pull down to refresh

188 sats \ 5 replies \ @freetx 13 Jan \ parent \ on: Is it really the plan to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal? Politics_And_Law
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.
write
preview
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