The Power and the Money

Buying Greenland

Back in 2009, I made the modest proposal that Iceland become an unincorporated territory of the United States. It wasn’t serious. 

But it looks like the Trump administration is serious about buying Greenland. Or, well, “serious,” because it is the Trump administration. To start with, they want to negotiate with the government of Denmark, when they should be negotiating with the government of Greenland. Constitutionally, Denmark does not have the authority to transfer the sovereignty of Greenland to anyone but the duly-elected government of Greenland.

But the government of Greenland, well, it can do whatever it wants.

So what the hell! I have seen some numbers out there and I think that I can do better. What price would make sense and make it hard for the Greenlanders to refuse?

The administration could offer every resident of Greenland a cool one million dollars, or $57 billion. It could also promise to take over the $535 million Danish annual transfer payment. In fact, the U.S. could do Denmark one better: in 2009, Denmark froze the transfer in nominal terms. (See Kevin McGwin, Denmark’s annual state of the kingdom report paints a rotten picture of Greenland’s economy, The Arctic Journal, April 20, 2017.) For some reason the number $750 million keeps getting thrown around, so let’s say we up our subsidy offer.

So would that be overpaying? Well, it turns out that in 2014 the Danes estimated that the mineral and oil rights under Greenland would bring in a cool $69.8 billion over the next 40 years. At the current U.S. 30-year-bond rate of 2.07%, that would have a net present value of about $47.9 billion. Subtract from that the $20.3 billion 40-year NPV of the subsidy, and you have a get that Greenland’s mineral rights are worth about $27.6 billion, or $485,000 per Greenlander. 

Is there a strategic value to Greenland? Yes, but we already have that! A 1951 Treaty gives the U.S. carte blanche to do pretty much whatever we think we need to do, subject to a potential Danish veto over the establishment of new military facilities. Is getting rid of that veto worth $27.6 billion? 

No, but come on. We all know that Trump wants to buy Greenland because it would be cool and awesome. That would be worth $27.6 billion. Or he could just offer each Greenlander $485,000 and see if they bite. 

Any Greenlanders out there? Could you get a majority to vote to become an unincorporated territory of the United States for somewhere between a half-mil and a mil for every woman, man, and child on the island?

Of course, getting concurrent majorities in the House and Senate or getting two-thirds of the Senate to approve the resulting agreement would be ... difficult. Still, somehow Jimmy Carter managed to get the supremely unpopular Panama Canal Treaty passed.

That said, Donald Trump has not exactly proven himself to be a master of the Senate. 

And that, of course, is why this boneheaded idea is not going to go anywhere. I suspect that President Trump could bribe the Greenlanders to switch metropoles. I do not for a minute believe that he can bribe Moscow Mitch (let alone Nancy Pelosi) to get them to agree to drop $27.6 billion (let alone $57 billion) on this vanity project.

I have to admit, though, that the sheer craziness of the fact that I am writing this as an analysis of a real proposal by the POTUS has me quite amused. And scared, but mostly, for the moment, amused.

Lessons from day care for President Trump

Bloomberg reports that President Trump is moving towards making good on at least one of his campaign promises: making a profit off American overseas deployments. 

The story is that he plans to introduce “Cost plus 50” as the standard: i.e., basing costs plus 50%. Now, this won’t earn the United States a whole lot of money. Basing costs just aren’t very high. The U.S. could conceivably gross about $15 billion from our allies, including a $5 billion markup. We would net less than $15 billion, however, considering that Japan currently kicks in about $1.8 billion and South Korea and Germany add another $800 million each. (South Korea just agreed to up that last to $1 billion.) But hey, $11.4 billion is still $11.4 billion. 

The thing is, the administration also plans to reduce the charge for countries that align their foreign policies with the United States. In other words, the plan would give governments concrete incentives to follow American foreign policy.

Before you get too excised about that, note that the United States already does exactly this. In 1983, the U.S. passed a law requiring the State Department to report how closely countries voted with the U.S. in the U.N. General Assembly. Since then, study after study has turned up the same pattern: countries that vote with the U.S. get either more U.S. financial support or more support from U.S.-supported institutions, like the IMF. 

