Business
Alaska, Florida and Louisiana Purchase show US offer to pay for Greenland makes sense
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Stephen Moore
The media and the intelligentsia are laughing at President Donald Trump’s idea of the United States acquiring Greenland from Denmark. At first hearing of what seemed to be an outlandish idea, I guffawed too.
Trump’s argument is that Greenland is of strategic military and national security value to the United States. He is also betting this giant island has other rare and undiscovered assets. There is no question that it would serve as a strategic buffer between the United States and Russia and perhaps other hostile nations, including China.
This would be a purchase, not a conquest. But does it make sense? Let’s turn back the clock.
Anyone who paid attention to their U.S. history class in high school has heard of “Seward’s Folly.” This was the American acquisition of Alaska in 1867 by then-Secretary of State William Seward. The price tag was $7 million. That would be the equivalent of less than $1 billion today — or less than what Washington spends every day. Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, so Russia practically gave it away to us.
The purchase of Alaska was showered with widespread criticism; it was an “icebox” that was viewed as uninhabitable and more suitable for polar bears than people.
How wrong the skeptics were. Alaska was soon discovered to have vast quantities of gold in the Yukon and played a strategic role during World War II. Then, of course, the North Slope of Alaska was discovered to have massive deposits of oil and gas. No doubt, Putin would love today to have Alaska in his portfolio.
Thank God for William Seward.
The idea of purchasing land in order to expand freedom and America’s manifest destiny predates the purchase of Alaska. In the first hundred years of our country’s history, we repeatedly acquired land to expand America’s reach. Most famously, was Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase — which roughly doubled America’s land area from the original 13 colonies/states. That purchase was criticized as a “land grab” as well. But it was the gateway to the development of the West.
Florida came shortly thereafter — a virtual gift from Spain. The “Republic of Texas” was an independent territory and joined the U.S. voluntarily and we gladly and wisely brought the Lone Star state into the fold.
Needless to say, none of these acquisitions or additions was “folly.”
Which brings us back to Greenland. Why does Denmark need it? It is hard to imagine anything that would add more income, wealth and security to the less than 100,000 people living in Greenland than to plant the American flag there and make it a U.S. territory. The residents of Greenland would be able to bequeath to their children one of the greatest assets on the planet — a U.S. passport.
While we are on the topic of acquisitions, if Trump is really thinking big, he should also consider offering to bury from Mexico a 50-to-100 mile stretch of coastal land stretching from San Diego down the Pacific coast. If Mexico were to sell that land to us, this idyllic beachfront property might instantly become some of the most valuable land in the world — inflating in price by perhaps 10- to 20-fold.
Here is another thought experiment. Imagine how rich Cuba would be today, if it were an American territory. Cuba could and would be the Hong Kong of the western hemisphere if it detoured from its near seven-decade long excursion into communism.
Trump is not an imperialist. He wants to spread freedom, prosperity and peace to much of the rest of the world. The old joke about Greenland is that it is neither green nor land.
It is a vast sheet of floating ice. Plant the American flag on that ice and suddenly it becomes a hot property.
Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”
Quick Hit:
President Trump on Monday warned oil producers not to raise prices in the wake of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, cautioning that a spike would benefit America’s enemies. “EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING!”
Key Details:
-
Trump posted on Truth Social: “YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!”
-
Oil prices fell after the post, with Brent Crude and West Texas Intermediate both slipping by about one percent following earlier gains driven by Middle East tensions.
-
In a follow-up message, Trump told the Department of Energy: “DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!”
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 23, 2025
Diving Deeper:
President Donald Trump issued a blunt warning to oil producers Monday morning following a weekend of U.S. military action against Iran, urging them to keep prices under control amid rising geopolitical tensions. His message, posted on Truth Social, was clear and emphatic: “EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!”
The timing of the post was significant. Over the weekend, U.S. forces struck three major Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—in a bold escalation that raised fears of a broader regional conflict and potential threats to global energy infrastructure. Initial market reactions were swift, with Brent Crude jumping over 5 percent and briefly breaking above $81 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate followed, climbing to its highest level since January.
However, after Trump’s post circulated Monday, both benchmarks began to pull back, each falling by about one percent. Traders appeared to interpret Trump’s comments as a call for restraint, especially as domestic producers weigh output decisions amid a softening price environment and a looser global supply picture.
While Trump didn’t name names, his message seemed clearly aimed at American oil companies, some of which have recently floated the possibility of scaling back production due to lower margins. Meanwhile, OPEC+ continues its efforts to bring previously curtailed output back online, further complicating the global supply-demand dynamic.
In a second post, Trump added: “To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!”
Despite the military flare-up, markets have largely stabilized, suggesting that investors are waiting to see how Iran will respond. Tehran’s parliament has called for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipping, but such a move would require the approval of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
For now, traders appear cautious but unconvinced that supply routes will be disrupted in the immediate term. Trump, however, has made it clear that if oil producers try to capitalize on the crisis by raising prices, he’ll be watching—and he won’t be quiet.
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
And in January, all of Canada’s six largest banks quit the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, an alliance formerly led by Mark Carney (before he resigned to run for leadership of the Liberal Party) that aimed to align banking activities with net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) has cancelled its commitment, established just three years ago, to transition to net-zero emissions by 2050. According to the CPPIB, “Forcing alignment with rigid milestones could lead to investment decisions that are misaligned with our investment strategy.”
This latest development is good news. The CPPIB, which invest the funds Canadians contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), has a fiduciary duty to Canadians who are forced to pay into the CPP and who rely on it for retirement income. The CPPIB’s objective should not be climate activism or other environmental or social concerns, but risk-adjusted financial returns. And as noted in a broad literature review by Steven Globerman, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, there’s a lack of consistent evidence that pursuing ESG (environmental, social and governance) objectives helps improve financial returns.
Indeed, as economist John Cochrane pointed out, it’s logically impossible for ESG investing to achieve social or environmental goals while also improving financial returns. That’s because investors push for these goals by supplying firms aligned with these goals with cheaper capital. But cheaper capital for the firm is equivalent to lower returns for the investor. Therefore, “if you don’t lose money on ESG investing, ESG investing doesn’t work,” Cochrane explained. “Take your pick.”
The CPPIB is not alone among financial institutions abandoning environmental objectives in recent months. In April, Canada’s largest company by market capitalization, RBC, announced it will cancel its sustainable finance targets and reduce its environmental disclosures due to new federal rules around how companies make claims about their environmental performance.
And in January, all of Canada’s six largest banks quit the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, an alliance formerly led by Mark Carney (before he resigned to run for leadership of the Liberal Party) that aimed to align banking activities with net-zero emissions by 2050. Shortly before Canada’s six largest banks quit the initiative, the six largest U.S. banks did the same.
There’s a second potential benefit to the CPPIB cancelling its net-zero commitment. Now, perhaps with the net-zero objective out of the way, the CPPIB can rein in some of the administrative and management expenses associated with pursuing net-zero.
As Andrew Coyne noted in a recent commentary, the CPPIB has become bloated in the past two decades. Before 2006, the CPP invested passively, which meant it invested Canadians’ money in a way that tracked market indexes. But since switching to active investing, which includes picking stocks and other strategies, the CPPIB ballooned from 150 employees and total costs of $118 million to more than 2,100 employees and total expenses (before taxes and financing) of more than $6 billion.
This administrative ballooning took place well before the rise of environmentally-themed investing or the CPPIB’s announcement of net-zero targets, but the net-zero targets didn’t help. And as Coyne noted, the CPPIB’s active investment strategy in general has not improved financial returns either.
On the contrary, since switching to active investing the CPPIB has underperformed the index to a cumulative tune of about $70 billion, or nearly one-tenth of its current fund size. “The fund’s managers,” Coyne concluded, “have spent nearly two decades and a total of $53-billion trying to beat the market, only to produce a fund that is nearly 10-per-cent smaller than it would be had they just heaved darts at the listings.”
Scrapping net-zero commitments won’t turn that awful track record around overnight. But it’s finally a step in the right direction.
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
Ottawa Slams Eby Government Over Chinese Shipyard Deal, Citing Security and Sovereignty Risks
Carney’s exercise in stupidity
Unstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees are not Disappearing – They’re Thriving
-
National1 day agoPreston Manning: “Appearing to Cope” – Is This The Best We Can Do?
-
International1 day agoTrump’s Strike on Iran Reshapes Global Power Balance, Deals First Blow to Beijing and CRINK Axis
-
Energy2 days agoEnergy Policies Based on Reality, Not Ideology, are Needed to Attract Canadian ‘Superpower’ Level Investment – Ron Wallace
-
Business2 days agoHigh Taxes Hobble Canadian NHL Teams In Race For Top Players
-
illegal immigration21 hours agoHeightened alert: Iranians in U.S. previously charged with support for terrorism
-
conflict2 days agoU.S. cities on high alert after U.S. bombs Iran
-
Business12 hours agoThe Passage of Bill C-5 Leaves the Conventional Energy Sector With as Many Questions as Answers
-
armed forces1 day agoHow Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?