Your money or your life - How much is Greenland worth?

[trendcoin]

When I was a child, in the cowboy movies I watched, bandits would point their guns at people they stopped on the road and say, “your money or your life.” International relations have reached this point today...

History is not an independent object, of course; it is a chronological assessment and continues to take its subjects from limited objects, just as it did yesterday. So, I don't find what we are experiencing very surprising, but I think I need to question the future based on what we are experiencing...

As the world goes mad in this situation, I will certainly not ask how much Greenland is worth. That would make me no different from the murderers killing children for oil in West Asia. I cannot be like them, and I will not be...

This forum hosts wonderful people from all over the world. All of your opinions are very valuable to me...

In this context, how do you think the global political economy will evolve in the coming years? Are the increasing geopolitical tensions and great power rivalry, in your opinion, the natural pains of transition to a multipolar order, or are they harbingers of a deeper and more structural risk of global conflict? Furthermore, will ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty, indebtedness and monetary policies turn gold and silver into a permanent store of value, beyond being a temporary hedge?

[Satofan44]

When I was a child, in the cowboy movies I watched, bandits would point their guns at people they stopped on the road and say, “your money or your life.” International relations have reached this point today...

As the world goes mad in this situation, I will certainly not ask how much Greenland is worth. That would make me no different from the murderers killing children for oil in West Asia. I cannot be like them, and I will not be...

Relations were always mostly like this except for a temporary recent period in which they weren't. Do you think that in the long human history superior kingdoms happily stood by when smaller kingdoms refused to do what was asked of them? No, most often they instantly invaded and conquered them. You should be grateful that we live in a time where there is any restraint at all. The USA can conquer or destroy the whole of Greenland in a single day if they wanted to.

In this context, how do you think the global political economy will evolve in the coming years? Are the increasing geopolitical tensions and great power rivalry, in your opinion, the natural pains of transition to a multipolar order, or are they harbingers of a deeper and more structural risk of global conflict? Furthermore, will ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty, indebtedness and monetary policies turn gold and silver into a permanent store of value, beyond being a temporary hedge?

It is good to consider and question the future, we are living in turbulent and dangerous times -- whether it be for individual privacy and sovereignty, or global stability. I question the transition to the multi-polar world, and generally see the people who view this as beneficial or a good solution to American supremacy as very naive idiots. There is huge inherent danger in this. Just because there are multiple competing powers that does not mean that the world will be more peaceful. What I see more likely is that this leads to the building of stubborn geopolitical blocks similar to what was described in 1984. This means that on average, most people who are celebrating this potential outcome will lose their sovereignty and freedom. They are genius individuals, aren't they?  

The new global order where big blocks are formed would lead to even more division, and smaller countries would be forced into some blocks that limit their autonomy -- even if they do not get invaded. So what will most likely happen if we go down this path is that most nations will become pawns in the larger geopolitical struggle.

As far as gold and silver are concerned, there is a risk that they get tied to these power struggles and because the distribution and demand of metals is not balanced, they might lose their status as neutral stores of values. What we've seen happen with currency wars, may happens with metals and they could fluctuate greatly in value. Generally people are extremely biased when they think about these things, they don't even try to be objective. Some will always argue for change, and others will argue against change. Just because something has been a store of value for a long time, that does not guarantee anything -- gold could lose its status very quickly.

I conclude that the idea of a multipolar world being an utopia is bullshit, it will not lead to a better balance of power but it will lead to a fragmented world that is even less stable than the current one. As they say, be very careful of what you wish for. Without the USA, most of you will become slaves.
I think this is sufficient as a starting point for this discussion.

[slapper]

Most predictions on global order are wrong. Consistently wrong. The experts missed 2008. Missed 2020. Will miss whatever's next.

Great power rivalry isn't new, we just forgot about it for thirty years because one side won so completely that we started believing competition was over. Now its back and everyone is scrambling to remember how this works. Greenland shows something specific though - economic logic getting replaced by territorial logic. That's regression.

Gold and silver aren't much of an answer. They're questions. Questions that whether money means anything when governments create endless amounts of money. Questions concerning the trustworthiness of institutions. The demand for hard assets is a vote of no confidence in all that we built. Multipolar sounds neutral but rarely is that the case in practice. Usually means more friction, less coordination on problems that need global solutions. Climate, pandemics, financial stability - none of that is easier when everyone's competing.

Will there be major conflict? Conditions are present. Economic pressure, competition for resources, ideological divide. History suggests these don't resolve peacefully but history isn't determinism either.