Wait, the IMF is a tool of American foreign policy? Who would have imagined? Besides everybody, that is. (Specifically: Barro and Lee (2005) found that IMF loans are associated with similarity to U.S. voting patterns in the UN and economic ties with the United States. Stone (2008) and Eichengreen et al. (2006) found that countries that receive substantial amounts of U.S. foreign aid are more likely to be eligible for IMF financing.)

And of course the U.S. trades favors in even subtler ways. Germany and France support the U.S. at times when they otherwise wouldn’t because they know that the U.S. will support them even especially if the Russians invade. 

So who cares if the Trump administration turns subtext into text? Or even supertext, a sort of neon-green megawatt Bat Signal of our intentions, with a specific price tag attached? Heck, economists always say that certainty is good and prices are good. Trump will certainly bring more of both. Maybe we will get a big bang for our $11.4 billion bucks. 

Or maybe not. Sometimes, you see, it is better for quos and quids to remain implicit.

Consider what happened when an Israeli day-care chain introduced late charges. The number of late parents went up. By a factor of two. And if you are wondering, this was a controlled study, in which only some centers introduced the charges. 

The lesson? Before the centers introduced fines parents tried hard to arrive on time because it was the right thing to do. After the fine was introduced, arriving late became simply another commodity that you could buy, even if that price was called a “fine.” Be late, pay the fine, cleanse your conscience, free of any worries that other parents will disapprove. 

In other words, right not countries cooperate with the U.S. in part because they consider it the right thing to do. The U.S. might reward them, but only as part of an unspoken system of mutual favors between friends.

But in a Trumpian world, well, now U.S. support becomes just another commodity with a price tag on it. If the cost is too high, then a foreign government may as well just pay the price. Keep U.S. bases on your soil but follow whatever bloody foreign policy suits you, plus a small check to Washington.

In short, for an additional $11.4 billion per year (or less) the Trump administration will likely get a whole lot less cooperation while preserving most of our overseas commitments. Nice job, I suppose.

Of course, we would bet that this will not ultimately happen, the same way we predicted that NAFTA would not be abolished.

Reposted without comment from March 2016: How much could President Trump win from our s̶a̶t̶r̶a̶p̶i̶e̶s̶ allies?

 So, Donald Trump wants to turn America’s hegemony into a protection racket. Okay, then. How would those negotiations go?

First thing to do is estimate how much the U.S. could save by pulling out of Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

First take: billions and billions! The link goes to a 2009 study by the Commonwealth Institute. They get a cost of $127.1 billion for fiscal 2010: $132.1 billion in cost minus tribute host payments of $5 billion. (Page 9.) But that estimate is dumb. It simply pro-rates the defense budget by the number of personnel stationed overseas. Now, maybe some president might save all that money by simply downsizing the military. (Well, the Army would be “downsized” in that scenario; the Navy would be gutted.) 

Since Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of shrinking the military, then those personnel will simply be redeployed back to the United States. 

Second take: In 2013, the U.S. Senate took a look at basing costs. It estimated costs around $10 billion, 70% in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. (Page 1.) These costs do not include personnel costs or overhead: rather, they are the direct costs of keeping up the bases in those countries. German bases cost $4 billion. South Korean bases cost $1.9 billion. (Page 18.) Japanese bases cost $2.5 billion. (Page 40.)

But South Korea and Japan, unlike Germany, pay pretty large portions of the U.S. cost! (Hold that thought on Germany; this is based entirely on the Senate report.) In South Korea, U.S. taxpayers foot only $1.1 billion of the cost; South Koreans make up for $800 million. (Page 21.) Japan, meanwhile, covers more than 70% of U.S. costs, to the tune of $1.8 billion per year. Until 2010, in fact, Japan covered all U.S. basing costs. (Page 41.) So President Trump might wrap up the American empire-by-invitation in Asia for savings of ... $1.8 billion. Get out of Germany at the same time and you save $5.8 billion per year. 

Only you don’t! Consider the cost of transferring 7,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam: $19.3 billion. (Page 49.) Scale that up by the other 43,000 American forces in Japan and you get $119 billion to withdraw without demobilization. Add in the 29,000 forces in South Korea and you get $197 billion. Throw in the 36,000 troops planned to still be in Germany in 2017 and you get $296 billion. 

