[zazagura]

What would be a fair price for Greenland?

I say at least $5 trillion, maybe even $10T.

As for the population, you can individually buy the vast majority of them off with $1 mil - $5 mil per person, so that a referendum passes.

[reaperducer]

I say at least $5 trillion, maybe even $10T.

I doubt it will be that simple.

If I was making the deal (which is a terrible idea), I'd go for a flat amount around $100B, then 10% of revenue for 100 years.

[mieseratte]

This is the first time I’ve seen someone put forth a figure, what’s the basis for these numbers?

[zazagura]

It was priced in the past, but the numbers seem ridiculously low to me:

> To recap, the estimated range is $200 million to $1.7 trillion, which as suspected comes with cartoonishly large error bars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/16/trump-wan...

For once, it needs to be an attractive number for Denmark, more attractive than the unknown, but probably huge future value of such a big uninhabited place. $5T is about 12 years of Denmark GDP, and 10-20 times earnings is a good company acquisition price metric.

We are talking selling it forever. Just think how ridiculously cheap previous land purchases (Alaska, ...) now seem in hindsight.

Denmark is not really in the position to really use that place, even in the future. The only thing they can do with it is sell it, so the question becomes when and for how much.

[Mountain_Skies]

Timing is also important. Apparently Greenlanders don't feel very Danish. At what point in a rise to prosperity would they simply demand independence? Not even a sale, just Greenland being its own independent nation. It'd be unseemly for a modern progressive state like Denmark to demand tribute in exchange for freedom.

If I'm a superpower with plans for Greenland, using the usual tricks to create unrest that leads to calls for independence would be a likely first step.

[WillPostForFood]

10-20 times earnings is a good company acquisition price metric

Only in Silicon Valley playing with VC$. 2-4x earnings would be (have been?) a normal multiple for valuation.

[radicalbyte]

No there are other areas where that is normal. You're talking very well run businesses with natural monopolies in industries with very low risks.

[WillPostForFood]

You might be right, but perhaps very well run businesses with natural monopolies in industries with very low risks are more exceptional than normal.

[Reason077]

> "Denmark is not really in the position to really use that place, even in the future. The only thing they can do with it is sell it, so the question becomes when and for how much."

Greenland is a dependent territory, but it is not part of Denmark. I invite you to review the right to self-determination as enshrined in the charter of the United Nations.

It would ultimately be up to the people of Greenland whether they want to "sell" their country. Not, according to the principles of the UN, something that Denmark could do unilaterally.

[sweettea]

How's that right to self-determination working out for Scotland and Catalonia?

[jcranmer]

Well, Scotland did agree to remain part of the UK the last time they were asked.

[reaperducer]

Wouldn't both Greenland and Denmark have to agree to it?

[adventured]

Well here's the premise that nobody is talking about -

If China continues to ascend toward military superpower status and they aggressively press on a position regarding Greenland, the US will invade Greenland to secure the territory.

The US has been willing to invade all manner of foreign nations over the past ~75 years for varying reasons. The idea of China occupying Greenland militarily in any manner will never - not under any circumstances - be tolerated by the Pentagon and politicians in DC. Greenland is a militarily critical territory for the US superpower. The US military will invade and occupy Greenland, against the protest of the EU, Denmark, Russia and everybody else. It'll be argued as a national security matter of utmost importance and that will be the justification. They'd also say it's temporary (it wouldn't be). It'd be an annexation in everything except for name.

The US will take Greenland for $0, outside of the cost of occupation.

edit: people will downvote this because it's so upsetting. I understand. Back in reality, it's by far the most likely scenario in the next 30 years. The US paying $5t or $10t? It would never happen. Why would you do that if you're a military superpower, when you can trivially invade any time you want to, under any pretense. The US went into Vietnam and fought in a civil war that wasn't its own, a war that killed millions. But the US won't invade Greenland (a whopping 56k people) and occupy it, to keep it from China (a new military superpower setting up shop right up the street from the US)? Yeah right. An interesting part of this, is that the same people that think the US is an evil superpower, will pretend this isn't the obvious scenario that is going to happen (we'll go into Iraq, but not Greenland, etc). The US will declare that it's necessary to keep Greenland and its people safe.

Here's the propaganda bumper sticker for when it happens: Keep Greenland Safe! Short & easy to sell to the American people, it'll be on every truck.

[YawningAngel]

Greenland is a NATO member and, via Denmark, represented in the European Union. Greenland ain't worth picking that fight over. China won't invade it for much the same reason.

[adventured]

There would be no fight over it. It's a territorial protection maneuver to protect Greenland, led by the US.

US media combo military industrial complex headline: US does the security job that some NATO members refuse to do.

The PR push would be that it's not an annexation. It's not an occupation. It is temporary. It's about keeping Greenland safe, defending Greenland.

The representation at the EU via Denmark is meaningless. Neither Denmark nor the EU have any military power to stop the US from doing this. The US will easily be able to muddy the water enough politically by leaning on allies in Europe like Poland and Britain, to argue that it is in fact important to keep Greenland safe. In the end nobody will really do anything to stop it.

Which part of NATO is going to fight the US to stop this exactly? Right, none of it.

You know how batshit crazy Iraq was? 10x more so than what going into Greenland would be by comparison. And yet the US won't do it? Of course it will, if it thinks it needs to in order to prevent China from setting up there militarily. There are countless ways to spin it, to play it, in order to get from point A to point occupation re NATO.

[learc83]

Why invade? The Navy would just form a blockade to prevent Chinese ships from approaching if it ever came to that.

China has zero force projection capability outside of Asia. Their is no chance they are pulling off an invasion of Greenland anytime in the foreseeable future.

Also we already have an Air Force base in Greenland--there is no realastic scenario where a US invasion is necessary or even useful.

"Nope we aren't leaving. Any attempt to force us to leave will be seen as a hostile action, as will any attempt to establish a Chinese military presence."

That's all it takes.