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

[Satofan44]

It is clear that American hegemony cannot ensure global stability. I just want to ask you this: in which period of history did most of the financial crises occur?

First off, back to the basics. You need to stop doing this reductionist idiocy, it is what the average and most stupid people do. Get familiar with what is reducionism and stop doing it. You can't reduce extremely complicated topics to very simple arguments and say yeah this proves it. The number of financial crises in the recent history has nothing to do with this, it is an extremely complex and different subject. It does not establish a causal relationship between U.S. hegemony or an unipolar world and worldwide instability.

1929 – The Great Depression

To make things even worse, in 1929 the world was multipolar so why did you include this here?

1971–1973 – The Collapse of Bretton Woods
1987 – Black Monday
2000 – The Dot-com Bubble
2008 – Global Financial Crisis

In a multipolar world, we had fun problems like the Tulip Mania. I believe a multipolar world can create balancing policies for small and medium-sized countries...

Horrible argument, and you ingest too much bullshit from social media and YouTube videos. The examples that you have given do not prove that the multipolar world was better, in fact they weaken your argument. We've had a multipolar world up until sometime in the 2nd part of the 20th century, and it has historically only produced systemic rivalry, wars and repeated financial chaos. What the multipolar world gave us:

• Long Depression 1873
• Concert of Europe collapse
• Constant banking panics.
• World War 1
• Global trade collapse in 1930s.
• World War 2
• Many others.

Your case is made even worse by 2 facts:

• Great Depression was amplified greatly due to a lack of a dominant power like the US, countries acted in an unilateral way to protect themselves which is what happens in multipolar systems.
• The Tulip Mania is one of the worst examples, because it never really happened. It was very local, small-scale and contained and most of the hype about this story comes from later retelling. There is very little evidence to support the story of it being a huge mania.

The conclusion based on historical data is that a multipolar world does not bring more stability than an unipolar world does -- it creates competition without coordination and it is historically the most dangerous configuration that we've had.

They create competition without coordination — historically the most dangerous configuration of all.

[trendcoin]

Dear Mr. Satofan44, the chosen saint and supreme human being, even if your opponent mentions economic crises, in order to generate more arguments against him you could also add the Bedouin wars in the Arabian deserts, gang wars in South America, mafia wars in Japan, wars between shepherds fighting over grazing land in the geography of Turkistan, and even the wars of single-celled or multicellular organisms in other galaxies. After all, when he constructs an antithesis against you, we can accuse him of reductionism and even argue that he cannot claim that all these wars are not directly or indirectly related to the economy...

In a unipolar world, brute force determines the global reserve currency. Indeed, we see this happening today, and we are all witnesses to it. A multipolar world creates choices for small and medium-sized countries. This certainly does not imply a fully democratic environment in every sense, but it does create conditions that are closer to democracy under most circumstances...

Dear forum members, don’t you think Bitcoin is a system closer to the idea of a multipolar world? Didn’t Satoshi make a wise decision by not thinking like Satofan44, the saintly and exalted superhuman chosen by God?

[xbetz.io]

I think the more interesting question isn’t the price of Greenland or any single asset, but how power is increasingly expressed through economic leverage rather than outright force. We’re seeing a shift where access to markets, capital, energy and monetary systems becomes the primary tool of influence. In that sense, “your money or your life” is a metaphor for dependency rather than violence.

Historically, periods of rising geopolitical tension and multipolar transitions tend to expose weaknesses in centralized systems. That’s usually when alternative stores of value gain relevance, not overnight but gradually. Gold, silver and even Bitcoin don’t replace political systems, but they act as hedges against coordination failures, debt overhangs and policy uncertainty. The real risk may not be conflict itself but mispricing stability in a world that is structurally changing.

[DiMarxist]

I think the more interesting question isn’t the price of Greenland or any single asset, but how power is increasingly expressed through economic leverage rather than outright force. We’re seeing a shift where access to markets, capital, energy and monetary systems becomes the primary tool of influence. In that sense, “your money or your life” is a metaphor for dependency rather than violence.

You can say again the fact of the matter is that the world is experiencing a silent but very sharp shifting in global power especially how powerful is exercised . There is a change from the use of force to the use of economic power, rare earth minerals and other natural resources to control the rest of the world. This is because a control of this critical sectors means controlling of the power the united states of America knows this that is why they are trying everything possible to make sure that they have a full control of this critical sectors in this world.Frim what I have seen all the attention of united states of America is geared at having control of these important

[Satofan44]

Dear Mr. Satofan44, the chosen saint and supreme human being, even if your opponent mentions economic crises, in order to generate more arguments against him you could also add the Bedouin wars in the Arabian deserts, gang wars in South America, mafia wars in Japan, wars between shepherds fighting over grazing land in the geography of Turkistan, and even the wars of single-celled or multicellular organisms in other galaxies. After all, when he constructs an antithesis against you, we can accuse him of reductionism and even argue that he cannot claim that all these wars are not directly or indirectly related to the economy...

Instead of acknowledging your stupidity and learning something, this is what you decided to write? You engaged in reductionism, financial crises have nothing to do with whether the world is multipolar or unipolar. They exist in both cases. Humble yourself and learn something new instead of looking like an uneducated 3rd world retard. Reductionism is always wrong, especially in cases where we are talking about extremely complicated and often unique events such as individual financial crises.

In a unipolar world, brute force determines the global reserve currency. Indeed, we see this happening today, and we are all witnesses to it. A multipolar world creates choices for small and medium-sized countries. This certainly does not imply a fully democratic environment in every sense, but it does create conditions that are closer to democracy under most circumstances...

That is good and your country will soon be conquered by a superpower, this will teach you lessons about wishing for multipolar stupidity. There will not be a single small or medium-size country that will remain. Then you will be crying to Uncle Sam, but Uncle won't come to save you.   The historical policy of the US was a mistake, it should have used the power to crush countries and not to protect them instead. This was done under the wrong assumption that the gratitude towards the US will continue to grow and reach unprecedented levels. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The more the US gave the world, the more it ensures its stability and balance of powers, the more it was criticized and attacked for every single thing that it did itself. However, this is going to change soon and then you will see what the world looks like the Uncle is no longer protecting you. Democracy is shit in most cases, so your point here is moot. Democracy is rule by the stupid and incompetent majority -- it will end soon.

Are you from the middle East? People actually think that their countries are able to exist on their own. Actually, they only exist by the grace of the US. If the US was not restricting Israel most of those countries would already be in a nuclear winter.  

Dear forum members, don’t you think Bitcoin is a system closer to the idea of a multipolar world? Didn’t Satoshi make a wise decision by not thinking like Satofan44, the saintly and exalted superhuman chosen by God?

This forum is completely corrupt and backwards, so theymos indeed is running it wrong. 99% of the users are spammers, the other 0.9% are writing stupid shit like you, only 0.1% have any brain or knowledge. Bitcoin Core is the legacy of satoshi that more closely resembles community which is what a forum does, and there people are not able to shitpost generic junk like here.

Historically, periods of rising geopolitical tension and multipolar transitions tend to expose weaknesses in centralized systems. That’s usually when alternative stores of value gain relevance, not overnight but gradually. Gold, silver and even Bitcoin don’t replace political systems, but they act as hedges against coordination failures, debt overhangs and policy uncertainty. The real risk may not be conflict itself but mispricing stability in a world that is structurally changing.

If by alternatives you mean other centralized systems, then yes. If by alternatives you mean decentralized systems, then no.

You can say again the fact of the matter is that the world is experiencing a silent but very sharp shifting in global power especially how powerful is exercised . There is a change from the use of force to the use of economic power, rare earth minerals and other natural resources to control the rest of the world. This is because a control of this critical sectors means controlling of the power the united states of America knows this that is why they are trying everything possible to make sure that they have a full control of this critical sectors in this world.Frim what I have seen all the attention of united states of America is geared at having control of these important

As I said, this is a consequences of a lack of appreciation for whatever the US has been doing so far. You bow down to the King that is protecting you, that is the only correct way to act. Everything else leads to your doom, and you will see soon what that means. It doesn't even have to be the US that attacks anyone, it merely needs to not do anything when someone else does and most countries will suffer the consequences of their ingratitude.

[trendcoin]

Instead of acknowledging your stupidity and learning something, this is what you decided to write?

In my previous post, I didn’t take you seriously and mocked you. I did so without stooping to your level, which clearly highlighted the difference in intelligence between us. For that reason, I no longer want to listen to you crying at my door, because this behavior only sabotages this topic...

Then you will be crying to Uncle Sam, but Uncle won't come to save you. 

I’m not an idiot. I belong to a group of people who are honorable and dignified enough not to want to lick the boots of American or any other country’s soldiers. That’s why I don’t define myself as anti-American. Of course, someone as super-American as you wouldn’t be able to understand that distinction...

Democracy is shit in most cases, so your point here is moot. Democracy is rule by the stupid and incompetent majority -- it will end soon.

Of course, democracy is considered nonsense unless it is imposed by the United States. If the U.S. brings democracy somewhere, then democracy suddenly becomes sacred. Isn’t that right Satofan? If I don’t think like you, you might immediately label me an idiot, so I suppose I need to protect myself in advance...

