A fine example of how Americans, even ones who I generally agree with, can be such arrogant dumb asses it just takes your breath away. A few counterpoints:
1. Believe it or not, not everyone thinks the USA is the absolute bestest country in the world
2. The USA has done a shit job when it comes to indigenous relations
3. Denmark, seems like a pretty good place, ranked number 2 on the happiness index, compared to lowly number 23 for the USA
4. Not everyone in the world believes more money is the key measure of success
5. Greenlanders want independence with benefits not exploitation by arguable the most avaricious country in the world
6. The influence as two one-hundredths of a percent of the population is less than being one percent.
I could go one but you (probably don't) get the picture
I don't have to cope about anything, I live much better than the average American despite being considerably poorer.
You are the ones coping about how "we" are great, the same way sports fans pretend "we" won when it's just the players and the team owners who go home to million dollar mansions to fuck groupies/trophy wives.
Musk/Bezos pay piggies like you should learn your place.
lol and yet here you are, weighing in on topics that don’t concern you with very strong opinions about a country you seem to hate. On an American platform, utilizing an American invention, most likely running on American technology, no less.
On the other hand, I don’t care where you’re from, what you’re doing there, or how you live. I’m too busy eating burgers, shooting guns, driving trucks, and living free to think about whatever commie hellhole you are squatting in. You see the difference?
I'm an American and I want my country to be rich and powerful, but I don't think annexing random countries is a way to do it--too much trouble and administrative overhead, especially for some piece of land across the ocean. What finally did Rome in at least in part was administrative bloat. And most countries don't want to be a part of another country.
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
Joseph Tainter would say it expanded past the point of marginal returns so far that margins became negative. That didn't entirely make sense to me https://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-collapse-of-complex-societies/ but here Richard is proposing acquiring a territory that is just a welfare drain for no apparent benefit. When Tyler Cowen suggests it, he at least argues we could do something with it other than update some maps.
It's kind of fascinating to me how Europeans can think of themselves as these wise enlightened people, and then show such unbridled, mindless xenophobia towards the US, with so little provocation.
Quite frequently, I've found that the America-hate doesn't stand up after 10 minutes of fact-checking. Take your happiness claim as an example. See this link:
It's true that Denmark is very high in happiness. However, the US happiness score is higher than about 75% of European countries, as of 2022. (To see this for yourself, note the US score of 6.89, then select "Europe" from the dropdown, and observe where the US would rank.)
So, it seems fair to guess that the Danish happiness figure is basically a sick joke to Greenlanders. And it makes you wonder whether the Danes are doing a "shit job" in their Greenlander relations.
Anyway, Bruce -- If you show xenophobia towards other nations, you shouldn't be surprised if other nations eventually notice what's going on, and respond in kind. Why should my tax dollars be paying to defend someone who hates me?
You'll notice in Richard's post, he writes:
"The best reason to annex Greenland then is that it will be a win for America and a loss for Europe."
Just 5-10 years ago, you wouldn't see American columnists write this way.
Europeans have basically made a unilateral choice to destroy their relationship with the US, as a cumulative effect of thousands of comments like yours. It's a remarkable story which demonstrates how self-destructive tall-poppy syndrome can be.
When you break your leg, Bruce, don't come running to me.
I'm a patriotic American. We have enough diversity and ethnic divisions. Let's slam shut the gates (except for people with skills we really want) and assimilate everyone as best we can, then we can start taking new people in.
As a European I have to agree. There's a lot of general anti-American sentiment in Europe while by far most people have never been to the US and only know about it through the news (which generally just copies whatever CNN says) or movies/media. The Americans living in Europe are usually the ones who don't like America, or they wouldn't have left.
I mean….if bilateral negotiations between the USA and Greenland were opened up these topics would all be up for discussion. I wonder what concessions Greenland could pull out of the US.
Just giving a flat ‘No’ because “Amerikkka bad!” seems an argument more to the advantage of the Danish government (who can’t compete) than the Greenlandic people who may have a more nuanced take.
What "bilateral negotiations"? Norway already said no. This conversation only exist because Trump, with the aid of useful idiots like those found here wants to bully them into giving up their territory. Why should the Danish government "compete" for their own territory? Just be honest and say you want to subjugate your own allies, so that we can all discuss what you people actually are: cowardly, treacherous predators.
What does Norway have to do with this? Norway said "no" to what? Did your Mommy scream that down to you in the basement?
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
I don't care if you go on. If you want facts from someone directly involved, pay attention.
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
I think that Mr. Hanania is grossly optimistic about what annexation would actually mean for Greenland.
Right now, Greenland has near-total domestic autonomy, and is also represented in the Folketing alongside the rest of Denmark. US annexation would probably mean becoming like Puerto Rico, which has belonged to the US for 126 years, and is more populous than some states, but is still looked down upon and has no representation in Congress.
What's more, right now Greenland is only subject to the environmental and labour laws enacted by the Inatsisartut, which represented the 57,000 Greenlanders. Joining the US would subject them to NEPA, OSHA, the EPA, and other massive anti-growth, anti-industrial bureaucracies who employ more people than even live in Greenland and are very hard to influence by even local interests in the 50 states who have representation in Congress. Also, under NEPA, all 335 million American citizens would gain the right to file frivolous environmental lawsuits to stop infrastructure from being built in Greenland - a tactic that's severely held back US infrastructure growth since the 1970s so that (among other things) we don't have any high speed rail. Noah Smith (whom I believe you read) even calls us "The Build-Nothing Country" on this account: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-build-nothing-country
So I think that your reading of America as freer than Europe is highly selective. Greenland becoming a US territory would mean losing its representation in the national legislature and giving an army of hundreds of thousands of outside lawyers unchecked power to harass Greenlanders and stop them from building stuff. Obviously Greenland's people don't have much ambition to build big things at the moment, but at least the only obstacle they'd have to clear if they changed their minds is persuading a majority of 57,000 fellow Greenlanders to agree with them. Get annexed to the United States and all that freedom goes whistling down the wind.
Kill two birds with one stone? Give Greenland statehood, and also make US states more autonomous, so Greenland can maintain their existing arrangements, and US states can opt out of the more onerous federal regulations.
If Donald Trump was powerful enough to do that, I'd be over the moon. But in practice it would mean a vast reduction downsizing of the federal bureaucracy, reduction in the powers of the federal judiciary, reduction in the powers of Congress... basically, a reorganization of the US government that we haven't seen since the events of 1861-65. So I'm not holding my breath.
Well, if it's ever going to happen, right now is the time to do it. Read up on the Fourth Turning theory. About every 80 years, western civilization is faced with some sort of crisis, the resolution of which brings about a significant reshaping of society. In the late 1770s-early 1780s, we saw the American Revolution, establishing a new nation and a new form of government.
80 years later in the 1860s, we got the Civil War, freeing the slaves, establishing Federal supremacy in a way that had been hitherto unknown, setting up the 14th Amendment, and so on.
80 years later in the 1940s, World War II shook up the entire world. Out of the chaos emerged technocracy and rule by experts, a thing that had never been a serious part of America before.
80 years later... that's the 2020s. That's right now.
You can also work your way backwards from the American Revolution, looking at British history, and European history more generally, and see the same pattern stretching back for centuries. There are various theories as to why it happens, but the fact that this cycle of civilization-reshaping crisis happening approximately once every 80 years *does happen* is hard to deny.
Astronomical bodies have reliably periodic cycles. Human societies are not astronomical bodies. They have "microfoundations" you need to understand to model them accurately. Hanania hates Turchin, but Turchin at least gives arguments for why certain cycles should exist. Your sample size of decades separated by 80 years is tiny!
I've seen various theories about how to model the reasons behind it. I personally favor the notion that 80 years is approximately a human life span, or in other words, the amount of time it takes for the people who lived through the last crisis and were old enough to learn from it to mostly die out, and those in power after them ignore the wisdom they attained.
I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that US acquisition of Greenland could have AFTER a big reorganization of how the US government works. I'm just saying it's a bad idea (and very unlikely to boot) to do it without reforming our own political system first. You've probably heard that proverb: Set your own house in order before you seek to change the world!
For what it's worth, I suspect that the 4th Turning people were onto something too. A few days ago I put up an annual predictions post at my own blog here:
While I'm not confident something big will happen in 2025 per se, I see plenty of crises brewing - collapse of the US currency due to uncontrollable entitlement spending, or a breakdown of global trade due to Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Any of these things might potentially set off a 4th Turning!
I like a lot of this (expansion + a National project + respect for successful private citizens). But I also want you to take this further (even less likely) and discuss National expansion as a coherent strategy.
Why *not* expand? Why not create clear rules for what America’s government would do to get closer (statehood if they want, or just free movement + trade + regulatory harmony) with places like Iceland, Jamaica, all the Caribbean nations, and Canada? Why not put a clear offer on the table for what Dominica needs to do to just be a part of America, either as a connected trading block or a state.
And within current US control give Puerto Rico statehood. DC statehood is dumb (give it to virginia or Maryland, or give it statehood but do it in such a way that it makes Virginia and Maryland purple states). But Puerto Rico should be part of a coherent expansion project.
Integration of trade/movement with: entire Caribbean, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
Free movement of people (if the country isn’t interested, just one way movement where we let their citizens in is fine) with: japan, korea, Britain, EU north or west of poland (inclusive), Taiwan, Philippines (up for debate but former US colony with reasonably good history of cultural affinity with the US).
And we should legitimately pay Chinese people with stem degrees to move here (with their families if they want).
Most of the world accepts America's current world order because America used its power responsibly. If the US starts expanding that will end. The US can barely keep up with China as is, if this idiocy becomes actual policy it'll probably be the end of America as the #1 superpower.
I don’t think “let some small countries join if they want and do some free trade + migration pacts” will spell the end of America. Far from it, it might help break us out of this stupid malaise
I don't have any problem with free trade/migration pacts. But that's a completely different issue from the US pressuring other nations to join. Nobody has expressed interest in joining, but the US and several Americans have expressed an interest in bullying others into being annexed or giving up their territories.
At this point nobody will (rightfully) believe any expansion of US territory was voluntary. Arguably nobody would have believed it even if it wasn't for Trump's pressure considering the US is constantly accused of imperialism and it badly damaged its reputation after the Iraq war.
