8 ms·

Not selling the biggest island in the world for $2.4 bln in today monies was a mistake? That's like the price of two London skyscrapers. Denmark has a 305 bln

by 21 9y ago

Not selling the biggest island in the world for $2.4 bln in today monies was a mistake? That's like the price of two London skyscrapers. Denmark has a 305 bln GDP. That money would barely register. Sure, today Greenland is not very useful, but what about in 50 years? Who knows what Denmark may be able to do with it then. And Denmark is not exactly a country with vast tracts of unused land. If Greenland was mine, I wouldn't even pick up the phone for an offer < $100 bln.

mc32 9y ago
One alternative would have been something like a 99-year lease with a handover in 2045. On the other hand it'd probably have more superfund sites in return. So all in all, likely a good choice.
rz2k 9y ago
Sized up to population/GDP it is also something like the cost of two London Olympics, or for the US maybe $120B. Being able to say you possess the world's biggest island probably is not worth $400 per citizen (which is before factoring in the costs it has incurred). On the other hand it does facilitate maritime claims that are becoming extremely valuable as the Arctic melts and opens up to shipping and other economic activity.
Kenji 9y ago
Yes. That would have been the most short-sighted deal in human history.
BerislavLopac 9y ago
Denmark can't really do anything, as Greenland has been granted self-rule and very wide autonomy, with Denmark retaining control over foreign relations and defence.
- azinman2 9y ago
  Or they could just change their mind and force whatever... if a Danish version of Trump comes to power...
  - adventured 9y ago
    Well if you want to be realistic about it, that would be decided by the US military. Greenland is and has been a strategic military posting as far as the US military is concerned going back to WW2. Denmark has a $3 billion military budget, they can't decide or dictate anything when it comes to international politics. NATO would decide whether Denmark were allowed to do anything militarily to retain Greenland, ie the US would decide.
    - 21 9y ago
      How is Greenland different from the little islands owned by France/UK in the Caribbean Sea? US doesn't dream of touching them, sure, Denmark is not exactly UK/France, but still...
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        Because the US has its own islands and if UK/France turn into North Korea then the US would be very quickly to touch said islands. That said those islands are not in the flight path of Russian bombers and land launched ICBMs. Greenland and previously Iceland were important strategic assets during the Cold War and with hostilities heating up again with Russia they are becoming more important by the day.
      - selectodude 9y ago
        Greenland is loaded with ex-US military bases and the Trump admin has indicated that they want to re-populate one of them. Harder to screw around with land when a different country has a larger military presence on that island than you do.
oh_sigh 9y ago
I feel like the gas/oil/mineral rights alone would be worth at least a few billion
- greglindahl 9y ago
  ... and those belong to the local government, not Denmark.
adventured 9y ago
> Sure, today Greenland is not very useful, but what about in 50 years? Denmark barely controls Greenland today as it is. As with the Self-Government Act, it's most likely that Greenland will continue to gradually shift toward full independence. If Greenland develops into anything, Denmark won't own or control it. For example if a million people move there over 50 years, perhaps seeking isolation or lower population density vs mainland Europe. It would be its own independent nation, not dissimilar from Iceland. The only way Denmark could hold onto Greenland would be through military action (never going to happen).
- 21 9y ago
  I'm not sure who would recognize Greenland if it unilaterally declared independence. EU probably not. It's not like there are human rights violations or anything going on in there, so they kind of lack a serious reason to split. To me it looks like the only way for this to happen were if Denmark agreed (like Scotland), maybe under international pressure.
  - adrianb 9y ago
    Unlike Scotland, Greenland is not part of the EU. The correct way to think of it is not as a part of Denmark but as a separate country under the same queen. Similar to the Dutch Caribbean territories or the British Channel islands.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Greenland voted to leave and become an OCT all Greenlandians are still EU citizens but Greenland is not part of the EC or EU. EU territories are unot quite complicated often by design as most of the non EC/EU ones are effectively institutionalized and purposeful legal loopholes. Greenland isn’t one of those cases really it was just financially non viable for them to be a part of the EC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territo...
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
mastazi 9y ago
I completely agree, and I wanted to add that the paragraph where the author suggests that money is 60X more valuable to Denmark doesn't make a lot of sense... Last time I checked, 1 USD was worth exactly 1 USD, exchange fees notwithstanding.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
I'm sure, ATM at least, that Greenland is costing Denmark money every year more than it is bringing through in any taxes. Perhaps it will eventually turn out to be another Alaska, but the economics aren't that simple.
ThomPete 9y ago
Greenland is very useful and have both oil and is an important strategic point.
gwern 9y ago
Those two skyscrapers would have been making you a fortune for decades, would be making you a fortune each year now, and would continue to do so, and when you sold them to some Russian oligarchs, would make you an even more enormous fortune than all of that put together. In contrast, 'the biggest island in the world' is a worthless superlative as about as meaningful as "biggest ball of twine in the world", and it is useless and expensive to maintain and has not, is not now, and probably never will make you a fortune. Can you eat 'biggest island in the world'? Does mere bigness make it useful? Is the Sahara valuable solely because it is large? Do people prefer to go to Greenland rather than Hawaii because it's so much larger an island? Even if Greenland does start seeing real economic activity - maybe that much ballyhooed oil will finally start being economically feasible - and it makes you specifically a fortune rather than someone else, it'll do so in some distant unforeseeable future and you will have lost out on everything you could have done with that money now. If you think that's a good deal, I have an offer for you: send me $100m now, and I swear I will return you $100m in 50 years. Good deal, right? Who knows what you can do with $100m 50 years from now! > And Denmark is not exactly a country with vast tracts of unused land. "Denmark has a population density of 131 people per square kilometer (339/square mile), which ranks 88th in the world."

