6 ms·

Reasons of State: Why Didn't Denmark Sell Greenland?

36 points by monort 11y ago

thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Greenland is a poor country. Perhaps Denmark simply wants to help out. This is ethically reprehensible. Greenland is poor, but compared to many African countries it is fabulously wealthy Earlier: > Much of the Greenland population is Danish, unsurprisingly I don't see that it's "ethically reprehensible" for Denmark to focus its charitable efforts on Danes. What did I miss? Gwern even calls this out: > if that is Denmark’s true reason, shame on them for letting [...] ethnicity warp their ethical judgement to such a freakish extreme. I'm pretty sure it's better for 100,000 Africans to die than for my sister to die. That's not warped judgment.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  You're not a guilty white person. Nationalism is not en vogue.
  - anthony_d 11y ago
    Could you elaborate on that?
    - Spooky23 11y ago
      There was a time when nationalism was a much more powerful force in society. 100 years ago, millions of young men marched out to be slaughtered in the name of king and country. Now, in many circles, people have adopted a guilt ridden opposite of nationalism. People genuinely believe that helping a countryman is an ethical dilemma so long as there is someone worse off.
      - hackuser 11y ago
        Interesting points; I've a few rambling thoughts about them: * I don't think many people are so extreme as the 'opposite of nationalism'. In fact, I think that nationalism (or more broadly, the basic tribalistic instinct) has such an natural, powerful pull on people that it will never need to be encouraged. * I think it's great that many people moderate their nationalistic instincts now with reason and compassion. Not only did millions get slaughtered for the nation (or the race, or whatever), but they murdered millions more. The moderation of 'tribalism' with liberal ideas might be one of the most important changes in humanity's history. * Unfortunately, I see nationalism and other tribalistic ideas as rapidly spreading again. It's promoted by state school boards in Texas and Oklahoma; many national leaders push it, for example in Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea (off the top of my head). Outright religious 'tribalism' is rampant in Europe and, to a degree, the U.S. The EU's unity is under serious strain, Scotland almost succeeded from the UK, and parts of Spain and other countries are discussing the same. Nobody stands up for the value of the liberal ideas and institutions that kept the peace since WWII. Arguably, there are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those that bring people together, and those that play on tribalistic instincts and divide them. One kind has much better results for humanity.
        meric 11y ago
        Arguably, there are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those that bring people together, and those that play on tribalistic instincts and divide them. One kind has much better results for humanity. There are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those, like narcissists, forcefully change others into themselves, remove differences between peoples, demolish language and culture, and those that remain resolute in being non-interfering of others, even while being interfered with, allowing other humans to live according to their humanity. In Firefly - you would be part of the alliance. In Star Wars - you would be part of the empire. In the People's Republic of China, you would be part of the CCCP. In the U.S. you would be part of the Federal government. In Europe you would be part of the Troika. And I accept that is your nature.
        hackuser 11y ago
        I disagree; I don't at all intend to force anyone or think they should be forced. I believe they can and will be pursuaded and do the right thing, of their own free will; good leaders facilitate that but showing them how to work together. Humanity's track record for working together is incredible - we're a long way from caves and hunting - and it may be that the more free you make people, the better they respond. The most prosperous, safest and most peaceful countries in the history of the world, by a long shot, are the freest.
        meric 11y ago
        You can disagree. You have the same mindset as the U.S. Government in the 1800's thinking it is wise to persuade American Indians to 'civilise' for their own good. People who never admit failure no matter the results of their social experiments. And that's just how some of us are going to think some of the time.
        hackuser 11y ago
        I can more than disagree; I speak with absolute authority for what I believe. I declare the truth of it. You and your speculation have no standing at all.
      - tsotha 11y ago
        Those are people who live in countries that will be gone in a few generations.
        ionised 11y ago
        > Those are people who live in countries that will be gone in a few generations. Pretty sure Europe, the Middle-East, Asia and Russia will all still be here in some form in a few generations.
        tsotha 11y ago
        I agree. The societies who haven't adopted the "guilt ridden opposite of nationalism" will be fine.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > I'm pretty sure it's better for 100,000 Africans to die than for my sister to die. That's not warped judgment. I don't see warped judgment but it's something we see frequently these days: An attempt to take down liberalism, with its embrace of reason and compassion, by aggressively making illiberal statements - as if to challenge the very ideas. The crazier and more illiberal the better; it almost becomes a contest to see who can say the craziest thing, which also serves as a proof of ideological purity common in such movements. You can see it in the statements of GOP candidates (Trump is on the same continuum they've been on for a long time) and on Fox. The only solution is to letting these hateful ideas dominate our country is to start calling people on it.
  - meric 11y ago
    We're not machines, we're human beings, and it is humanity's nature for a person to love their own parents more than other parents, and for parents to love their children more than other children. What's inhumane is preventing people from doing what comes to them naturally via excessively high taxes, and force people to provide for everyone else who they hardly know[2]. Love is not equal, and that is just a fact. Mohism[1] - where everyone love everyone else equally - is dead. It will die once again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiali... [2] See nursing homes, poor public schools.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      This post ignores the massive social movements away from such highly tribalistic human associations. It ignores how technology, state, and economic structures have utterly dictated family structures since the neolithic. It does not actually establish some causal link between 'human nature' and what current familial affiliations people have. It is a statement of 'common sense' dressed up as an unassailable assertion about 'human nature'. How dare anyone question 'human nature'? Furthermore, the idea that any particular inborn kin affinity implies any particular social structure, falls flat on its face on purely logical grounds: If it is human nature to maximize the utility of one's parents and one's children over other relatives and other human beings, it is still possible that the best way to do so is to create a more egalitarian, free associating society based on large scale cooperation between human beings and compassion for non-kinsmen. The assertion relies on unspoken intuitions which are shaped by the institutions and cultural powers that raise us. Convenient for someone trying to justify their world view, pitiable for anyone trying to understand 'human nature'. Furthermore: We are all related and the time horizon of this kin favoring behavior has not been established. It is not clear why it is inborn 'human nature' to care for your immediate relatives and not more distant relatives. It is conveniently left implicit as that which makes most sense for the capitalist nuclear family, and maybe a generation or two down. If you care about your offspring into the indefinite future, and if you care about your relatives going back indefinitely, you care about all human beings. What I truly believe 'human nature' to be, if such a thing could be well defined is our ability to apprehend what lot we have in the common good, what our place in the way of things is. Not just in our communities, but in our species and on our planet. It's certainly not an excuse to grumble about taxes.
- escape_goat 11y ago
  Well, no, except in the sense that it can be objectively demonstrated that it is better for your sister to die than it is for 100,000 Africans to die by just about any measure of 'better' — outside of your own immediate and immutable personal preference — that you might care to name. So in that one sense, it could be argued that it might be an example of warped judgement.
steve19 11y ago
Has a sovereign state selling off land to another sovereign state ever been considered profitable in hindsight?
- eli 11y ago
  It's almost always true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it. I expect my house to continue to rise in value indefinitely. Doesn't mean it's never the right call to sell it.
  - gwern 11y ago
    > It's almost always true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it. Actually, the usual belief held by economists is the opposite: that it's almost never true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it and investing it, since the value of land as a fraction of industrialized economies has been constantly falling and conversely, labor/capital rising. (There's also the diversification and uncompensated risk issue.)
    - Trombone12 11y ago
      Keep in mind that economist tend to have a long view goes between 1970 and the present (Piketty goes so far back as 1700, which is why he is famous).
    - eli 11y ago
      I think the was my point: it's totally plausible that a country selling off land could have been "profitable" depending on what the country was going to do with the proceeds.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  Many of those instances are selling what one is unable to hold. There was, for instance, ~zero chance that France would end up actually retaining the Louisiana Purchase lands in perpetuity, so the only question was whether they'd get something in return (and they quite needed the money at the time), or lose them in an expensive war later.
scythe 11y ago
But how much would they get for selling Greenland today? If the answer is higher that $15bn, and I think it might be, then the Danes were shrewd indeed.
- analog31 11y ago
  I wonder how much it will be worth when all of its glaciers melt.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    Depends what's left when they're gone, right? We don't very well know what's under them now, and we know even less what the melting and runoff process will take with it into the sea. Buying Greenland today would be very risky even if you knew with certainty that the ice cap would be completely gone in 20 years. An ice-free Greenland might be an arid dust bowl devoid of vegetation, minerals, and usable water. Or, with proper care, it might turn into something more like Quebec. No one knows.
- gwern 11y ago
  > If the answer is higher that $15bn, and I think it might be Why's that?
  - kethinov 11y ago
    It's a tough hypothetical to consider because a large number of political realities would have to change on the ground, not least of which is the national pride argument you made in your terrific article. However, let's assume for the time being that they suddenly want to sell to the highest bidder for whatever imaginary reason. I suspect if sovereignty were up for grabs again, the US would be willing to pay a very significant price to keep it out of the hands of a non-NATO country. $15bn is a small fraction of annual US federal spending. Seems to me paying a slightly larger or even significantly larger figure would be worth it to the US for sovereignty over such a valuable geostrategic location. Plus as you noted, it's likely that climate change could increase the value of the land. Sure, maybe not enough to turn a profit for the buyer, but it would offset the costs of buying to some degree. One particularly interesting implication is that if the US owned both Alaska and Greenland, it could bolster its argument for declaring the northwest passage as international waters in opposition to Canada's territorial waters claim.
qq66 11y ago