No one has expressed an interest because no American politician has pitched it. I think there are a lot of places with poverty or security concerns who could be convinced if a really attractive pitch was made. Guaranteed security, investments in infrastructure and education, there are lots of carrots we can offer. Whether we could get over 50% support is another question, but I think it's within the realm of possibility.
Fools like you think history stays still and what was acceptable 200 years ago is still acceptable today. Nevermind that the Louisiana Purchase was not simply a one-sided campaign by a much more powerful country to intimidate their own ally into giving up its territory.
Would anti-immigrant MAGA types like it? Of course not. But we should be building towards a great, dominant, confident america. Large enough to match China/india/the EU, not afraid of unabashed growth again
YES!!! We should be trying to convince every nation to become America's next territory or state. Plenty of poor nations might be amenable to the idea, especially if we offered infrastructure investments.
Of course, Trump is an isolationist who despises shithole countries so he obviously isn't going to be the one to champion this kind of thing. I have a hard time seeing Richard be for it either, but this post surprised me so maybe you can convince him.
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
Fuck you, Anonymous Coward. I will post it until I sell 1,000,000 copies of my book and more importantly, convey the message of the Government of Greenland about how they view their independence.
I am muting you, pussy coward who cannot even share a name when besmirching your betters. There is nothing "alleged" about factual events.
What a loser - call up from the basement to tell Mommy you want some more meatloaf.
I've been on the fence on this for a while but you've finally and definitively convinced me America is a cancer on humanity that is almost as bad as Russia/China.
Going to war with your own allies to steal their territory (there's no such thing as "no hint of military pressure" when you are the most powerful nation on the planet) is both evil and stupid, and I can only hope Europe/East Asia realizes America is their enemy and pulls their head out of their ass.
imagine believing that it's impossible to not have a hint of military pressure when dealing with other countries! the entire history of American-European relations for the last 80 years has been America coming up with ways to coerce Europeans purely through political, diplomatic, and economic means.
Why is Greenland so much richer than Puerto Rico? Honest question. Is it just that the Danish willingness to subsidize a poor territory is greater than America's?
Because my first suspicion, if I were Greenland, is that I'll become the next Puerto Rico, which actually isn't that good a status.
well one reason is that Puerto Rico is a fairly densely populated island with over 3 million inhabitants, which means subsidizing it is just a much more difficult proposition
however, one reason you are right (and that richard overlooks), is that the U.S. has the Jones Act which is very bad for any discontinuous island possessions. getting rid of it would be a pro-market move that also makes the proposition of joining Greater America a lot more attractive
I wonder how big the effect of the Jones Act is on PR. I'm sure it's a negative but skeptical that it explains very much of PR's economic dysfunction. But open to the possibility if there's evidence!
As for the point about population, the ratio between PR and Greenland's populations is actually really similar to the ratio between America and Denmark's populations (~55:1). Plus the US is richer than Denmark. So I don't think the US has any less ability to subsidize PR than Denmark does Greenland.
I also think that a subsidy dollar ought to go farther on a densely populated tropical island than on a vast, remote iceberg with a thinly scattered population. It's easier to get more utilization out of any infrastructure that you build, for example.
So we should become a far right colonial empire no different than Russia under Putin? Richard your love of the tech right and endless expansion/growth blinds you….
huge difference between convincing people to voluntarily join a nation out of economic self-interest and violently conquering their territory, stealing children & raping women because your country's population of sub-literate orcs is incapable of doing anything about its declining role in the modern world other than lashing out in a fit of violent pique
there's nothing "voluntary" about the largest military power in the world bullying its own allies into giving up their territory.
Also the idea that "indigenous" Greenlanders should be able to leave whenever they feel like it is absurd and something no country (especially the US) would accept. If Putin asked Alaskans to sell themselves to Russia, would the US let them go? Of course not. "Convincing people to voluntarily join a nation" is just an euphemism for "fomenting strife and civil war in another country", and in this case it's a friendly allied nation to boot. Stupid, evil and perverse.
Let's be serious, it's just an attempted conquest by other means. Obv the US is not as bad as Russia but doing this is still bad, the same in kind as what Russia does, even if not the same in magnitude.
And it's also done under the absurd delusion that the US is inherently superior when in fact the US's current position relies heavily on deference from a large number of allied countries that Trump has explicitly called "worse than our enemies" and is primarily a product of its size rather than its culture.
This stupid shit will hurt everybody (including America) and enable America's rivals (particularly China) to eclipse it in the long run.
> If Putin asked Alaskans to sell themselves to Russia, would the US let them go? Of course not.
I don't think this a fair comparison because Russia sucks and US doesn't. A more fair comparison would be if Denmark wanted to buy Alaska and Denmark convinced Alaskans to want to be part of Denmark. In that situation, if Denmark is offering enough money, I think the US should sell Alaska.
>Of course not. "Convincing people to voluntarily join a nation" is just an euphemism for "fomenting strife and civil war in another country"
It can be a euphemism, but it's clearly not in this case.
The US would not sell Alaska, even if it were a good deal. Perhaps, to that extent, the US also sucks like countries that refuse to sell territory to the US.
Just because there is a power imbalance doesn't make it coercion. If a big corporation offers to buy my house it's my decision whether or not to sell. I wouldn't take kindly to threats, and neither will Denmark, but there's no reason for them to take those threats seriously.
A "not particularly distinguished European country." Fukuyama himself recognized "getting to Denmark" as the universal telos of developmental history, mate. There is no higher distinction.
"If America has problems, it is still morally and culturally superior to the rest of the world. Its destiny is to dissolve borders and distinct cultures, which are annoying and stupid."
This alleged cultural superiority of the US can only exist because it's distinct. And while American culture is very influential, it's not powerful or attractive enough to make the world American. No other developed country is going to grant its citizens the right to bear arms in the way that America does. Nor will any other country revert to privatized healthcare soon. In some ways, the US is more likely to change to match the rest of the First World.
Also, I don't see how American pop culture attracts EHC. Hip-hop and superhero movies are dominated by American citizens and are well-represented by below average minds, especially the former.
You say 20% of Greenland's GDP is Danish subsidizing. This makes me extremely sceptical that America could actually buy Greenland. As I understand it, Greenland has enough sovereignty to declare independence. Which means it must have enough sovereignty to Veto the deal. And it is never getting a better deal than it gets from Denmark.
Sure, Trump could promise to give them even more money. Greenland is so sparsely populated that he could easily afford it. But he cannot guarantee that the US is good for it long-term. Republicans don't even support science funding, how would you rely on them to subsidize Greenlanders in perpetuity? Denmark has its right-wingers too, of course. But they are far less ideolocal and the multi-party system of Denmark makes it hard to bring together a majority for defunding Greenland.
Yes, this seems valid. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, Puerto Rico is way poorer than Greenland. As are Guam, American Samoa, and even the US Virgin Islands. I actually don't think the US is alone in this category. E.g. French Guiana and Reunion are also a lot poorer than France. Greenland is just really rich for a nonwhite European colonial possession, and I'm not sure if the reason is entirely the unusually high level of subsidies or if there is some export industry there that helps contribute.
The only economic reason to join the US would be if integration with the US economy offered that much promise, above and beyond the subsidies. But I think Greenland just has it too good to justify a bet like that.
Paying Greenlanders $100,000 per person seems ludicrously low. Transfer payments from Denmark are 20% of Greenland’s GDP ($11,400 per capita), so it’s less than 9 years of payments.
Then they’d likely be a territory. Puerto Rico receives $3k per person from the US government. Guam receives $2k. American Samoa, $4k. Not a great deal for Greenland.
Who sells their country for a 9x revenue multiple?
Greenland: Their opening ask should ask for full statehood, with 2 senate seats. Similarly, Canada should ask for each province to be one a separate US state. That ought to panic the GOP.
One third of Greenlandic children born in the 1990s suffered from violence in the home and/or alcoholic parents. The Inuit, being related, share the (American) Indian intolerance of alcohol. Many Greelanders therefore suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Giving Greenlanders a lot more money than they already get from the Danish taxpayer is not going to lead to happy families. Any Dane with any knowledge of Greenland knows this.
The best deal would be for the U.S., Denmark, and the Greenland assembly to agree on how to exploit the Greenlandic minerals and how to defend the island from Russian and Chinese intrusion. Money can change hands, but making Greenland a U.S. state is a recipe for corruption and disaster.
The positive relationship with Denmark and the ability of NATO to use that area is indeed a reason why we don't gain much. At least buying Alaska from Russia let us put military bases there.
A fine example of how Americans, even ones who I generally agree with, can be such arrogant dumb asses it just takes your breath away. A few counterpoints:
1. Believe it or not, not everyone thinks the USA is the absolute bestest country in the world
2. The USA has done a shit job when it comes to indigenous relations
3. Denmark, seems like a pretty good place, ranked number 2 on the happiness index, compared to lowly number 23 for the USA
4. Not everyone in the world believes more money is the key measure of success
5. Greenlanders want independence with benefits not exploitation by arguable the most avaricious country in the world
6. The influence as two one-hundredths of a percent of the population is less than being one percent.
I could go one but you (probably don't) get the picture
1. We don’t care
2. That’s rich coming from (presumably) a European
3. We don’t care and the ‘happiness index’ seems to measure a cultural propensity for stagnation more than anything else
4. Sounds like some commie bullshit
5. Again, rich coming from a European.
6. Being any % of America is 100% better than being any % of any other country.
america is a shithole run by foreigners lol
it's a great place to find obese walmartians to get rich selling crap to
Hahaha the cope is always great
I don't have to cope about anything, I live much better than the average American despite being considerably poorer.
You are the ones coping about how "we" are great, the same way sports fans pretend "we" won when it's just the players and the team owners who go home to million dollar mansions to fuck groupies/trophy wives.
Musk/Bezos pay piggies like you should learn your place.
lol and yet here you are, weighing in on topics that don’t concern you with very strong opinions about a country you seem to hate. On an American platform, utilizing an American invention, most likely running on American technology, no less.
On the other hand, I don’t care where you’re from, what you’re doing there, or how you live. I’m too busy eating burgers, shooting guns, driving trucks, and living free to think about whatever commie hellhole you are squatting in. You see the difference?
I'm an American and I want my country to be rich and powerful, but I don't think annexing random countries is a way to do it--too much trouble and administrative overhead, especially for some piece of land across the ocean. What finally did Rome in at least in part was administrative bloat. And most countries don't want to be a part of another country.
Exactly. Who needs another frozen Puerto Rico?
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
https://rumble.com/v67xtav-trump-guilty-verdict-la-fires-new-american-expansionism-and-cyber-truck-upd.html?start=4033
Joseph Tainter would say it expanded past the point of marginal returns so far that margins became negative. That didn't entirely make sense to me https://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-collapse-of-complex-societies/ but here Richard is proposing acquiring a territory that is just a welfare drain for no apparent benefit. When Tyler Cowen suggests it, he at least argues we could do something with it other than update some maps.
Commie Bellshill 😅😅😅
Wrong on too many points to waste my time responding USA! USA! USA.
It's kind of fascinating to me how Europeans can think of themselves as these wise enlightened people, and then show such unbridled, mindless xenophobia towards the US, with so little provocation.
Quite frequently, I've found that the America-hate doesn't stand up after 10 minutes of fact-checking. Take your happiness claim as an example. See this link:
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/happiness/
It's true that Denmark is very high in happiness. However, the US happiness score is higher than about 75% of European countries, as of 2022. (To see this for yourself, note the US score of 6.89, then select "Europe" from the dropdown, and observe where the US would rank.)
Furthermore, Greenland has *by far* the world's highest suicide rate (double that of #2, South Korea). See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
So, it seems fair to guess that the Danish happiness figure is basically a sick joke to Greenlanders. And it makes you wonder whether the Danes are doing a "shit job" in their Greenlander relations.
Anyway, Bruce -- If you show xenophobia towards other nations, you shouldn't be surprised if other nations eventually notice what's going on, and respond in kind. Why should my tax dollars be paying to defend someone who hates me?
You'll notice in Richard's post, he writes:
"The best reason to annex Greenland then is that it will be a win for America and a loss for Europe."
Just 5-10 years ago, you wouldn't see American columnists write this way.
Europeans have basically made a unilateral choice to destroy their relationship with the US, as a cumulative effect of thousands of comments like yours. It's a remarkable story which demonstrates how self-destructive tall-poppy syndrome can be.
When you break your leg, Bruce, don't come running to me.
I'm a patriotic American. We have enough diversity and ethnic divisions. Let's slam shut the gates (except for people with skills we really want) and assimilate everyone as best we can, then we can start taking new people in.
As a European I have to agree. There's a lot of general anti-American sentiment in Europe while by far most people have never been to the US and only know about it through the news (which generally just copies whatever CNN says) or movies/media. The Americans living in Europe are usually the ones who don't like America, or they wouldn't have left.
I mean….if bilateral negotiations between the USA and Greenland were opened up these topics would all be up for discussion. I wonder what concessions Greenland could pull out of the US.
Just giving a flat ‘No’ because “Amerikkka bad!” seems an argument more to the advantage of the Danish government (who can’t compete) than the Greenlandic people who may have a more nuanced take.
What "bilateral negotiations"? Norway already said no. This conversation only exist because Trump, with the aid of useful idiots like those found here wants to bully them into giving up their territory. Why should the Danish government "compete" for their own territory? Just be honest and say you want to subjugate your own allies, so that we can all discuss what you people actually are: cowardly, treacherous predators.
What does Norway have to do with this? Norway said "no" to what? Did your Mommy scream that down to you in the basement?
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
https://rumble.com/v67xtav-trump-guilty-verdict-la-fires-new-american-expansionism-and-cyber-truck-upd.html?start=4033
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
https://rumble.com/v67xtav-trump-guilty-verdict-la-fires-new-american-expansionism-and-cyber-truck-upd.html?start=4033
I don't care if you go on. If you want facts from someone directly involved, pay attention.
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
https://rumble.com/v67xtav-trump-guilty-verdict-la-fires-new-american-expansionism-and-cyber-truck-upd.html?start=4033
I think that Mr. Hanania is grossly optimistic about what annexation would actually mean for Greenland.
Right now, Greenland has near-total domestic autonomy, and is also represented in the Folketing alongside the rest of Denmark. US annexation would probably mean becoming like Puerto Rico, which has belonged to the US for 126 years, and is more populous than some states, but is still looked down upon and has no representation in Congress.
What's more, right now Greenland is only subject to the environmental and labour laws enacted by the Inatsisartut, which represented the 57,000 Greenlanders. Joining the US would subject them to NEPA, OSHA, the EPA, and other massive anti-growth, anti-industrial bureaucracies who employ more people than even live in Greenland and are very hard to influence by even local interests in the 50 states who have representation in Congress. Also, under NEPA, all 335 million American citizens would gain the right to file frivolous environmental lawsuits to stop infrastructure from being built in Greenland - a tactic that's severely held back US infrastructure growth since the 1970s so that (among other things) we don't have any high speed rail. Noah Smith (whom I believe you read) even calls us "The Build-Nothing Country" on this account: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-build-nothing-country
So I think that your reading of America as freer than Europe is highly selective. Greenland becoming a US territory would mean losing its representation in the national legislature and giving an army of hundreds of thousands of outside lawyers unchecked power to harass Greenlanders and stop them from building stuff. Obviously Greenland's people don't have much ambition to build big things at the moment, but at least the only obstacle they'd have to clear if they changed their minds is persuading a majority of 57,000 fellow Greenlanders to agree with them. Get annexed to the United States and all that freedom goes whistling down the wind.
Kill two birds with one stone? Give Greenland statehood, and also make US states more autonomous, so Greenland can maintain their existing arrangements, and US states can opt out of the more onerous federal regulations.
Why don't we make US states more autonomous without having to handle Greenland as well?
If Donald Trump was powerful enough to do that, I'd be over the moon. But in practice it would mean a vast reduction downsizing of the federal bureaucracy, reduction in the powers of the federal judiciary, reduction in the powers of Congress... basically, a reorganization of the US government that we haven't seen since the events of 1861-65. So I'm not holding my breath.
I don't think Trump has any actual interest in decentralizing reforms. He proclaimed himself to be an economic nationalist, not any kind of localist.
Well, if it's ever going to happen, right now is the time to do it. Read up on the Fourth Turning theory. About every 80 years, western civilization is faced with some sort of crisis, the resolution of which brings about a significant reshaping of society. In the late 1770s-early 1780s, we saw the American Revolution, establishing a new nation and a new form of government.
80 years later in the 1860s, we got the Civil War, freeing the slaves, establishing Federal supremacy in a way that had been hitherto unknown, setting up the 14th Amendment, and so on.
80 years later in the 1940s, World War II shook up the entire world. Out of the chaos emerged technocracy and rule by experts, a thing that had never been a serious part of America before.
80 years later... that's the 2020s. That's right now.
You can also work your way backwards from the American Revolution, looking at British history, and European history more generally, and see the same pattern stretching back for centuries. There are various theories as to why it happens, but the fact that this cycle of civilization-reshaping crisis happening approximately once every 80 years *does happen* is hard to deny.
Astronomical bodies have reliably periodic cycles. Human societies are not astronomical bodies. They have "microfoundations" you need to understand to model them accurately. Hanania hates Turchin, but Turchin at least gives arguments for why certain cycles should exist. Your sample size of decades separated by 80 years is tiny!
I've seen various theories about how to model the reasons behind it. I personally favor the notion that 80 years is approximately a human life span, or in other words, the amount of time it takes for the people who lived through the last crisis and were old enough to learn from it to mostly die out, and those in power after them ignore the wisdom they attained.
Yeah, that sounds like Turchin's "fathers-and-sons" cycle.
I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that US acquisition of Greenland could have AFTER a big reorganization of how the US government works. I'm just saying it's a bad idea (and very unlikely to boot) to do it without reforming our own political system first. You've probably heard that proverb: Set your own house in order before you seek to change the world!
For what it's worth, I suspect that the 4th Turning people were onto something too. A few days ago I put up an annual predictions post at my own blog here:
https://twilightpatriot.substack.com/p/back-to-forecasting
While I'm not confident something big will happen in 2025 per se, I see plenty of crises brewing - collapse of the US currency due to uncontrollable entitlement spending, or a breakdown of global trade due to Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Any of these things might potentially set off a 4th Turning!
I like a lot of this (expansion + a National project + respect for successful private citizens). But I also want you to take this further (even less likely) and discuss National expansion as a coherent strategy.
Why *not* expand? Why not create clear rules for what America’s government would do to get closer (statehood if they want, or just free movement + trade + regulatory harmony) with places like Iceland, Jamaica, all the Caribbean nations, and Canada? Why not put a clear offer on the table for what Dominica needs to do to just be a part of America, either as a connected trading block or a state.
And within current US control give Puerto Rico statehood. DC statehood is dumb (give it to virginia or Maryland, or give it statehood but do it in such a way that it makes Virginia and Maryland purple states). But Puerto Rico should be part of a coherent expansion project.
If I had to hand wave it…
PR, Greenland new states. Jamaica if it wants.
Integration of trade/movement with: entire Caribbean, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
Free movement of people (if the country isn’t interested, just one way movement where we let their citizens in is fine) with: japan, korea, Britain, EU north or west of poland (inclusive), Taiwan, Philippines (up for debate but former US colony with reasonably good history of cultural affinity with the US).
And we should legitimately pay Chinese people with stem degrees to move here (with their families if they want).
"Why *not* expand?"
Most of the world accepts America's current world order because America used its power responsibly. If the US starts expanding that will end. The US can barely keep up with China as is, if this idiocy becomes actual policy it'll probably be the end of America as the #1 superpower.
I don’t think “let some small countries join if they want and do some free trade + migration pacts” will spell the end of America. Far from it, it might help break us out of this stupid malaise
I don't have any problem with free trade/migration pacts. But that's a completely different issue from the US pressuring other nations to join. Nobody has expressed interest in joining, but the US and several Americans have expressed an interest in bullying others into being annexed or giving up their territories.
At this point nobody will (rightfully) believe any expansion of US territory was voluntary. Arguably nobody would have believed it even if it wasn't for Trump's pressure considering the US is constantly accused of imperialism and it badly damaged its reputation after the Iraq war.
No one has expressed an interest because no American politician has pitched it. I think there are a lot of places with poverty or security concerns who could be convinced if a really attractive pitch was made. Guaranteed security, investments in infrastructure and education, there are lots of carrots we can offer. Whether we could get over 50% support is another question, but I think it's within the realm of possibility.