by 21 9y ago

mc32 9y ago

One alternative would have been something like a 99-year lease with a handover in 2045. On the other hand it'd probably have more superfund sites in return. So all in all, likely a good choice.

rz2k 9y ago

Sized up to population/GDP it is also something like the cost of two London Olympics, or for the US maybe $120B. Being able to say you possess the world's biggest island probably is not worth $400 per citizen (which is before factoring in the costs it has incurred). On the other hand it does facilitate maritime claims that are becoming extremely valuable as the Arctic melts and opens up to shipping and other economic activity.

Kenji 9y ago

Yes. That would have been the most short-sighted deal in human history.

BerislavLopac 9y ago

Denmark can't really do anything, as Greenland has been granted self-rule and very wide autonomy, with Denmark retaining control over foreign relations and defence.

azinman2 9y ago
Or they could just change their mind and force whatever... if a Danish version of Trump comes to power...
- adventured 9y ago
  Well if you want to be realistic about it, that would be decided by the US military. Greenland is and has been a strategic military posting as far as the US military is concerned going back to WW2. Denmark has a $3 billion military budget, they can't decide or dictate anything when it comes to international politics. NATO would decide whether Denmark were allowed to do anything militarily to retain Greenland, ie the US would decide.
  - 21 9y ago
    How is Greenland different from the little islands owned by France/UK in the Caribbean Sea? US doesn't dream of touching them, sure, Denmark is not exactly UK/France, but still...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Because the US has its own islands and if UK/France turn into North Korea then the US would be very quickly to touch said islands. That said those islands are not in the flight path of Russian bombers and land launched ICBMs. Greenland and previously Iceland were important strategic assets during the Cold War and with hostilities heating up again with Russia they are becoming more important by the day.
    - selectodude 9y ago
      Greenland is loaded with ex-US military bases and the Trump admin has indicated that they want to re-populate one of them. Harder to screw around with land when a different country has a larger military presence on that island than you do.

oh_sigh 9y ago

I feel like the gas/oil/mineral rights alone would be worth at least a few billion

greglindahl 9y ago
... and those belong to the local government, not Denmark.

adventured 9y ago

> Sure, today Greenland is not very useful, but what about in 50 years? Denmark barely controls Greenland today as it is. As with the Self-Government Act, it's most likely that Greenland will continue to gradually shift toward full independence. If Greenland develops into anything, Denmark won't own or control it. For example if a million people move there over 50 years, perhaps seeking isolation or lower population density vs mainland Europe. It would be its own independent nation, not dissimilar from Iceland. The only way Denmark could hold onto Greenland would be through military action (never going to happen).

21 9y ago
I'm not sure who would recognize Greenland if it unilaterally declared independence. EU probably not. It's not like there are human rights violations or anything going on in there, so they kind of lack a serious reason to split. To me it looks like the only way for this to happen were if Denmark agreed (like Scotland), maybe under international pressure.
- adrianb 9y ago
  Unlike Scotland, Greenland is not part of the EU. The correct way to think of it is not as a part of Denmark but as a separate country under the same queen. Similar to the Dutch Caribbean territories or the British Channel islands.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Greenland voted to leave and become an OCT all Greenlandians are still EU citizens but Greenland is not part of the EC or EU. EU territories are unot quite complicated often by design as most of the non EC/EU ones are effectively institutionalized and purposeful legal loopholes. Greenland isn’t one of those cases really it was just financially non viable for them to be a part of the EC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territo...
seanmcdirmid 9y ago

mastazi 9y ago

I completely agree, and I wanted to add that the paragraph where the author suggests that money is 60X more valuable to Denmark doesn't make a lot of sense... Last time I checked, 1 USD was worth exactly 1 USD, exchange fees notwithstanding.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

I'm sure, ATM at least, that Greenland is costing Denmark money every year more than it is bringing through in any taxes. Perhaps it will eventually turn out to be another Alaska, but the economics aren't that simple.

ThomPete 9y ago

Greenland is very useful and have both oil and is an important strategic point.

gwern 9y ago

Those two skyscrapers would have been making you a fortune for decades, would be making you a fortune each year now, and would continue to do so, and when you sold them to some Russian oligarchs, would make you an even more enormous fortune than all of that put together. In contrast, 'the biggest island in the world' is a worthless superlative as about as meaningful as "biggest ball of twine in the world", and it is useless and expensive to maintain and has not, is not now, and probably never will make you a fortune. Can you eat 'biggest island in the world'? Does mere bigness make it useful? Is the Sahara valuable solely because it is large? Do people prefer to go to Greenland rather than Hawaii because it's so much larger an island? Even if Greenland does start seeing real economic activity - maybe that much ballyhooed oil will finally start being economically feasible - and it makes you specifically a fortune rather than someone else, it'll do so in some distant unforeseeable future and you will have lost out on everything you could have done with that money now. If you think that's a good deal, I have an offer for you: send me $100m now, and I swear I will return you $100m in 50 years. Good deal, right? Who knows what you can do with $100m 50 years from now! > And Denmark is not exactly a country with vast tracts of unused land. "Denmark has a population density of 131 people per square kilometer (339/square mile), which ranks 88th in the world."