[retaur]

Invasions and life taking is only good for the economy of the victor after sanctions have been lifted. Before they've won, it's hell, after they've won, there's still skeletons in their closet, waterways they can't use, whole continents distrusting them.

I'm starting to think (and slightly hope) in the current age where we have telegraph, internet and other forms of instantaneous communication that we'll end up seeing an end to the invasions of the past because now militaries and paramilitaries can be called up and organised quickly within their own country. And neighbours, allies and everyone else can observe and see what's going on. There have been very few wars where the neighbours of the wars are left unharmed in some way (either economically or by being attacked themselves) and I think this should lead to advanced pressure and rushes to negotiate rather than drag out an international event.

[viljy]

Greenland is worth 200-250 million, according to Putin, relative to the price of Alaska. But Trump can pay each resident of Greenland 1 million.  - in total, this is 57 billion. There's nothing to think about, the island's population needs to agree to a referendum, such a chance to get a million just happens once in a lifetime. Otherwise, Trump will take the island otherwise and will not pay any money. Then, Trump will annex the remnants of the former colonies of European countries that he likes to the States (first of all, those in the western hemisphere, of course). I don't think anyone would dare to stop him. Judging by the speeches in Davos, some European leaders support him.

[fruktik]

What makes you think Greenland is for sale? I recently watched a segment by a travel blogger who decided to visit this beautiful country. He asked locals what they thought about this country joining the United States. Every single one of them responded that they wouldn't be willing to become another state, even for a million dollars. These people want independence not only from the United States, but also from Denmark. They're striving for this with all their might, and I hope they succeed.

[Marvelockg]

I'm starting to think (and slightly hope) in the current age where we have telegraph, internet and other forms of instantaneous communication that we'll end up seeing an end to the invasions of the past because now militaries and paramilitaries can be called up and organised quickly within their own country. And neighbours, allies and everyone else can observe and see what's going on.

Are all these not on ground and yet we still see oppression of some strong world power on the weaker one and we see fortages of such attack on the media space and yet, the international community seems to be completely quiet about it?

A single tweet is enough to trigger serious chaos because of how fast information travels at present day world. Every generation that is exposed to a certain level of technological arsenal has it advantages and disadvantages though it looks like in most cases, the disadvantage always outweighs the advantage and that's why we are seeing an increase in oppression coming from some elite country to the developing and somewhat weak ones.

[viljy]

What makes you think Greenland is for sale? I recently watched a segment by a travel blogger who decided to visit this beautiful country. He asked locals what they thought about this country joining the United States. Every single one of them responded that they wouldn't be willing to become another state, even for a million dollars. These people want independence not only from the United States, but also from Denmark. They're striving for this with all their might, and I hope they succeed.

Trump is not interested in who wants or does not want something in Greenland. Trump is annexing Greenland because he has to. Otherwise, Russia will seize this island - that's what he said. And the residents of the island are incredibly lucky to become part of the States. It's just that they themselves still don't understand what kind of luck has befallen them. Would you like to be a citizen of the United States and live on welfare and do nothing all day? I hear a whisper, "Yes.." That's it!

[Satofan44]

Most predictions on global order are wrong. Consistently wrong. The experts missed 2008. Missed 2020. Will miss whatever's next.

Sure, but you can't compare 2008 with 2020. 2008 was man made and unprecedented, but it could have been predicted before it happened -- in fact some did predict it and see it on time. Here is one example, but he is not the only one I just quickly looked it up to demonstrate: https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/industry/meet-dr-michael-burry-the-man-who-predicted-the-2008-economic-crisis-years-prior-made-millions-whats-his-next-big-bet-article-153466663. There are many reasons for which "experts" fail to see such events, one being that they are paper experts. One must understand that just because someone has a lot of papers as in degrees or even published paperwork, that does not make them a great thinker. Often one comes into these positions through connections. If you were the president of the ECB, that will look great on your CV and you will be invited into great positions afterwards. This does not mean that you are smart at all or good at your job, although in our current reality we consider people like this experts simply because of past papers or positions. Just look at the history of the ECB bank, some of the most dumbest and corrupt people worked in that position. Furthermore, when something so unprecedented such as 2008 happens someone may notice it but refuse to believe it simply because it shouldn't be possible.

Lastly, you can't compare 2020 to 2008. Based on what should or could have someone predicted it? If we put aside the theories that it was intentional, these events are not foreseeable. Sure one can argue that the probability of a pandemic in the next amount of years is high based on a variety of risk factors, but that is not a real prediction. Lastly, there are doomsayers that are always predicting something and that they get it right is pointless. If I make a yearly pandemic prediction all the time, then eventually I will be correct and some fools may consider me an expert because of this -- I would not be.

Great power rivalry isn't new, we just forgot about it for thirty years because one side won so completely that we started believing competition was over. Now its back and everyone is scrambling to remember how this works. Greenland shows something specific though - economic logic getting replaced by territorial logic. That's regression.

Exactly, we live in too comfortable times that we producing very weak humans. Look at the average human, fat, addicted to any number of things from material things such as alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, to abstract things such as their smartphones, binge watching and other ridiculous stuff for idiots. How about a labubu?   This is a sign that people got too comfortable, and eventually this will turn around and we will have to face the consequences.

Gold and silver aren't much of an answer. They're questions. Questions that whether money means anything when governments create endless amounts of money. Questions concerning the trustworthiness of institutions. The demand for hard assets is a vote of no confidence in all that we built. Multipolar sounds neutral but rarely is that the case in practice. Usually means more friction, less coordination on problems that need global solutions. Climate, pandemics, financial stability - none of that is easier when everyone's competing.

They aren't, people are celebrating the wrong stuff simply because they have some small investments and their other investments are not doing great. Gold performance is mostly determined by central bank and other reserves, and a little bit by industrial demand. Silver could be experiencing a crunch due to technology demand, it is hard to discount this from other demand because the prices in this sector of many things are increasing a lot. I expect soon that we will see a period in which the prices will come back down to more normal levels.  When exactly will this happen is the question, I can't be certain but it will happen eventually.

Will there be major conflict? Conditions are present. Economic pressure, competition for resources, ideological divide. History suggests these don't resolve peacefully but history isn't determinism either.

[stompix]

Greenland is worth 200-250 million, according to Putin, relative to the price of Alaska.

According to ....who....lol...is there anybody who still gives a rat's ass what Putin is saying?
Alaska was pruchaed that chea becuase i was done in 1867 while
- Russia suffered one of its biggest defeats in the Crimean war
- The first modern oil pump was built in 1859 and nobody new about oil in Alaska, nor did they have cars for that oil deamnd
- Russia would have lost that land to either the UK or Japan if a war had broken out, if not then for sure when they were beaten by Japan in 1905

Better look at the Virgin Islands, where the US paid the now equivalent of 600 million in 1917 for 400km²

[abhiseshakana]

In this context, how do you think the global political economy will evolve in the coming years? Are the increasing geopolitical tensions and great power rivalry, in your opinion, the natural pains of transition to a multipolar order, or are they harbingers of a deeper and more structural risk of global conflict? Furthermore, will ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty, indebtedness and monetary policies turn gold and silver into a permanent store of value, beyond being a temporary hedge?

I think multipolarity narative emerge and strengthened due to western double standards where some action gets different reaction, we can take example, Rusia invasion to Ukraina, they give label as aggression, unlawful and occupation, but When US attack Iraq, they claim it as intervention and for world security order. Many country especially with traumatic colonialism see unipolar with single hegemon as new colonialism. With this political, psychological and ideological foundation which shaped across generations, many country see China, Rusia and non western power as an alternative for no colonialism and domination from non western country feels more acceptable. Thus they forget history that multipolar create more chaos and live in unipolar world they enjoy cheaper stability, security and room for development, mater of fact many country have faster growth in unipolar era.

As a matter of fact sometimes many country prefer emotional story about morality than geopolitical reality which showing that national interest is eternal where powerful country dominated and exploited developing and poor country. The most terrible thing, many politic, economy and military elite see multipolarity as opportunity for negotiation room. With many power, elite can play and practicing art of diplomacy to each powerful country.

I think, this circumstance is transition symptom that bring long term regional instability and tension will be a normal news. In Multipolar world global institution will loose its role and legitimation and we should worry about rule of play, at that stage gold and silver can only be strategic survival tools not absolute solution, because in the world of multipolar, the most benefiting party is elite, citizen will only be policy object and will bear geopolitical risk. The main solution is adaptation i/o revolution.

[Alpen]

When I was a child, in the cowboy movies I watched, bandits would point their guns at people they stopped on the road and say, “your money or your life.” International relations have reached this point today...

History is not an independent object, of course; it is a chronological assessment and continues to take its subjects from limited objects, just as it did yesterday. So, I don't find what we are experiencing very surprising, but I think I need to question the future based on what we are experiencing...

As the world goes mad in this situation, I will certainly not ask how much Greenland is worth. That would make me no different from the murderers killing children for oil in West Asia. I cannot be like them, and I will not be...

This forum hosts wonderful people from all over the world. All of your opinions are very valuable to me...

In this context, how do you think the global political economy will evolve in the coming years? Are the increasing geopolitical tensions and great power rivalry, in your opinion, the natural pains of transition to a multipolar order, or are they harbingers of a deeper and more structural risk of global conflict? Furthermore, will ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty, indebtedness and monetary policies turn gold and silver into a permanent store of value, beyond being a temporary hedge?

The Greenland debate proves that the authorities don’t give a damn about the people or their opinions. We, the ordinary people, are on our own. We can be sold along with our land, killed if someone wants our territory, or forced into war if a government refuses to step down.

So, what can I do personally? First, prepare for the worst and think hard about where I could live safely. Second, try to capitalize on the situation.

To make a profit, you have to be objective. Right now, crypto (as a speculative asset) isn't the way. I’ve previously explained why Bitcoin won’t rally as long as Gold is pumping. That’s why I’m buying Gold, but using the crypto market to do it. I used to keep "unallocated metal accounts" in banks, but I no longer trust the state. I’ve started moving my funds into PaxGold (PAXG), which is conveniently listed on the Cryptomus exchange.

If you have to flee, bank accounts might be frozen, and physical gold is too dangerous to carry. It’s much easier to just memorize a 12-word seed phrase.

[crwth]

In terms of the modern world i think we are not seeing the technological warfare that history books have taught us, just because everything is so digital now. We don't know what happens on the internet because we cannot see the battle they're fighting. I think that is the most effective strategy for anyone who wants to conquer or get state secrets or something like that.

In a war or battle, the most important information is definitely the key to winning, and that can be done digitally.

[yhiaali3]

Yes, unfortunately, international relations have reached this point today: "It's either your money or your life." The international system today is like the cowboy system of yesterday. But when has the international system ever been anything but that? It's the law of the jungle, where the strong devour the weak... and life goes on.

What's worse is that the people have no say in this. When governments or leaders decide to go to war, the people are led to their fate against their will. Even in the most established democracies in the world, the people, in reality, do not decide their own destiny.

[Vod]

When I was a child, in the cowboy movies I watched, bandits would point their guns at people they stopped on the road and say, “your money or your life.” International relations have reached this point today...

Hard to believe that all those stories and the entire cowboy era was only 30 years - it's has such an influence on our culture!

The leading phrase before those words were "Stand and Deliver!"   Your money or your life!

[viljy]

Greenland is worth 200-250 million, according to Putin, relative to the price of Alaska.

According to ....who....lol...is there anybody who still gives a rat's ass what Putin is saying?
Alaska was pruchaed that chea becuase i was done in 1867 while
- Russia suffered one of its biggest defeats in the Crimean war
- The first modern oil pump was built in 1859 and nobody new about oil in Alaska, nor did they have cars for that oil deamnd
- Russia would have lost that land to either the UK or Japan if a war had broken out, if not then for sure when they were beaten by Japan in 1905

Better look at the Virgin Islands, where the US paid the now equivalent of 600 million in 1917 for 400km²

I wonder why he even mentioned this microscopic amount. Because he doesn't just say anything. However, even without these words, I think Trump will not pay much for the island. If you pay a huge sum for Greenland now, then you will have to pay a lot for the next acquisitions, which would be stupid and wasteful.

[Satofan44]

According to ....who....lol...is there anybody who still gives a rat's ass what Putin is saying?

You are responding too seriously to such statements, meaning that they are successfully playing you. You should stop that for your own good. Of course Putin is going to make a statement that favors trump, whether it is accurate or not is besides the point. He wants to please Trump, that is how the power games work. This is especially true if Russia has no personal interest in this matter, it is beneficial to them to position this way. The US does the same, don't fall for these games.

Better look at the Virgin Islands, where the US paid the now equivalent of 600 million in 1917 for 400km²

Neither Putin's nor your comparison is accurate. As I said, weak countries need to stop playing with fire because once we pass a certain point there will be many consequences and deaths for playing these stupid games. All it takes is 1 significant precedent of whatever kind, and the conquering will start again.

I think multipolarity narative emerge and strengthened due to western double standards where some action gets different reaction, we can take example, Rusia invasion to Ukraina, they give label as aggression, unlawful and occupation, but When US attack Iraq, they claim it as intervention and for world security order. Many country especially with traumatic colonialism see unipolar with single hegemon as new colonialism. With this political, psychological and ideological foundation which shaped across generations, many country see China, Rusia and non western power as an alternative for no colonialism and domination from non western country feels more acceptable. Thus they forget history that multipolar create more chaos and live in unipolar world they enjoy cheaper stability, security and room for development, mater of fact many country have faster growth in unipolar era.

You've got it correct, I occasionally talk about this throughout some posts. The western world is not democratic, not free, and completely hypocritical -- yet they claim to be democratic, free, lawful and respecting of international relationships. It is all bullshit that is wrapped up nicely for the folks that are too stupid or too afraid to accept the world as it is. Every time there is a hypocritical action by the west the world order gets a little bit more destabilized. In the end, a lot of what is going on is the fault of the western world. Since they were the leaders on the world stage, they should have acted objectively and in unbiased ways. If something is wrong, then it does not matter who does it -- it should be called out equally. They have shown their true faces, and this will lead to several outcomes. Ukraine is lost anyway and can be considered a done deal, Taiwan will be lost and so will Greenland. After that I do not know what the specific targets will be, but it won't stop there. 

[DrBeer]

When I was a child, in the cowboy movies I watched, bandits would point their guns at people they stopped on the road and say, “your money or your life.” International relations have reached this point today...

History is not an independent object, of course; it is a chronological assessment and continues to take its subjects from limited objects, just as it did yesterday. So, I don't find what we are experiencing very surprising, but I think I need to question the future based on what we are experiencing...

As the world goes mad in this situation, I will certainly not ask how much Greenland is worth. That would make me no different from the murderers killing children for oil in West Asia. I cannot be like them, and I will not be...

This forum hosts wonderful people from all over the world. All of your opinions are very valuable to me...

In this context, how do you think the global political economy will evolve in the coming years? Are the increasing geopolitical tensions and great power rivalry, in your opinion, the natural pains of transition to a multipolar order, or are they harbingers of a deeper and more structural risk of global conflict? Furthermore, will ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty, indebtedness and monetary policies turn gold and silver into a permanent store of value, beyond being a temporary hedge?

What is happening now, in my opinion, is the expected outcome of the post-World War II world order, when global institutions, rules, and agreements turned out to be empty shells that no one cares about. The impotence of the world order has led to impunity and, as a result, permissiveness. If one person can violate all obligations and agreements, why should the rest be obliged to adhere to them? In such a situation, new centers of consolidation may emerge, and new alliances or other associations may potentially be formed based on political, economic, and other interests.
 Unfortunately, Trump's arrival has accelerated this process. It is difficult to say whether this is good or bad, but one thing is certain: the current world system must change in order to effectively counter global threats.

[goldkingcoiner]

Greenland is worth 200-250 million, according to Putin, relative to the price of Alaska. But Trump can pay each resident of Greenland 1 million.  - in total, this is 57 billion. There's nothing to think about, the island's population needs to agree to a referendum, such a chance to get a million just happens once in a lifetime. Otherwise, Trump will take the island otherwise and will not pay any money. Then, Trump will annex the remnants of the former colonies of European countries that he likes to the States (first of all, those in the western hemisphere, of course). I don't think anyone would dare to stop him. Judging by the speeches in Davos, some European leaders support him.

200 million and even 57 billion seems way to low. There are natural reserves there which, when the ice melts, will be worth so much more.

I wonder, do the residents of greenland become american? Or do they get to choose and stay on their land whether they choose to be american or not?

This is not the first time in history that the USA just plainly stole land. The conquering of Hawaii could be seen as similar to the situation which is going on today with greenland. Except this time it involves attacking an ally.

If Trump attacks an ally that is the ultimate proof that he is a foreign enemy plant.

[Hanadawa]

Greenland is worth 200-250 million, according to Putin, relative to the price of Alaska. But Trump can pay each resident of Greenland 1 million.  - in total, this is 57 billion. There's nothing to think about, the island's population needs to agree to a referendum, such a chance to get a million just happens once in a lifetime. Otherwise, Trump will take the island otherwise and will not pay any money. Then, Trump will annex the remnants of the former colonies of European countries that he likes to the States (first of all, those in the western hemisphere, of course). I don't think anyone would dare to stop him. Judging by the speeches in Davos, some European leaders support him.

Besides its potential natural resources, I think the reason the United States is so determined to seize Greenland and make it part of the United States is geopolitical and military. I think one of the reasons Trump is willing to pay $1 million for every person in Greenland is because if Greenland became part of the United States, the US would have a very large territorial area. Furthermore, they could build military bases in Greenland, which would have a huge impact because they could reach China and Russia more easily. The United States could also put pressure on the Chinese and Russian militaries because the area that their submarines and warships could navigate would be very limited. If you add in the United States' military bases around the world, and with Greenland as theirs, then I think the United States has already won 80% of the time over Russia and China.