We were willing to "let" Puerto Rico be a state but they voted against it.
Fools like this guy would have been railing against the Louisiana Purchase.
Fools like you think history stays still and what was acceptable 200 years ago is still acceptable today. Nevermind that the Louisiana Purchase was not simply a one-sided campaign by a much more powerful country to intimidate their own ally into giving up its territory.
Would anti-immigrant MAGA types like it? Of course not. But we should be building towards a great, dominant, confident america. Large enough to match China/india/the EU, not afraid of unabashed growth again
Latin America makes the drugs, they don't consume them. Not at the rates that we do. No country has more junkies than America. Maybe it's better to buy the factory than the product. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/drug-use-by-country
YES!!! We should be trying to convince every nation to become America's next territory or state. Plenty of poor nations might be amenable to the idea, especially if we offered infrastructure investments.
Of course, Trump is an isolationist who despises shithole countries so he obviously isn't going to be the one to champion this kind of thing. I have a hard time seeing Richard be for it either, but this post surprised me so maybe you can convince him.
Given that I am in the reason (from my White House meeting in July 2019 as CEO of Tanbreez Mining Greenland) for Trump's initial impulse, I think I've got some basis for suggesting the world chill out. The USA and Greenland can do great things together, with the USA "buying" Greenland. (In this video interview, I mistakenly say July 2020 instead of July 2019)
https://rumble.com/v67xtav-trump-guilty-verdict-la-fires-new-american-expansionism-and-cyber-truck-upd.html?start=4033
How many times are you along to post this alleged feat, Chris?
Fuck you, Anonymous Coward. I will post it until I sell 1,000,000 copies of my book and more importantly, convey the message of the Government of Greenland about how they view their independence.
I am muting you, pussy coward who cannot even share a name when besmirching your betters. There is nothing "alleged" about factual events.
What a loser - call up from the basement to tell Mommy you want some more meatloaf.
Nice language, sperg. Did you make it all the way through sixth grade? Nobody is buying your poor excuse for a book anyway 😂
What is the upside of making any of them states? It's not currently being settled like the earlier US states were when they were being incorporated.
As opposed to territories, or as opposed to not being part of us at all?
Yes, as opposed to territories, since that is the status quo.
Reads like a hanania parody article
Often hard to tell if Hanania is trolling or not. In this case, I hope he is.
I've been on the fence on this for a while but you've finally and definitively convinced me America is a cancer on humanity that is almost as bad as Russia/China.
Going to war with your own allies to steal their territory (there's no such thing as "no hint of military pressure" when you are the most powerful nation on the planet) is both evil and stupid, and I can only hope Europe/East Asia realizes America is their enemy and pulls their head out of their ass.
imagine believing that it's impossible to not have a hint of military pressure when dealing with other countries! the entire history of American-European relations for the last 80 years has been America coming up with ways to coerce Europeans purely through political, diplomatic, and economic means.
We're only as bad as Russia and China if we actually do it.
I'm sure you can find Russians and Chinese saying equally silly things somewhere.
No one is going to war with Denmark for Greenland. This is the "fire and fury" guy remember?
Most Americans aren't like Richard.
Why is Greenland so much richer than Puerto Rico? Honest question. Is it just that the Danish willingness to subsidize a poor territory is greater than America's?
Because my first suspicion, if I were Greenland, is that I'll become the next Puerto Rico, which actually isn't that good a status.
well one reason is that Puerto Rico is a fairly densely populated island with over 3 million inhabitants, which means subsidizing it is just a much more difficult proposition
however, one reason you are right (and that richard overlooks), is that the U.S. has the Jones Act which is very bad for any discontinuous island possessions. getting rid of it would be a pro-market move that also makes the proposition of joining Greater America a lot more attractive
I wonder how big the effect of the Jones Act is on PR. I'm sure it's a negative but skeptical that it explains very much of PR's economic dysfunction. But open to the possibility if there's evidence!
As for the point about population, the ratio between PR and Greenland's populations is actually really similar to the ratio between America and Denmark's populations (~55:1). Plus the US is richer than Denmark. So I don't think the US has any less ability to subsidize PR than Denmark does Greenland.
I also think that a subsidy dollar ought to go farther on a densely populated tropical island than on a vast, remote iceberg with a thinly scattered population. It's easier to get more utilization out of any infrastructure that you build, for example.
PR’s currency is too strong
So we should become a far right colonial empire no different than Russia under Putin? Richard your love of the tech right and endless expansion/growth blinds you….
huge difference between convincing people to voluntarily join a nation out of economic self-interest and violently conquering their territory, stealing children & raping women because your country's population of sub-literate orcs is incapable of doing anything about its declining role in the modern world other than lashing out in a fit of violent pique
there's nothing "voluntary" about the largest military power in the world bullying its own allies into giving up their territory.
Also the idea that "indigenous" Greenlanders should be able to leave whenever they feel like it is absurd and something no country (especially the US) would accept. If Putin asked Alaskans to sell themselves to Russia, would the US let them go? Of course not. "Convincing people to voluntarily join a nation" is just an euphemism for "fomenting strife and civil war in another country", and in this case it's a friendly allied nation to boot. Stupid, evil and perverse.
Let's be serious, it's just an attempted conquest by other means. Obv the US is not as bad as Russia but doing this is still bad, the same in kind as what Russia does, even if not the same in magnitude.