I can't see why the same logic couldn't applied to any country selling any piece of its land. Why doesn't the United States sell Pennsylvania? Why doesn't the United Kingdom sell Trafalgar Square?
- krallja 11y ago
  Nobody has an offer as good as the one the U.S. made to Denmark.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Who the hell wants Pennsylvania.
- gwern 11y ago
  It doesn't apply because some areas are worth far more, and are worth far more in conjunction with others. First, Pennsylvania is a well-developed and rich state, which was at the heart of American industrialization (names like Carnegie will ring a bell), and had and still has many natural resources: Pennsylvania was the start of American oil drilling and even now is yielding lucrative profits in the form of fracking for natural gas (to the point where my uncle remarks on how many of his patients are suddenly rich off royalties). It's in the top 10 of American states by GDP. The net present value of Pennsylvania is enormous. Note the stark contrast with Denmark & Greenland: where Greenland might have commercially exploitable resources and those resources may be substantially profitable one day and perhaps those profits will redound to the Danish people & government and who knows the share could be large enough to repay all the opportunity cost and risk and subsidies, Pennsylvania has been extremely important to the American economy, is now, and will be for quite some time to come. Secondly, Pennsylvania is worth far more as part of the USA than as part of any other country & an enclave: countless roadways, railways, and rivers flow through it, it's near the ocean, the people of it speak the same language and have the same culture as the surrounding states, which directly border on it with few or no natural barriers, it needs to import and export heavily with them, and so on. If it were part of another country, subject to entirely different regulations and laws and politics and using a different currency and imposing a border on all movements, it would be much poorer than it is now. In the same way that Greece is not in an optimal currency zone combined with Germany and it makes no sense for the USA to still own Puerto Rico and some other places, Pennsylvania is in an optimal currency zone with the USA.
clamprecht 11y ago
Sometimes I wish there were "gwern-as-a-service". I give him a topic, and he researches and writes it up. Payment in bitcoin. That would be pretty fucking awesome.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  This is why, last time I checked, Gwern's site explicitly says that they aren't interested in selling what you want to buy.
Eric_WVGG 11y ago
maybe they’re banking on global warming to turn it into a vacation hotspot, or a continent-sized refugee camp c'mon you were thinking it too
- JacobAldridge 11y ago
  Funnily enough, earlier today I re-read an old article of mine talking about retiring in the 2050s, which includes the quote "I, for one, will be reaping the rewards of my Greenland Viticulture investments."
interfixus 11y ago
Greenland is part and parcel of Danish national identity. It has nothing to do with money, almost everything to do with history and something I need a much better term for than cultural consciousness. No Danish government would have survived a selling off. In the immidiate aftermath of WW2 and German occupation, you can multiply that with some considerable factor. Footnote fact: Danes/Norwegians first settled in Greenland about a thousand years ago, at roughly the same time as the present inuit population.
IsaacL 11y ago
"That’s very strange. As an American, would I say Puerto Rico is one of the very last things that ought to ever be cut in the federal budget? Heck no! Puerto Rico has repeatedly decided it’d rather not be a state, but at least it’s still genuinely ruled by the USA; if Puerto Rico decided to switch to full home rule, I think I and the average American would care even less about them." This is definitely an American point of view. The US is a) a very large country which b) has been growing in power throughout modern history and c) has a cultural aversion to 'empire' (whether they are an empire or not is a different matter, but it seems they don't want to be). Compare that to many European countries, which are a) very small, b) have lost a lot of power in the last 200 years and c) have a (admittedly not universal) nostalgic streak for the glorious days of empire, when they were world powers. For Americans to sympathise, imagine if in 2100 various states have seceded and the US has split into multiple nations, with the remnant USA consisting only of the New England states. Then Canada offers to buy Maine, which is otherwise a burden on the treasury. Can you see why you wouldn't want to sell?
- komaromy 11y ago
  A better analogy would be an offer to buy Alaska, which would have a good shot at being agreed to.
caf 11y ago
There is another possibility: the modern notion that a sovereign's inhabited territory is not a chattel to be disposed of if an economically advantageous transaction can be arranged, but a trust held in benefit of those who live there under the sovereign's protection. Under this view, it would be an abrogation of the Greenlanders' right of self-determination for them to be passed to the United States without their agreement.
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  Ah, but what if they hold a referendum and 60% want to change sovereign and 40% don't. Is it not an abrogation of that 40%'s right to self-determination? Maybe we should recognize that everybody has different desires and voting exists merely to pacifistically answer the question of if we fought a civil war over this decision, who would be more likely to win.
abricot 11y ago
It may or may not have had something to do with the sale of the Danish West Indies to USA in 1917. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies
caf 11y ago
Another reason has occurred to me: it may well have been that in 1946, with the post-war alliance structure not entirely clear yet, Denmark considered that selling Greenland removed a large part of their continuing value as a US ally. This would explain why they didn't want to sell it, but were happy to allow US bases to be established without payment. The reciprocity the Danes were counting on was ongoing protection by the USA as a valued ally.

36 points by monort 11y ago

> Greenland is a poor country. Perhaps Denmark simply wants to help out. This is ethically reprehensible. Greenland is poor, but compared to many African countries it is fabulously wealthy Earlier: > Much of the Greenland population is Danish, unsurprisingly I don't see that it's "ethically reprehensible" for Denmark to focus its charitable efforts on Danes. What did I miss? Gwern even calls this out: > if that is Denmark’s true reason, shame on them for letting [...] ethnicity warp their ethical judgement to such a freakish extreme. I'm pretty sure it's better for 100,000 Africans to die than for my sister to die. That's not warped judgment.

Spooky23 11y ago
You're not a guilty white person. Nationalism is not en vogue.
- anthony_d 11y ago
  Could you elaborate on that?
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    There was a time when nationalism was a much more powerful force in society. 100 years ago, millions of young men marched out to be slaughtered in the name of king and country. Now, in many circles, people have adopted a guilt ridden opposite of nationalism. People genuinely believe that helping a countryman is an ethical dilemma so long as there is someone worse off.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      Interesting points; I've a few rambling thoughts about them: * I don't think many people are so extreme as the 'opposite of nationalism'. In fact, I think that nationalism (or more broadly, the basic tribalistic instinct) has such an natural, powerful pull on people that it will never need to be encouraged. * I think it's great that many people moderate their nationalistic instincts now with reason and compassion. Not only did millions get slaughtered for the nation (or the race, or whatever), but they murdered millions more. The moderation of 'tribalism' with liberal ideas might be one of the most important changes in humanity's history. * Unfortunately, I see nationalism and other tribalistic ideas as rapidly spreading again. It's promoted by state school boards in Texas and Oklahoma; many national leaders push it, for example in Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea (off the top of my head). Outright religious 'tribalism' is rampant in Europe and, to a degree, the U.S. The EU's unity is under serious strain, Scotland almost succeeded from the UK, and parts of Spain and other countries are discussing the same. Nobody stands up for the value of the liberal ideas and institutions that kept the peace since WWII. Arguably, there are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those that bring people together, and those that play on tribalistic instincts and divide them. One kind has much better results for humanity.
      - meric 11y ago
        Arguably, there are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those that bring people together, and those that play on tribalistic instincts and divide them. One kind has much better results for humanity. There are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those, like narcissists, forcefully change others into themselves, remove differences between peoples, demolish language and culture, and those that remain resolute in being non-interfering of others, even while being interfered with, allowing other humans to live according to their humanity. In Firefly - you would be part of the alliance. In Star Wars - you would be part of the empire. In the People's Republic of China, you would be part of the CCCP. In the U.S. you would be part of the Federal government. In Europe you would be part of the Troika. And I accept that is your nature.
        hackuser 11y ago
        I disagree; I don't at all intend to force anyone or think they should be forced. I believe they can and will be pursuaded and do the right thing, of their own free will; good leaders facilitate that but showing them how to work together. Humanity's track record for working together is incredible - we're a long way from caves and hunting - and it may be that the more free you make people, the better they respond. The most prosperous, safest and most peaceful countries in the history of the world, by a long shot, are the freest.
        meric 11y ago
        You can disagree. You have the same mindset as the U.S. Government in the 1800's thinking it is wise to persuade American Indians to 'civilise' for their own good. People who never admit failure no matter the results of their social experiments. And that's just how some of us are going to think some of the time.
