Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

In 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 should we just call it all negative and sell it to china for 5B?

I know my math is ridiculous but so is considering selling 535M acres for $1 billion. 50 cents an acre... where I'm trying to buy land it seems it's around 50k/acre.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#5

Post by thefounder » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

Why doesn't US sell Flint to the europeans or even the russians? Preferably in euros or rubles.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#6

Post by the_mitsuhiko » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:16 PM UTC

thefounder wrote: post #5

Why doesn't US sell Flint to the europeans or even the russians? Preferably in euros or rubles.

The Europeans would absolutely love to buy a piece of the USA if they could.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#7

Post by jakeasmith » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

This sounds like the setup to a bad joke.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#8

Post by davidw » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

"Endowment effect"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#9

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

Denmark's people and (especially) leaders value what Greenland represents in terms of geopolitics. Greenland is a seat at the table for the Danes. Without it, they'd be like Luxembourg. With it, they're like Norway. This isn't mysterious.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#10

Post by madaxe_again » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

I 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 opportunities for the state in the future.

So, why a good call?

Climate change.

1) Greenland has vast reserves of fresh water. This resource will become increasingly valuable as clean fresh water grows scarcer globally.

2) agriculture and habitation. If Greenland continues to melt, in centuries to come there will be vast planes of glacial till - good, fertile land. As the climate warms, the arctic waste will potentially become far more hospitable than (dis)temperate latitudes.

3) strategic dominance. The Arctic is going to be exceedingly important as ice clears for both transportation and resource extraction. Greenland has vast untapped mineral reserves, never mind the territorial waters.