If democracy had not been sanctified, philosophy would never have developed in ancient Greece and today we would be surrounded by sophists like you who endlessly repeat empty words...

Are you from the middle East?

Look Satofan, this world and it has a geoid shape and the world is in space.

On what basis do you define one part of the world as “the East”? Where do you get the audacity to place yourself at the center of the world?

Or did you actually take it seriously when I called you a “supreme being chosen by God”? Even people with the most basic level of intelligence understood that it was obvious satire...


I still want to make a deal with you. Stop insulting people on the forum and let's not make off-topic comments from now on. Even if I don't agree with your thoughts, I will continue to respect you and your opinions. If you continue to behave this way, I will no longer respond to you...

[DrBeer]

There is a president of the biggest nation in the world who waited to get Nobel peace prize because previous one got it, so he wanted one too and because he didn't get it, he became a dictator who kills his own people, attacks other nations, and seizes other countries lands by force. I know republicans and trump lovers will go against that, no doubt about it, of course they will be against it, because they are blinded by him.

But this is the reality, he has his gestapo police kill someone just yesterday again, after only recently they also killed another one in the car, and they got maduro and now want Greenland, all because he wasn't given the Nobel peace prize he wanted.

Have you considered the reason for such “behavior” as a consequence of the impotence of the modern world? Examples from the beginning of the 21st century, where one country is waging aggressive terrorist wars in neighboring states for no reason, have led Trump to believe that all this can be done with impunity because global institutions, treaties, and obligations are completely ineffective. If the president of another country can do such things with impunity, why can't Trump do the same?
 

[davis196]

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?

1.Everything around Greenland is "smoke and mirrors". Trump won't invade Greenland(the cost of starting an economic war with the EU would be far bigger than the benefits of conquering Greenland) and he would never buy Greenland, because Greenland is not for sale.
2.The global political economy definitely won't evolve. It's quite the opposite. The world will keep drowning in debt until the debt bubble pops.
3.Maybe after the Trump administration leaves the White House in 2028 the global geopolitical tensions and uncertainty would slowly go back to a normal level, but I wouldn't bet money on this to happen.

[DoranCat123]

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.

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.

All it takes is for one strong country to make a casus belli, and the world would be in chaos. That's how fragile this world's power structure is. "Strong People", who are now in power, desire for even greater power by conquering weaker states and countries to further expand their domain... Sadly, they view their people as something mundane, and as tools to further expand their ambitions. Its just like whats happening right now... And yet people keep advocating on these tyrants to go on a rampage and get whatever they thing is "theirs". At least, this is just my view of things. Its just how nature works, the strong devour the weak, and the weak devour those weaker than them... Its a really cruel world we live in.

[abhiseshakana]

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?

1.Everything around Greenland is "smoke and mirrors". Trump won't invade Greenland(the cost of starting an economic war with the EU would be far bigger than the benefits of conquering Greenland) and he would never buy Greenland, because Greenland is not for sale.
2.The global political economy definitely won't evolve. It's quite the opposite. The world will keep drowning in debt until the debt bubble pops.
3.Maybe after the Trump administration leaves the White House in 2028 the global geopolitical tensions and uncertainty would slowly go back to a normal level, but I wouldn't bet money on this to happen.

For Trump, Greenland issue has strategic geopolitical signaling and pressure function, only to make Europe understand that US can change status quo anytime US want. So it is not only smoke and mirrors. Smart strategy from Trump, win without invasion using shock diplomacy. Effect he want to get is European/NATO awareness of US dominance position in Arctic, Rusia also notice that US is ready for agresive action to north. Trumps bring WW II memoar so Europe aware that European Security and stability for development is come mostly from US security guarantee. So, Europe security architecture depend on US power.,

I think global political economy now evolved to partial deglobalization with new economic block and fragmentation. Debt still exist even growing deeper and larger but global system also change (new economic warfare).

I have different opinion, regarding condition after 2028. Trump is not the sole cause and the single actor in these world chaos, Trump's confrontative style only make the reality more vulgar and visible. Resurrection of Giant China and its rivalvy with US has created global chaos, Russia military agression can be a nightmare of regional and world chaos which bring energy and food crisis. So there are many actor who have big possibility triggering chaos not only Trump/

[Satofan44]

Then you will be crying to Uncle Sam, but Uncle won't come to save you.  

I’m not an idiot. I belong to a group of people who are honorable and dignified enough not to want to lick the boots of American or any other country’s soldiers. That’s why I don’t define myself as anti-American. Of course, someone as super-American as you wouldn’t be able to understand that distinction...

Yes, you are a complete idiot who just finished promoting a scam casino.   If what you ask for comes to fruition, you will be begging God and Uncle Sam for mercy while your country gets conquered or completely annihilated. I have demonstrated that a multi-polar is significantly worse than a unipolar world, you have failed to refute it in any way because you got upset that your retarded reductionism got exposed. Those who want a multi-polar world are either idiots, or are part of weaker powers that want to regain their ability to conquer other countries.

Have you considered the reason for such “behavior” as a consequence of the impotence of the modern world? Examples from the beginning of the 21st century, where one country is waging aggressive terrorist wars in neighboring states for no reason, have led Trump to believe that all this can be done with impunity because global institutions, treaties, and obligations are completely ineffective. If the president of another country can do such things with impunity, why can't Trump do the same?

Trump is the only reason for which Ukraine is not in a nuclear winter. Instead of criticizing him, you should be thanking him. Another shitposting idiot that will get to feel the consequences of your stupidity eventually.  

3.Maybe after the Trump administration leaves the White House in 2028 the global geopolitical tensions and uncertainty would slowly go back to a normal level, but I wouldn't bet money on this to happen.

The choice is clear. Either you have somebody like Trump or you have WW3, but the longer the delay till that the stronger will be the factions that start it. Everyone who criticized Trump and similar Presidents will be crying to their Gods and other made up bullshit, but nobody will be coming to save them. Remember my words.

All it takes is for one strong country to make a casus belli, and the world would be in chaos. That's how fragile this world's power structure is. "Strong People", who are now in power, desire for even greater power by conquering weaker states and countries to further expand their domain... Sadly, they view their people as something mundane, and as tools to further expand their ambitions. Its just like whats happening right now... And yet people keep advocating on these tyrants to go on a rampage and get whatever they thing is "theirs". At least, this is just my view of things. Its just how nature works, the strong devour the weak, and the weak devour those weaker than them... Its a really cruel world we live in.

Yes and why do they not do this? Because we have a strong America. If we shift to a world with very balanced powers, there is no reason not to attack somebody else because nobody will come to crush you for doing it. If the world is in balance in regards to power, the USA can't come rescue someone on the other side of the world. They would be at a big disadvantage. As long as the USA is the leading power, the disadvantages that come from the location of the conflict can be overcome to a large extent. Any kind of multipolar world, be it with many small countries or large multiblocks, will lead to continuous wars everywhere.

[7juju]

3.Maybe after the Trump administration leaves the White House in 2028 the global geopolitical tensions and uncertainty would slowly go back to a normal level,

The chances of global geopolitical tension going back to normal level after Trump administration are really slim, because chances are there that Trump is likely going to pick his successor, and you know he won't pick someone who won't continue to defend what he believes in. Even if it happens that he eventually go out of power completely, there will always be one trouble or the other among nations of conflicting interests. After all there were ongoing wars around the world before Trump's administration came in. I don't think there will ever be a time when there will be global peace.

[slapper]

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?

Trump has shown interest in Greenland a long time ago, so other countries in power after this land, or don't want this land to be in his hand, knew this was coming. They are doing everything to stop it. But I can only assume this because everyone is trying hard to achieve what they want.

Some are trying hard to become a hurdle for others, a typical house of a joint family with issues haha.

Now, how this turns out is really hard to predict. Other powers won't agree to give full control of Greenland, Denmark doesn't stand a chance, they have taken a lot of funds from US, now, as Trump already mentioned in one of his tweets, it is time to give back.

But other countries will also give money, maybe Trump wants to bid on Greenland, and it is getting interesting for him that many other countries are also after it, so the price must be a good one.

One thing is for sure. Denmark is going to be rich.

Who's actually bidding on Greenland? China's Arctic focus is Northern Sea Route and Russian energy projects and not Greenland. Their attempts at mining there were blocked. Russia dismissed interest in Greenland itself publicly, though obviously they're worried about US military creep.

Independence support's at 84% primarily because Trump's pressure hastened it but 61% oppose if living standards go down. Current model (Danish subsidies plus fishing) can't support independence. Future model (mining revenue) 10-15 years away minimum if everything goes perfect.

Denmark's defending Greenland's right not to be sold knowing Greenland wants to leave anyway. The only thing keeping them tied is a lack of other revenue that won't be there until operations that haven't started yet become profitable in mining.

The "price" is not increasing because of competitive bidding. What's going on is everyone is realizing that they need arrangements (such as security frameworks, mining partnerships, infrastructure deals. Not purchases).