        hackuser 11y ago
        I can more than disagree; I speak with absolute authority for what I believe. I declare the truth of it. You and your speculation have no standing at all.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      Those are people who live in countries that will be gone in a few generations.
      - ionised 11y ago
        > Those are people who live in countries that will be gone in a few generations. Pretty sure Europe, the Middle-East, Asia and Russia will all still be here in some form in a few generations.
        tsotha 11y ago
        I agree. The societies who haven't adopted the "guilt ridden opposite of nationalism" will be fine.
hackuser 11y ago
> I'm pretty sure it's better for 100,000 Africans to die than for my sister to die. That's not warped judgment. I don't see warped judgment but it's something we see frequently these days: An attempt to take down liberalism, with its embrace of reason and compassion, by aggressively making illiberal statements - as if to challenge the very ideas. The crazier and more illiberal the better; it almost becomes a contest to see who can say the craziest thing, which also serves as a proof of ideological purity common in such movements. You can see it in the statements of GOP candidates (Trump is on the same continuum they've been on for a long time) and on Fox. The only solution is to letting these hateful ideas dominate our country is to start calling people on it.
- meric 11y ago
  We're not machines, we're human beings, and it is humanity's nature for a person to love their own parents more than other parents, and for parents to love their children more than other children. What's inhumane is preventing people from doing what comes to them naturally via excessively high taxes, and force people to provide for everyone else who they hardly know[2]. Love is not equal, and that is just a fact. Mohism[1] - where everyone love everyone else equally - is dead. It will die once again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiali... [2] See nursing homes, poor public schools.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    This post ignores the massive social movements away from such highly tribalistic human associations. It ignores how technology, state, and economic structures have utterly dictated family structures since the neolithic. It does not actually establish some causal link between 'human nature' and what current familial affiliations people have. It is a statement of 'common sense' dressed up as an unassailable assertion about 'human nature'. How dare anyone question 'human nature'? Furthermore, the idea that any particular inborn kin affinity implies any particular social structure, falls flat on its face on purely logical grounds: If it is human nature to maximize the utility of one's parents and one's children over other relatives and other human beings, it is still possible that the best way to do so is to create a more egalitarian, free associating society based on large scale cooperation between human beings and compassion for non-kinsmen. The assertion relies on unspoken intuitions which are shaped by the institutions and cultural powers that raise us. Convenient for someone trying to justify their world view, pitiable for anyone trying to understand 'human nature'. Furthermore: We are all related and the time horizon of this kin favoring behavior has not been established. It is not clear why it is inborn 'human nature' to care for your immediate relatives and not more distant relatives. It is conveniently left implicit as that which makes most sense for the capitalist nuclear family, and maybe a generation or two down. If you care about your offspring into the indefinite future, and if you care about your relatives going back indefinitely, you care about all human beings. What I truly believe 'human nature' to be, if such a thing could be well defined is our ability to apprehend what lot we have in the common good, what our place in the way of things is. Not just in our communities, but in our species and on our planet. It's certainly not an excuse to grumble about taxes.
escape_goat 11y ago
Well, no, except in the sense that it can be objectively demonstrated that it is better for your sister to die than it is for 100,000 Africans to die by just about any measure of 'better' — outside of your own immediate and immutable personal preference — that you might care to name. So in that one sense, it could be argued that it might be an example of warped judgement.

