It’s doubtful you’ve missed the account. Donald Trump, the newly elected US president, has stated on numerous occasions that he wants to take “ownership and power” of Greenland, a sovereign nation of the Danish Kingdom.
Trump first made a point of getting the US to buy Greenland again in 2019. At the time, he argued, very accurately, that he was not the first US senator to come up with the idea.
Modern-day country sales are unique. It remains to be seen whether Trump may bring them back. However, the query is interesting: How would one choose to offer something for an entire state, territory, or nation?
Not a novel concept
Since the beginning of the Cold War, Greenland’s strategic location has been of enormous benefit to the US.
In 1946, then-President Harry Truman offered to buy the Swedish place for US$ 100 million in gold. According to reports, the Danes responded to that sell in much the same way as they did in 2019 and again in 2025:” No, bless you.”
One royal state purchasing place from another may appear strange at the time, but there are numerous instances where this has happened over period.
In the earlier 19th century, the US largely seized control of its European growth.
This included the” Louisiana Purchase“, vast swathes of land in North America, bought from France in 1803 for US$ 15 million ( an estimated$ 416 million in 2024 figures ).
After the Mexican-American War, the US paid Mexico for significant amounts of place. The US also bought Alaska from Russia in 1867, for$ 7.2 million ( over$ 150 million today ).
And it bought the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 for$ 25 million ( over$ 600 million today ) in gold coin.
It isn’t just the US. Japan, Pakistan, Russia, Germany and Saudi Arabia have all purchased place, transferring control over local citizens and gaining area, access to essential waterways or just physical buffers.
What is a country’s price?
Valuing a country ( or an autonomous territory like Greenland ) is no simple task. Countries have a mix of tangible and intangible factors that resist simple financial measurement, in contrast to companies or assets.
A logical place to start is gross domestic product, or” GDP”. Simply put, GDP is the total value of all the goods and services that are produced in an economy over a given period of time (usually a month ).
But does this actually capture the true “value” of an business? When we buy things, the benefits derived from it next – we hope – into the future.
Therefore, based on the value produced over a given time period, a purchase price does not accurately reflect the buyer’s purchase price ( in this case, the value of the entire business ). We must think about whether or not we can continue to add value in the future.
Greenland’s productive resources include not only the existing businesses, governments and workers used to generate its current GDP (estimated at about$ 3.236 billion in 2021 ), but also its ( difficult to measure ) ability to change and improve its future GDP. How useful these tools are going to be in the future will determine this.
Another value-added characteristics are not included in GDP. These include the value of its investment ( both people and network ), quality of life, natural resources and strategic location.
Beyond what is already there, from a business perspective, it’s the as-yet unexploited tools that make Greenland important.
Greenland has been mining fuel for centuries, with big, proved resources. The soil has been shown to contain rare rocks, precious metals, tungsten and uranium.
In addition to fuel mine, there is platinum, silver, brass, lead, copper, graphite and stone.
Lastly, there is the potential for big oil abuse off the lakes of Greenland. None of this possibility is reflected in Greenland’s present GDP.
Federal resources are easier
Putting a price on a large national asset, such as the Panama Canal ( which Trump also wants under US control ), is a much easier prospect.
The financing discipline’s tenets date back to the 18th century, and the concept of asset valuation is one of its most important.
The “asset sales design” has evolved over time, but ultimately, it’s about estimating the future gross income flows from an asset, based on a few inputs.
This may involve estimating the potential future gross income for the Panama Canal based on factors like costs generated by its use and the volume of traffic that is anticipated.
Therefore, you would take action to subtract any predicted harm to the waterway’s health from the projected costs of maintaining the equipment. The risk of really realizing that online income is another factor in determining what you would give.
Working out the present value of all of these future ( net ) income flows is typically used to determine the value or “price tag” of such an asset.
Current country sales are uncommon.
There are a number of reasons why the geographical sales are declining. Generally, land sales typically benefited ruling elites more than ordinary citizens. It is almost impossible to buy land in modern democracies if local residents are against the idea.
For governments operate on the theory that national property may serve the people, not the government’s coffers. Selling a place now may need demonstrating obvious, tangible benefits to the population, a challenging job in practice.
Patriotism is another important factor. Property is closely linked to its regional personality, and selling it off is frequently viewed as a betrayal. Institutions, as custodians of national satisfaction, are anxious to amuse offers, no matter how tempting.
A strong international standard against changing borders serves as a powerful endorsement of this, which was created out of concern that one regional adjustment might lead to a wave of disputes and conflicts abroad.
In today’s world, buying a state or one of its provinces may be little more than a notion test. Governments are social, cultural and historical companies that resist commodification.
Greenland may potentially have a cost, but the actual question is whether or not such a transaction always complies with contemporary values and realities.
Susan Stone is credit union SA head of finance, University of South Australia and Jonathan Boymal is interact professor of Economics, RMIT University
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.