Are you supporting yourself, Greenland? Then, you’re for sale.
Look, you idiots at CNN (fist of all, I think CNN ‘made up’ this story) EVERYTHING has a sales price .. its a matter of meeting that price OR some other set of conditions or trades ...
Either your Signature or your Brains will be on that Contract.
They should say they sell it for 5 bucks or something to anyone who wants it.
Send In your 5 bucks, get a bit of dirt in the mail.
Eh.....they’re bargaining for more money.
Offer to let them trade places with Puerto Ricans.
It is not for Greenland to say. It is owned by Denmark.
he medias bone for the day. They are soooo stupid. Might say its like a whole bunch of Fredos.
That’s fine. I support self-determination.
Only in this case the call is Denmark’s and not theirs.
If the supply of cash to pay welfare benefits runs too low the Danes may indeed sell.
We should offer a trade, California for Greenland.
It’s no longer acceptable to buy or even conquer territory and people.
If, all things considered, the people of Greenland wanted independence or to affiliate with a different country, the honorable thing would be to work it out. As it is, the people of Greenland want to receive lots of welfare money and to have somebody else defend them.
Fewer and fewer of them are interested in living off whales and seals. More and more of them are re-locating to the capital. The local government is trying to keep the capital from becoming an over-grown slum. It distributes only a few additional lots to natives per year and encourages people to locate in one of the “larger” towns instead of the capital.
As for Denmark, it provides the welfare money, but it really doesn’t provide defense. It spends only 1.3 percent of GDP on defense, less than the NATO obligation of 2.0 percent. So, the defense of Greenland is really provided by the U.S. (as though that’s a surprise to anyone). Denmark should belly up to the bar and spend 2.0 percent on military.
(I would recommend spending the additional on Coast Guard-like units for guarding Greenland, and recruiting locally.)
Greenland is supposed to contain HUGE natural resources. But, so far, nothing much has been developed. The way the subsidy is supposed to go, any royalties are first to lower the subsidy paid to the local government by Denmark and, beyond that, given mostly to the local government. The local people are hoping that one day they will enjoy a bonanza. Like members of an American Indian tribe waiting for the day oil is discovered on their reservation. Actually, there’s nothing wrong with that.
As for being self-sufficient or even a state of the U.S., with 52,000 people its comparable in population to Bermuda, which isn’t self-governing. Bahamas has like 200,000 people, and is self-governing. But, this is not really true. Bahamas is a member of the Caribbean Community, which pools resources for self-defense (and other purposes). And, let’s face it, they continue to rely on the U.S. and the U.K., e.g., Grenada and the Falkland Islands during the 1980s.
In Canada, small numbers of people in Yukon and the rest of its northern tier preclude those places from being (full) provinces of Canada. Nevertheless, they have the status of territory, and that seems to work out. Each territory has one member of parliament, even though the population of these territories is small compared to the average population in districts (called ridings) in Canada’s southern tier.
For that matter, Greenland and the Faroe Islands (north of Scotland) each elect members of the Danish parliament (this also involves over-representation). All this works out pretty well.
My own idea for representation of territories is to attach them to States willing to have them for voting in federal elections, and for apportionment of members of Congress. For example, the U.S. Virgin Islands could vote as part of Florida, Guam as part of Alaska, the Northern Marianas as part of Hawaii, and D.C. as part of Maryland (voiding the 23rd Amendment). This way all of us vote in our federal elections, including those of us who live in territories.
lol
everything’s for sale folks.....
If they wanna make that stick, they will get rid of the PRC folks that keep trying to set up bases there.
Of course, we could just let the PRC build it’s base there, wait for the inevitable hot war and then seize the island. Only this time, we don’t give it back to the Danes like we did after WW2.
Didn’t the US try to buy Greenland for $100 Million in 1946 ?
Denmark has lots of problems - High taxes, high muzzie infiltration, high feminization, high PC, high alcoholism, high suicide rate, high bestiality. They’re the happiest country? ROTFLMAO!
They might just like the deal — Get money, lose a useless burden, get protection.
Strategic resources and location, the decision will not be made in Greenland but in Denmark and the US. Alaska was lampooned too. Buy it.
Not very nice Greenland. In fact it’s RACIST.
Usually the first thing someone says when they want a deal.
“It’s not for sale.”
Make them an offer they can’t refuse.
I hope he buys it and relocates the UN there.
GDP of Greenland is $2.7B.
SOP for corporate purchases is about 10x of revenue.
I can see 100x of GDP being a fair price for a province purchase.
$270B for Greenland is manageable, being merely 6.75% of current annual federal spending.
That’s 80% of Denmark’s GDP, as pure profit - vs far less than Greenland tax revenues over the next century.
Just rough numbers. Shows it’s entirely doable.