steve19 11y ago

Has a sovereign state selling off land to another sovereign state ever been considered profitable in hindsight?

eli 11y ago
It's almost always true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it. I expect my house to continue to rise in value indefinitely. Doesn't mean it's never the right call to sell it.
- gwern 11y ago
  > It's almost always true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it. Actually, the usual belief held by economists is the opposite: that it's almost never true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it and investing it, since the value of land as a fraction of industrialized economies has been constantly falling and conversely, labor/capital rising. (There's also the diversification and uncompensated risk issue.)
  - Trombone12 11y ago
    Keep in mind that economist tend to have a long view goes between 1970 and the present (Piketty goes so far back as 1700, which is why he is famous).
  - eli 11y ago
    I think the was my point: it's totally plausible that a country selling off land could have been "profitable" depending on what the country was going to do with the proceeds.
fiatmoney 11y ago
Many of those instances are selling what one is unable to hold. There was, for instance, ~zero chance that France would end up actually retaining the Louisiana Purchase lands in perpetuity, so the only question was whether they'd get something in return (and they quite needed the money at the time), or lose them in an expensive war later.

scythe 11y ago

But how much would they get for selling Greenland today? If the answer is higher that $15bn, and I think it might be, then the Danes were shrewd indeed.

analog31 11y ago
I wonder how much it will be worth when all of its glaciers melt.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  Depends what's left when they're gone, right? We don't very well know what's under them now, and we know even less what the melting and runoff process will take with it into the sea. Buying Greenland today would be very risky even if you knew with certainty that the ice cap would be completely gone in 20 years. An ice-free Greenland might be an arid dust bowl devoid of vegetation, minerals, and usable water. Or, with proper care, it might turn into something more like Quebec. No one knows.
gwern 11y ago
> If the answer is higher that $15bn, and I think it might be Why's that?
- kethinov 11y ago
  It's a tough hypothetical to consider because a large number of political realities would have to change on the ground, not least of which is the national pride argument you made in your terrific article. However, let's assume for the time being that they suddenly want to sell to the highest bidder for whatever imaginary reason. I suspect if sovereignty were up for grabs again, the US would be willing to pay a very significant price to keep it out of the hands of a non-NATO country. $15bn is a small fraction of annual US federal spending. Seems to me paying a slightly larger or even significantly larger figure would be worth it to the US for sovereignty over such a valuable geostrategic location. Plus as you noted, it's likely that climate change could increase the value of the land. Sure, maybe not enough to turn a profit for the buyer, but it would offset the costs of buying to some degree. One particularly interesting implication is that if the US owned both Alaska and Greenland, it could bolster its argument for declaring the northwest passage as international waters in opposition to Canada's territorial waters claim.

qq66 11y ago

I can't see why the same logic couldn't applied to any country selling any piece of its land. Why doesn't the United States sell Pennsylvania? Why doesn't the United Kingdom sell Trafalgar Square?

