Every now and then there is renewed interest in buying Greenland. I suspect this is unlikely as Greenland is currently not for sale. At least I have a better idea; Sell Alaska to Canada, where it clearly belongs.
In high school we learned that “Seward’s folly” actually turned out to be quite something for the US, as Alaska ended up being worth far more than the $7.2 million we paid to Russia in 1867. I’m not so sure. .
According to the Rockefeller Institute for Governmentthe most profitable state per capita is Massachusetts, followed by New Jersey. That’s because prosperous, highly educated urban states pay far more in taxes than they receive in federal spending. In contrast, many poor and remote rural states are a drain on the public purse. Alaska is the fourth worst offender:
Unfortunately, this data is not very accurate because it conflates the Treasury Department’s actual tax with that of states that happen to have many federal offices (such as Maryland and Virginia). Nevertheless, I’m fairly certain that even a more accurate accounting would show that Alaska would be a net drain on the Treasury. Another source that seems more accurate, with Alaska being the third worst offender. It certainly pays off less federal taxes than average per capita. It was really Seward’s folly.
Greenland looks impressive on the map. Even taking into account the large distortion of the Mercator projection, it’s a big place. But national greatness does not come from having a large landmass. If that were the case, Ukraine would have quickly lost the war with Russia.
The US does get some benefit from oil production in Alaska, but I am confident that Canadians will exploit these resources more aggressively, driving down global oil prices and benefiting American motorists. The taxes paid by Alaska’s oil producers are not enough to cover the burden of transporting oil from that remote and sparsely populated state. Just imagine the federal subsidy involved in delivering a first class letter to Nome, Alaska!
Of course, I understand that the US has no intention of selling Alaska, and there are probably good reasons not to. But think about this from Denmark’s perspective. If this decision were made purely on a cash flow basis, they might want to sell. But when several intangible considerations are taken into account, that prospect becomes much less attractive.
The other purpose of this post is to remind people that things are not always as they seem. For average people, it is easy to visualize national wealth in terms of natural resources. But in practice, the richest areas of the world are often quite poor in national resources – think Singapore, Switzerland and Silicon Valley, and many resource-rich places are relatively undeveloped (Siberia, Africa, Venezuela, etc.). In the modern world, success isn’t about collecting more frozen wasteland in the north; if it were, Canada would be a great power. Rather, success comes from using your existing land more effectively.
It is also worth remembering that the US is bankrupt. People who go bankrupt usually do not plan to make large purchases.
P.S. Baffin Island is the same size as Japan and England combined, and shares the mild climate of Greenland. With Baffin Island you would get that Mountain Thor– one of the coolest mountains in the world, with the greatest vertical drop. Why not ask Canada if they are interested in selling? Perhaps because the average American voter has heard of Greenland and remembers seeing its impressive size on school maps in high school, while the average American would be baffled if asked about Baffin Island.