And it's also done under the absurd delusion that the US is inherently superior when in fact the US's current position relies heavily on deference from a large number of allied countries that Trump has explicitly called "worse than our enemies" and is primarily a product of its size rather than its culture.
This stupid shit will hurt everybody (including America) and enable America's rivals (particularly China) to eclipse it in the long run.
> If Putin asked Alaskans to sell themselves to Russia, would the US let them go? Of course not.
I don't think this a fair comparison because Russia sucks and US doesn't. A more fair comparison would be if Denmark wanted to buy Alaska and Denmark convinced Alaskans to want to be part of Denmark. In that situation, if Denmark is offering enough money, I think the US should sell Alaska.
>Of course not. "Convincing people to voluntarily join a nation" is just an euphemism for "fomenting strife and civil war in another country"
It can be a euphemism, but it's clearly not in this case.
The US would not sell Alaska, even if it were a good deal. Perhaps, to that extent, the US also sucks like countries that refuse to sell territory to the US.
Just because there is a power imbalance doesn't make it coercion. If a big corporation offers to buy my house it's my decision whether or not to sell. I wouldn't take kindly to threats, and neither will Denmark, but there's no reason for them to take those threats seriously.
A "not particularly distinguished European country." Fukuyama himself recognized "getting to Denmark" as the universal telos of developmental history, mate. There is no higher distinction.
He actually just meant their gdp and cultural projection wasn't enough
You'd have to get rid of the Jones Act or it'd probably really hurt Greenland. The costs of practically everything would massively jump
Another reason to do it.
Problem is that Congress won't
America should buy itself Greenland as a treat. But ONLY once it’s closed the budget deficit. You only get your dessert after you’ve had your veggies.
"If America has problems, it is still morally and culturally superior to the rest of the world. Its destiny is to dissolve borders and distinct cultures, which are annoying and stupid."
This alleged cultural superiority of the US can only exist because it's distinct. And while American culture is very influential, it's not powerful or attractive enough to make the world American. No other developed country is going to grant its citizens the right to bear arms in the way that America does. Nor will any other country revert to privatized healthcare soon. In some ways, the US is more likely to change to match the rest of the First World.
Also, I don't see how American pop culture attracts EHC. Hip-hop and superhero movies are dominated by American citizens and are well-represented by below average minds, especially the former.
I know this was all in good fun. But let’s not do that thing where we compare a stock (Elon’s net worth) to a flow (Denmark’s GDP).
You say 20% of Greenland's GDP is Danish subsidizing. This makes me extremely sceptical that America could actually buy Greenland. As I understand it, Greenland has enough sovereignty to declare independence. Which means it must have enough sovereignty to Veto the deal. And it is never getting a better deal than it gets from Denmark.
Sure, Trump could promise to give them even more money. Greenland is so sparsely populated that he could easily afford it. But he cannot guarantee that the US is good for it long-term. Republicans don't even support science funding, how would you rely on them to subsidize Greenlanders in perpetuity? Denmark has its right-wingers too, of course. But they are far less ideolocal and the multi-party system of Denmark makes it hard to bring together a majority for defunding Greenland.
If I were Greenlandic, I'd stick with Denmark.
Yes, this seems valid. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, Puerto Rico is way poorer than Greenland. As are Guam, American Samoa, and even the US Virgin Islands. I actually don't think the US is alone in this category. E.g. French Guiana and Reunion are also a lot poorer than France. Greenland is just really rich for a nonwhite European colonial possession, and I'm not sure if the reason is entirely the unusually high level of subsidies or if there is some export industry there that helps contribute.
The only economic reason to join the US would be if integration with the US economy offered that much promise, above and beyond the subsidies. But I think Greenland just has it too good to justify a bet like that.
Paying Greenlanders $100,000 per person seems ludicrously low. Transfer payments from Denmark are 20% of Greenland’s GDP ($11,400 per capita), so it’s less than 9 years of payments.
Then they’d likely be a territory. Puerto Rico receives $3k per person from the US government. Guam receives $2k. American Samoa, $4k. Not a great deal for Greenland.
Who sells their country for a 9x revenue multiple?
“Who sells their country for a 9x revenue multiple?” Indigenous. You know some guy bought Manhattan for $25 right?
Amish: Europe has Hutterites & Mennonites.
Greenland: Their opening ask should ask for full statehood, with 2 senate seats. Similarly, Canada should ask for each province to be one a separate US state. That ought to panic the GOP.
One third of Greenlandic children born in the 1990s suffered from violence in the home and/or alcoholic parents. The Inuit, being related, share the (American) Indian intolerance of alcohol. Many Greelanders therefore suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Giving Greenlanders a lot more money than they already get from the Danish taxpayer is not going to lead to happy families. Any Dane with any knowledge of Greenland knows this.
The best deal would be for the U.S., Denmark, and the Greenland assembly to agree on how to exploit the Greenlandic minerals and how to defend the island from Russian and Chinese intrusion. Money can change hands, but making Greenland a U.S. state is a recipe for corruption and disaster.
The positive relationship with Denmark and the ability of NATO to use that area is indeed a reason why we don't gain much. At least buying Alaska from Russia let us put military bases there.