krallja 11y ago
Nobody has an offer as good as the one the U.S. made to Denmark.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Who the hell wants Pennsylvania.
gwern 11y ago
It doesn't apply because some areas are worth far more, and are worth far more in conjunction with others. First, Pennsylvania is a well-developed and rich state, which was at the heart of American industrialization (names like Carnegie will ring a bell), and had and still has many natural resources: Pennsylvania was the start of American oil drilling and even now is yielding lucrative profits in the form of fracking for natural gas (to the point where my uncle remarks on how many of his patients are suddenly rich off royalties). It's in the top 10 of American states by GDP. The net present value of Pennsylvania is enormous. Note the stark contrast with Denmark & Greenland: where Greenland might have commercially exploitable resources and those resources may be substantially profitable one day and perhaps those profits will redound to the Danish people & government and who knows the share could be large enough to repay all the opportunity cost and risk and subsidies, Pennsylvania has been extremely important to the American economy, is now, and will be for quite some time to come. Secondly, Pennsylvania is worth far more as part of the USA than as part of any other country & an enclave: countless roadways, railways, and rivers flow through it, it's near the ocean, the people of it speak the same language and have the same culture as the surrounding states, which directly border on it with few or no natural barriers, it needs to import and export heavily with them, and so on. If it were part of another country, subject to entirely different regulations and laws and politics and using a different currency and imposing a border on all movements, it would be much poorer than it is now. In the same way that Greece is not in an optimal currency zone combined with Germany and it makes no sense for the USA to still own Puerto Rico and some other places, Pennsylvania is in an optimal currency zone with the USA.

clamprecht 11y ago

Sometimes I wish there were "gwern-as-a-service". I give him a topic, and he researches and writes it up. Payment in bitcoin. That would be pretty fucking awesome.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
This is why, last time I checked, Gwern's site explicitly says that they aren't interested in selling what you want to buy.

Eric_WVGG 11y ago

maybe they’re banking on global warming to turn it into a vacation hotspot, or a continent-sized refugee camp c'mon you were thinking it too

JacobAldridge 11y ago
Funnily enough, earlier today I re-read an old article of mine talking about retiring in the 2050s, which includes the quote "I, for one, will be reaping the rewards of my Greenland Viticulture investments."

interfixus 11y ago

Greenland is part and parcel of Danish national identity. It has nothing to do with money, almost everything to do with history and something I need a much better term for than cultural consciousness. No Danish government would have survived a selling off. In the immidiate aftermath of WW2 and German occupation, you can multiply that with some considerable factor. Footnote fact: Danes/Norwegians first settled in Greenland about a thousand years ago, at roughly the same time as the present inuit population.

IsaacL 11y ago

"That’s very strange. As an American, would I say Puerto Rico is one of the very last things that ought to ever be cut in the federal budget? Heck no! Puerto Rico has repeatedly decided it’d rather not be a state, but at least it’s still genuinely ruled by the USA; if Puerto Rico decided to switch to full home rule, I think I and the average American would care even less about them." This is definitely an American point of view. The US is a) a very large country which b) has been growing in power throughout modern history and c) has a cultural aversion to 'empire' (whether they are an empire or not is a different matter, but it seems they don't want to be). Compare that to many European countries, which are a) very small, b) have lost a lot of power in the last 200 years and c) have a (admittedly not universal) nostalgic streak for the glorious days of empire, when they were world powers. For Americans to sympathise, imagine if in 2100 various states have seceded and the US has split into multiple nations, with the remnant USA consisting only of the New England states. Then Canada offers to buy Maine, which is otherwise a burden on the treasury. Can you see why you wouldn't want to sell?

komaromy 11y ago
A better analogy would be an offer to buy Alaska, which would have a good shot at being agreed to.

caf 11y ago

There is another possibility: the modern notion that a sovereign's inhabited territory is not a chattel to be disposed of if an economically advantageous transaction can be arranged, but a trust held in benefit of those who live there under the sovereign's protection. Under this view, it would be an abrogation of the Greenlanders' right of self-determination for them to be passed to the United States without their agreement.

SamReidHughes 11y ago
Ah, but what if they hold a referendum and 60% want to change sovereign and 40% don't. Is it not an abrogation of that 40%'s right to self-determination? Maybe we should recognize that everybody has different desires and voting exists merely to pacifistically answer the question of if we fought a civil war over this decision, who would be more likely to win.

abricot 11y ago

It may or may not have had something to do with the sale of the Danish West Indies to USA in 1917. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies

caf 11y ago

Another reason has occurred to me: it may well have been that in 1946, with the post-war alliance structure not entirely clear yet, Denmark considered that selling Greenland removed a large part of their continuing value as a US ally. This would explain why they didn't want to sell it, but were happy to allow US bases to be established without payment. The reciprocity the Danes were counting on was ongoing protection by the USA as a valued ally.