4 ms·

As well as the Virgin Islands, which the US bought from Denmark as recently as 1917. The population of Greenland, per Wikipedia, is 56,583. The US could offer

by troad 2y ago

As well as the Virgin Islands, which the US bought from Denmark as recently as 1917. The population of Greenland, per Wikipedia, is 56,583. The US could offer $50,000 to each man, woman, and child in Greenland. That's just over $2.8bn, which is pocket change for the US. The domestic (Greenlandic) politics around this could shift dramatically with such an offer. Throw in a few billion for Denmark (or a promise to continue to engage in NATO, or some other core interest of Denmark's) and you've probably got a sealed deal. I'm not saying that the Greenlanders should do this, but it's not nearly as unrealistic as some people seem to think. I'd be surprised if Trump actually followed up on any of this though.

Symbiote 2y ago
Denmark already subsidizes Greenland to around $10,000 per capita every year, so I think the Greenlanders would want a much higher offer.
- troad 2y ago
  I'm talking about a cash in hand offer: a literal bank wire to every person in Greenland. Greenlandic politicians holding out for a different offer might find themselves voted out by people that rather like the idea of $50k in cash ($200k for a family of four, etc). Re subsidies, the US federal government subsidised local and state governments to the tune of $1.1 trillion in 2023 alone, with funding disproportionately directed to poorer regions (such as Greenland, were it to join). That's not including direct spending on Native Americans, for which most Greenlanders would also be eligible. With no special arrangements whatsoever, Greenland would likely see a comparable amount of subsidy in the US as it does today (and very likely much greater economic growth). In reality, some level of subsidy guarantee for a period of some years could easily be part of the accession negotiations. The real question isn't whether the US can afford Greenland - they can, many times over - the real question is the value of sovereignty (and I don't have the answer to that).
epolanski 2y ago
You seriously believe you are going to buy Greenland with 50k per person and few billions for Denmark? That's a laughable offer. Believe it or not, Europeans are not on sale and they do not have that much sympathy or willingness to leave in the US. The few that do, do so for money they would not make in Europe. And money is not an issue for Greenlanders or Danes. They both do much better than people in many US states.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mercutio2 2y ago
  Big fan of Denmark! But where in the world did you get the idea people in Denmark do “much better” than people in even the poorest US state? Median income in the poorest US state (Mississippi) is slightly higher than median income in Denmark, with much lower taxes even if you consider private health insurance a tax. A similar analysis of people in the poorest decile, after famously stingy US transfer payments, has disposable income for the poor in Mississippi coming out ahead of being poor in Denmark. I keep seeing folks make this argument. I would love to live in Denmark, but the reason to live there is not because of higher income. The US is just much, much richer than almost all of Europe (Switzerland and Luxembourg are the exceptions, not Denmark). It’s totally fine to value things like social cohesion, terrific bike infrastructure, and low income inequality. Those are areas Denmark beats the US. But income? It’s not even close.
  - HRSDK 2y ago
    No. That claim is at best highly misleading and, in most straightforward comparisons, simply false. Once you adjust for cost of living, tax structures, and what you actually “get” for your taxes (e.g., healthcare, education), Denmark’s median disposable income generally exceeds that of Mississippi. Moreover, Mississippi’s nominal median household income—while sometimes quoted in the same ballpark as Denmark’s median after-tax income—does not include the considerable out-of-pocket costs U.S. residents pay for things Danes receive through public services (healthcare, college, childcare, etc.).
rswail 2y ago
Greenland's mineral resources are valued in the trillions. They can be exploited for the benefit of the residents, why on earth would they sell that for the undefined "benefits" of being an exploited territory of either the US or China?
- troad 2y ago
  Good news, they get to keep all of them. In the US, natural resources belong to whoever owns the land, which would be the state government and the people of Greenland. Y'all can fear-monger about 'neo-colonialism', but the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark, what with its actual colonialism.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    > the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark While Denmark is by far the biggest colonial exploiter of Greenland (including genocidal ethnodemographic policies as late as the 1970s), it is by no means the only one. Other exploiters include Norway, who tried to annex East Greenland, Faroe Islands, who set up a failed factory in South Greenland, Iceland, who has been exploiting the fisheries around Greenland, and—the second worse offender—USA who set up an illegal military base in Pituffik, North Greenland, including forcefully relocating its residents to Qaanaaq, crash landing a bomber armed with a nuclear bomb, illegally using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs, polluting their surroundings, etc. PS. what you are describing as neo-colonialism, is just plain old fashion colonialism. Neo-colonialism is already a defined term which does not involve annexing territories. In fact its defining feature is exploitation without direct territorial control. In my opinion I wish it wasn’t called neo-colonialism, as it sort of diminishes the true horrors of European colonialism, and is not offering any meaningful distinction from the standard exploitation of global capitalism and neo-liberalism. PPS. It can be argued that Iceland’s and the Faroes’ exploitation of Greenland are neo-colonial in nature, as opposed to pure colonial, like Denmark’s, Norway’s and the USA’s.
    - troad 2y ago
      Sure, that arch exploitative act of "trying to set up a factory" in an impoverished area. God forbid the locals get wages and a chance at better living conditions, when they can instead be forced to remain a living museum of impoverished hunter-gatherer cultures for the benefit of haughty Western scholars of neo-colonialism. /s "Illegally" using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs? Illegal under whose law? The illegitimate dictates of the occupying Danish government? You can point fingers and "what about?" all day long, but there's only state that colonised Greenland, and that is Denmark. Whereas the United States - while far from perfect - played a pivotal role in pressuring Europe to dismantle its rapacious colonial empires. Ultimately, the only people who have the right to decide the future and laws of Greenland are the people of Greenland. Whether that is independence, joining the Union as an equal, or continued colony status under Denmark is a matter for them and them alone. Unlike Denmark, the US isn't going to invade and annex Greenland.
johneth 2y ago
> "recently" Over a century ago is not recently, even relatively.

by troad 2y ago

Symbiote 2y ago

Denmark already subsidizes Greenland to around $10,000 per capita every year, so I think the Greenlanders would want a much higher offer.

troad 2y ago
I'm talking about a cash in hand offer: a literal bank wire to every person in Greenland. Greenlandic politicians holding out for a different offer might find themselves voted out by people that rather like the idea of $50k in cash ($200k for a family of four, etc). Re subsidies, the US federal government subsidised local and state governments to the tune of $1.1 trillion in 2023 alone, with funding disproportionately directed to poorer regions (such as Greenland, were it to join). That's not including direct spending on Native Americans, for which most Greenlanders would also be eligible. With no special arrangements whatsoever, Greenland would likely see a comparable amount of subsidy in the US as it does today (and very likely much greater economic growth). In reality, some level of subsidy guarantee for a period of some years could easily be part of the accession negotiations. The real question isn't whether the US can afford Greenland - they can, many times over - the real question is the value of sovereignty (and I don't have the answer to that).

epolanski 2y ago

You seriously believe you are going to buy Greenland with 50k per person and few billions for Denmark? That's a laughable offer. Believe it or not, Europeans are not on sale and they do not have that much sympathy or willingness to leave in the US. The few that do, do so for money they would not make in Europe. And money is not an issue for Greenlanders or Danes. They both do much better than people in many US states.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mercutio2 2y ago
Big fan of Denmark! But where in the world did you get the idea people in Denmark do “much better” than people in even the poorest US state? Median income in the poorest US state (Mississippi) is slightly higher than median income in Denmark, with much lower taxes even if you consider private health insurance a tax. A similar analysis of people in the poorest decile, after famously stingy US transfer payments, has disposable income for the poor in Mississippi coming out ahead of being poor in Denmark. I keep seeing folks make this argument. I would love to live in Denmark, but the reason to live there is not because of higher income. The US is just much, much richer than almost all of Europe (Switzerland and Luxembourg are the exceptions, not Denmark). It’s totally fine to value things like social cohesion, terrific bike infrastructure, and low income inequality. Those are areas Denmark beats the US. But income? It’s not even close.
- HRSDK 2y ago
  No. That claim is at best highly misleading and, in most straightforward comparisons, simply false. Once you adjust for cost of living, tax structures, and what you actually “get” for your taxes (e.g., healthcare, education), Denmark’s median disposable income generally exceeds that of Mississippi. Moreover, Mississippi’s nominal median household income—while sometimes quoted in the same ballpark as Denmark’s median after-tax income—does not include the considerable out-of-pocket costs U.S. residents pay for things Danes receive through public services (healthcare, college, childcare, etc.).

rswail 2y ago

Greenland's mineral resources are valued in the trillions. They can be exploited for the benefit of the residents, why on earth would they sell that for the undefined "benefits" of being an exploited territory of either the US or China?

troad 2y ago
Good news, they get to keep all of them. In the US, natural resources belong to whoever owns the land, which would be the state government and the people of Greenland. Y'all can fear-monger about 'neo-colonialism', but the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark, what with its actual colonialism.
- runarberg 2y ago
  > the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark While Denmark is by far the biggest colonial exploiter of Greenland (including genocidal ethnodemographic policies as late as the 1970s), it is by no means the only one. Other exploiters include Norway, who tried to annex East Greenland, Faroe Islands, who set up a failed factory in South Greenland, Iceland, who has been exploiting the fisheries around Greenland, and—the second worse offender—USA who set up an illegal military base in Pituffik, North Greenland, including forcefully relocating its residents to Qaanaaq, crash landing a bomber armed with a nuclear bomb, illegally using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs, polluting their surroundings, etc. PS. what you are describing as neo-colonialism, is just plain old fashion colonialism. Neo-colonialism is already a defined term which does not involve annexing territories. In fact its defining feature is exploitation without direct territorial control. In my opinion I wish it wasn’t called neo-colonialism, as it sort of diminishes the true horrors of European colonialism, and is not offering any meaningful distinction from the standard exploitation of global capitalism and neo-liberalism. PPS. It can be argued that Iceland’s and the Faroes’ exploitation of Greenland are neo-colonial in nature, as opposed to pure colonial, like Denmark’s, Norway’s and the USA’s.
  - troad 2y ago
    Sure, that arch exploitative act of "trying to set up a factory" in an impoverished area. God forbid the locals get wages and a chance at better living conditions, when they can instead be forced to remain a living museum of impoverished hunter-gatherer cultures for the benefit of haughty Western scholars of neo-colonialism. /s "Illegally" using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs? Illegal under whose law? The illegitimate dictates of the occupying Danish government? You can point fingers and "what about?" all day long, but there's only state that colonised Greenland, and that is Denmark. Whereas the United States - while far from perfect - played a pivotal role in pressuring Europe to dismantle its rapacious colonial empires. Ultimately, the only people who have the right to decide the future and laws of Greenland are the people of Greenland. Whether that is independence, joining the Union as an equal, or continued colony status under Denmark is a matter for them and them alone. Unlike Denmark, the US isn't going to invade and annex Greenland.

johneth 2y ago

> "recently" Over a century ago is not recently, even relatively.