- Messages
- 993
Folks, let's look at this rationally. This is not a political problem, it's a math problem. The USofA already has an existing history of buying property from the Kingdom of Denmark -- the US Virgin Islands. We purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 for $25M. That's about $620M in 2025 dollars. The land area of the US Virgin Islands is about 134 square miles. That works out to about $4,630,000 per square mile. Greenland's size is about 837,000 square miles. So using the already established price that the US is willing to pay for Danish territory, this works out to be a paltry $3.9T. OK, now obviously the Danish negotiators are not fools and are not going to accept American dollars in payment and will demand gold. The current price for gold is $42.22 dollars per troy ounce, as set by law in 1973. $3.9T divided by $42.22 per troy ounce yields a paltry 92M troy ounces of gold to buy Greenland. There are 29,167 troy ounces in a US ton. Which means all we have to do to buy Greenland, using our existing course of dealing numbers, is to give Greenland a little less than 3.2 million tons of gold and Greenland is OURS! The only glitch I see in this plan is that we only have about 5,050 US tons of gold in Ft. Knox. Russia is a big gold producer, do you think they might lend us a few tons? Or, just think about it for a minute, was this St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago's plan all along -- destroy Russia by taking all their gold!
ETA1: Now I know what a lot of you are thinking - with Global Warming a lot of Greenland is going to melt and we shouldn't pay for that part. But, if a significant portion of Greenland does melt, then sea levels are going to rise and the US Virgin Islands are going to get a lot smaller. And any consideration of adjusting the purchase price of Greenland should take into account the impact on the inflation adjusted per square mile purchase price of what's left of the US Virgin Islands and should also take into account the relative contributions to Global Warming that the US and Denmark have made.
ETA2: If the US hesitates at participating in a deal that honors established historical precedents between the US and Denmark, then perhaps Denmark could "sweeten" the deal by giving the US a "break" on the cost of Ozempic.
ETA1: Now I know what a lot of you are thinking - with Global Warming a lot of Greenland is going to melt and we shouldn't pay for that part. But, if a significant portion of Greenland does melt, then sea levels are going to rise and the US Virgin Islands are going to get a lot smaller. And any consideration of adjusting the purchase price of Greenland should take into account the impact on the inflation adjusted per square mile purchase price of what's left of the US Virgin Islands and should also take into account the relative contributions to Global Warming that the US and Denmark have made.
ETA2: If the US hesitates at participating in a deal that honors established historical precedents between the US and Denmark, then perhaps Denmark could "sweeten" the deal by giving the US a "break" on the cost of Ozempic.
Last edited: