestly, it is such a surprise that the difference is not obvious.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#167

Post by arethuza »

ponector wrote: post #157
arethuza wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"other Nordic countries will be involved" I can't help wondering if that's really what all of this is about - the Nordics can't really fight the US and Russia at the same time (though given their history I suspect they'd try).

But they are not fighting russia. Also putin can't really fight anywhere else but Ukraine. Special operation in Baltic state is maximum of russian ability unless there is a ceasefire in Ukraine.

Not yet no (and I seriously hope that it will never happen), but a ceasefire in Ukraine looks like it might happen tying down troops from the UK, France and others and then a threat to Greenland from the US drawing off more troops and attention perhaps leaving Russia open to attack one of the Baltic states?

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#168

Post by gbuk2013 »

kombine wrote: post #56
gbuk2013 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no similarity whatsoever.

You are clearly wrong. Both Trumpism and Putinism are reactive ultra-conservative ideologies. Annexation of Crimea was motivated largely by Russia's "legitimate security concerns". Russian propaganda was busy convincing the population that Crimea gives strategic control over Black Sea region and if Russia didn't intervene, there would have been NATO bases on the peninsula after the Maiden revolution. Trump and his sy…

[flagged]

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#169

Post by TrackerFF »

tock wrote: post #162
joakleaf wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe has not just "cheered on". There were demonstrations throughout Europe against the wars in the middle east and both e.g. France and Germany openly opposed the war in Iraq. The Europeans I know (from all over) have generally been opposed to American geopolitics both in the Middle East, South East Asia, and South America. The US has traditionally been seen as an ally, but that doesn't mean we "cheer on" its acti…

Many EU countries did send troops did it not? And what happened when it became clear the war was a farce? There were zero consequences right? It's a "told ya" moment for a lot of asian countries who didn't fully trust the US.

Some European allies joined US in the Iraq war for the initial invasion: UK, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Denmark. The "Coalition of the willing" was larger, though.

Many opposed it. Remember "Freedom fries"?

As for Afghanistan, that's a completely different thing. US invoked article 5.

Re: The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

#170

Post by tock »

TrackerFF wrote: post #169
tock wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many EU countries did send troops did it not? And what happened when it became clear the war was a farce? There were zero consequences right? It's a "told ya" moment for a lot of asian countries who didn't fully trust the US.

Some European allies joined US in the Iraq war for the initial invasion: UK, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Denmark. The "Coalition of the willing" was larger, though. Many opposed it. Remember "Freedom fries"? As for Afghanistan, that's a completely different thing. US invoked article 5.

Yep I vividly remember Tony Blair supporting the war. Millions dead. People just went on with their lives with a "oops". I'm just saying this behaviour is nothing new. Might makes right I guess.
Post reply on HN