Not one penny

Greenland, moon landings, asteroids and other worthless ideas

When I was young, I was impressed by big things. In class, I’d space out and stare at a world map, noticing the massive size of Greenland. Little did I know that the Mercator projection greatly exaggerates its size:

As I got older, I studied economics and learned that big cold places are a fiscal drag with little military value, manned space flight is mostly a waste of time and money, and the minerals in asteroids are of little value.

I find that average people often envision the wealth of nations in terms of natural resources. Perhaps that’s because in social studies class, teachers often discussed the natural resource endowments of various countries. They didn’t tell us that there is very little correlation between natural resources and GDP per capita. Resource rich Canada is poorer than many northern European countries that lack rich farmland and extensive mineral deposits.

Leftists often claim that developed countries got rich by exploiting colonies in the developing world. But some of the richest European countries (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, etc.) had no significant colonies, while some colonial powers lagged behind despite ruling over large empires (Portugal, Spain, etc.)

To be clear, I do get the appeal of seeking big goals. I was thrilled by the first moon landing in July 1969. As a child growing up in the 1960s, I’ve loved reading about rockets and astronauts. And I’m not going to deny that going to the moon at least once was worth it, if only because it lifted our spirits to know that we could achieve this lofty objective.

But for the most part I’m afraid that the truth is rather boring. Real value comes from talented people working together on mundane projects in well-functioning countries, not seeking vast resources in polar regions or distant planets.

AFAIK, Alaska is a net drain on the US Treasury. Even at a price of only $7 million, it was probably a waste of money. And I have almost no doubt that a purchase of Greenland would be an even bigger waste of money. It is currently a net drain on Denmark’s public finances. Here’s AI Overview:

Denmark provides Greenland with substantial annual subsidies, primarily through a block grant, which amounted to around DKK 5.6 billion (approximately $700-800 million USD) in recent years, covering roughly half of Greenland's public budget and 20% of its GDP, with total Danish government expenditures, including defense, potentially exceeding $1 billion annually.

Keep in mind that the Danish government is an order of magnitude more efficient than the US government. In Denmark, even fire-fighting is done by the private sector. If the highly incompetent US government owned Greenland, then the drain on our Treasury would be many times larger. Not only is Greenland not worth a price of $600 billion; it’s not worth a single penny. It has negative net value.

Pundits often bemoan the fact that the US has lost the ability to build nuclear power plants in a timely fashion and at a reasonable cost. Previously, I had bought into the explanation that the problem was excessively burdensome safety regulations. That may be part of the problem, but it cannot be the entire story. Our ability to do manned space flight has also regressed sharply since the 1960s. During that decade, we went from no manned space flight to a moon landing in just 8 years. You might think it would be easier to do it a second time, having learned all sorts of lessons about what works and what doesn’t work. Instead, Bloomberg reports that our attempt to return to the moon is not going well:

Thus far, the mission has been plagued by soaring costs, repeated delays, technical shortcomings, contracting woes and burgeoning operational complexities. One former NASA chief recently called it “a path that cannot work.”

Orion is an especially concerning element. Across two decades of development, the capsule’s costs have exceeded $20 billion. By many accounts, it’s antiquated, overweight and ill-suited to the mission. Experts have been warning about its deficiencies since at least 2009. Key parts of its life-support system have yet to be fully tested.

If in the 1960s you suggested that the next 60 years would see vast improvements in the quality of restaurant meals, but almost no improvement in manned space flight to other planets, people would have reacted in disbelief. But that’s what happened.

We have forgotten how to do big projects. In the final three decades of the 19th century, we built almost our entire rail network, roughly 170,000 miles. Today, we are unable to build a 400-mile rail line from LA to San Francisco.

During the Renaissance, artists tried to recreate the beauty of Greek sculpture. To me, that fact seems slightly pathetic. After 2000 years, they were merely trying to catch up to where society was in 500 BC? Today, millennials working at NASA are trying to catch up to what the “silent generation” achieved in the 1960s. I can’t even imagine a more depressing goal than going back to the moon.

I’m not trying to bash millennials. They are pursuing other objectives—such as artificial super intelligence—which are much more impressive than the moon landing. But that’s my point. The most impressive goals are not big goals; they are smart goals. Sending men to the moon is not smart when robots can explore space in a way that is far cheaper and safer. Mining asteroids is not smart when you can get minerals far more cheaply on Earth.

Want more elbow room in this crowded country?

Ending residential zoning > > > > > buying Greenland.

Want to explore space and search for signs of life?

Robots to Saturn’s moons > > > > > sending men back to Earth’s moon.

Want more minerals from non-Chinese sources?

Subsidies for mineral production > > > > > buying Greenland or mining asteroids

Want better national defense?

Cooperating with Canada (DEW Line) and Denmark > > > > > spending $600 billion.

This post is not aimed at convincing you that Trump is wrong—anyone with half a brain knows that he’s going about this in the wrong way. Rather it is directed at very smart people that oppose Trump’s ham-handed approach but nonetheless believe Greenland to be a valuable asset. It isn’t. It’s not worth a penny.

As an aside, Trump made the same mistake with Greenland as with Jay Powell. By overplaying his hand, Trump made it less likely that he will achieve his objective. The silver lining is that his policy goal in each case is not in the national interest, so it’s good that his pressure campaigns will fail to achieve their objectives.

PS. Is there a danger that China or Russia could grab an independent Greenland? Not really, the Monroe Doctrine would scare them away. And if it stays with Denmark then it is protected by Nato. In any case, they have their hands full with Ukraine and Taiwan—Greenland isn’t even on their radar screens.

Ryan McEntush proposes a voluntary Compact of Free Association (COFA), similar to some of our Pacific islands. This is less bad than spending $600 billion acquiring the island, but I still worry that we’d end up subsidizing Greenland.

My first ever AI generated image: