Greenland moves closer to independence

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why would Greenland actually want or care about independence, again? It's not like they're going to be conducting a lot of foreign policy...

Because they keep a much greater share of their resource wealth?

Same reason Alberta has more to gain from independence than staying in Canada...

[Winston]

Originally posted by Asher
Because they keep a much greater share of their resource wealth?

No.

We're already letting them have it all, once our annual subsidy of USD 500 million (that's ~USD 10,000 per person..) is covered.

More accurately, they get to keep the first USD 15 million in revenues. From there, revenues are split evenly between Greenland and Denmark up until the annual subsidy amount is covered. Anything above that is for Greenland to keep.

Were they to declare full independence, the subsidy would be instantly lost, of course.

Moreover, there are no revenues to speak of at the moment, which could be seen as an obstacle for some..

So please stop talking out of your ass.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Winston


No.

We're already letting them have it all, once our annual subsidy of USD 500 million (that's ~USD 10,000 per person..) is covered.

More accurately, they get to keep the first USD 15 million in revenues. From there, revenues are split evenly between Greenland and Denmark up until the yearly subsidy amount is covered. Anything above that is for Greenland to keep.

Were they to declare full independence, the subsidy would be instantly lost, of course.

Moreover, there are no revenues to speak of at the moment, which could be seen as an obstacle for some..

So please stop talking out of your ass.

I'm talking out of my ass, and you just asserted Greenland has "no revenues"?

They have annual exports of $404B with government revenues of $1.36B.

Stick to delivering the mail -- then the only numbers you need to worry about are addresses.

There are strings attached to being under Danish rule, strings they do not want. If the situation you painted was as rosey was you seem to think, there'd be no reason for them to gain independence. As usual, you either do not comprehend the more complex issue regarding their sovereignty or you think people are dumb enough to trust anything a mailman says on this site. Which is it?

[Winston]

We're talking about mineral extraction revenues, you doofus.

[Winston]

By the way, if you think you can annoy me by routinely and repeatedly pointing to my profession, you're, once again, mistaken.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Winston
We're talking about mineral extraction revenues, you doofus.

That's funny, the first time "mineral" was mentioned in this thread was in this post of yours...

I believe I quite explicitly used the term "resource". Try reading sometimes, mmkay?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Winston
By the way, if you think you can annoy me by routinely and repeatedly pointing to my profession, you're, once again, mistaken.

Profession

[Lonestar]

Listen to the code monkey, Winston.

[SlowwHand]

Code Monkey

[Asher]

Jonathan Coulton > Winston

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Time to start setting sub nets and underwater mines...

Nooooo! Nuke subs need to roam free...

[KrazyHorse]

Then maybe you guys should think about recognizing our sovereignty claims. We'll look the other way for you...

[TCO]

Trade ya Vermont for Alberta.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Then maybe you guys should think about recognizing our sovereignty claims. We'll look the other way for you...

We tend to take a very "freedom of the seas" view of things. Not surprising given our Navy. NOr that "coastal defense" type Navy nations (everyone else in the world) takes a more view of gaining territory out to sea.

Except the Cheseapeake Bay. That's different.

[KrazyHorse]

I told you we would look the other way for you. But you have to pretend like you aren't doing it so we can ***** to the French and Russians when they try it and look credible.