pull down to refresh

325 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Jan \ on: Is it really the plan to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal? Politics_And_Law
I thought this stuff was mostly a lark initially, but as it's developed I'd say it was a really successful shifting of the Overton Window.
I see the three cases very differently, so let's take them in order (and toss Canadian statehood into the mix for good measure)
  1. There's no particular reason that Greenland should be part of Denmark. If the people who live there can be persuaded that they'd be better off as part of America and Denmark is willing to sell off the uninhabited parts, then there's no problem with swapping jurisdictions. For the record, American territories have a pretty sweet deal. I know several Alaskans who wish statehood had never happened and have met a few Virgin Islanders who vehemently oppose statehood.
  2. The Panama Canal situation is beyond my understanding. It definitely doesn't sound like it's going to be left to the locals to decide though. Is it better for America to control it? Probably not, but that's what's going to happen, one way or another.
  3. "Gulf of America" is hilarious, but also more accurate and doesn't hurt anyone. I expect this to happen.
  4. Canadian statehood is pretty far-fetched, but I won't be surprised if a real sales pitch is made and some sort of new American Economic Union comes from it. Freer access to Canada for travel and business would be great. Plus, it should be easier for Canadians to flee that sinking ship they're currently trapped in.
write
preview
188 sats \ 5 replies \ @freetx 13 Jan
Regarding #2.
I'm not well versed on the particulars either, however my question is: Why wasn't the US ever paid back for building it?
A cursory google search indicates that the US spent approx $300M to build the canal, in 1914 money! Given that gold was $25 / oz at the time this is about 12M oz gold ($32B in current USD).
This is another typical case of politicians engaging in behavior that would never happen in the real world. Who would ever invest that kind of money and effort in doing something like that and then just "turn it over" with a $0 price tag attached.
reply
23 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Jan
It's a good question. I imagine the answer is that they never really turned over de facto control.
reply
65 sats \ 3 replies \ @freetx 13 Jan
From what I understand Carter came up with a plan to turn it back over to Panama in 1977, which was enacted by Clinton in 1999.
reply
23 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 13 Jan
Yeah, but the US created the entire nation of Panama, in order to build that canal. I have my doubts that they were ever allowed to be very independent.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 13 Jan
They use dollars in Panama
reply
55 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 13 Jan
True. I was there sometime in 2012 or so....funny enough they officially call their currency "Balboas"...and its listed as such on most forex sites.
It was an unexpected trip, so I didnt have time to research, I was rushing around in the airport pre-flight trying to exchange my USD for "Balboas" and the forex guy just laughed and took my 2 x $100 bills and handed them right back and said "poof! now they're Balboas!"
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 13 Jan
  1. The Panama Canal is one of Panama's government's major sources of income; in 2023 it accounted for 24%. If they lose the Canal, it may be a big loss for the locals and those seeking to relocate there for its tax haven status.
  2. In any case, it doesn't change anything but official US English. Anyone can call it what they want. You can't force the French to call La Manche "the English Channel", and I might just rename the Gulf of Mexico to "the Trump Gulf."
reply