Now, that is a one-time cost, not an annual flow. And it is likely exaggerated, since most of the Naval and Air Force personnel overseas will not be as expensive to relocate as the Marines. So lets arbitrarily cut the cost by 60%. 30-year treasury bonds are currently yielding around 2.5%. Call it an annual expense of $5.8 billion between 2017 and 2047. 

$5.8 billion ≈ $5.8 billion. No savings. With interest rates at a near all-time low and shaving 60% off the topline estimate. Huh!

And now lets return to the German issue. Germany pays a share of American construction costs for our bases, but those costs are lumpy. In  2009, Rand estimated total German support to total $831 million. (Page 154.) If that number is accurate for other years, then the U.S. pays only $5.0 billion for our three main overseas presences. And $5.8 billion > $5.0 billion.

Third take: This big Rand report. It is long and complicated and does not cover the complete withdrawal option. But their minimum posture saves around $2.9 billion per year ... assuming that foreign contributions remained unchanged.

In other words, the American defense perimeter does not cost all that much. 

Now we need to figure out what these cost estimates imply for the negotiations.

President Trump, in this world, cannot simply threaten to walk away, because that would cost him. He needs to make one of two additional threats:

1. He is willing to incur costs to the United States if negotiations break down. That is, he tells his counterparts in Berlin, Tokyo and Seoul that he is willing to pay money to bug out unless our satraps allies fork over even more money. Good luck with that one.

2. He is willing to bug out and downsize the American military budget. Now those cuts do not have to be large for us to come out ahead — we are talking maybe 1% of the total defense budget — but they would need to be made. 

So, yeah, I suppose a cost-cutting President Trump could threaten to cut American military spending unless those foreigners pay us more. But unless he is willing to resort to an outright protection racket, he would net us 1% of the military budget on the threat of making a 1% cut in the military budget. 

Yeah, that makes sense. Totally worth it. After all, it isn’t like you could just, you know, cut the military budget without threatening our allies ... 

Additional savings from going all America First

 The previous post looked at overseas basing costs and concluded that there were no real savings from shutting them down unless the United States also cut the military budget. Which, of course, we could do without ending our defense obligations.

The post did not account for the fact that NATO has a common budget, funded in part by the United States. That common budget comes to ... €2.1 billion, or $2.4 billion. The U.S. pays 22% of the common budget, or $523 million per year.

There are also individual NATO trust funds established for particular projects. They come to a grand total of €69 million, or $78 million. The U.S. share can vary, but assuming it’s around 22%, then you get a total U.S. contribution of $17 million. (The trust fund projects aren’t annual, but let’s run with that.)

So destroying the entire postwar Atlantic alliance system would save us $540 million per year. Call it a buck-seventy for every man, woman and child in the United States. 

That is not a lot of money. But hey, it is something. Make the Euros cough that up! Yeah! U-S-A! Winning!

How much could President Trump win from our s̶a̶t̶r̶a̶p̶i̶e̶s̶ allies?

 So, Donald Trump wants to turn America’s hegemony into a protection racket. Okay, then. How would those negotiations go?

First thing to do is estimate how much the U.S. could save by pulling out of Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

First take: billions and billions! The link goes to a 2009 study by the Commonwealth Institute. They get a cost of $127.1 billion for fiscal 2010: $132.1 billion in cost minus tribute host payments of $5 billion. (Page 9.) But that estimate is dumb. It simply pro-rates the defense budget by the number of personnel stationed overseas. Now, maybe some president might save all that money by simply downsizing the military. (Well, the Army would be “downsized” in that scenario; the Navy would be gutted.) 

Since Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of shrinking the military, then those personnel will simply be redeployed back to the United States. 

Second take: In 2013, the U.S. Senate took a look at basing costs. It estimated costs around $10 billion, 70% in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. (Page 1.) These costs do not include personnel costs or overhead: rather, they are the direct costs of keeping up the bases in those countries. German bases cost $4 billion. South Korean bases cost $1.9 billion. (Page 18.) Japanese bases cost $2.5 billion. (Page 40.)

But South Korea and Japan, unlike Germnay, pay pretty large portions of the U.S. cost! (Hold that thought on Germany; this is based entirely on the Senate report.) In South Korea, U.S. taxpayers foot only $1.1 billion of the cost; South Koreans make up for $800 million. (Page 21.) Japan, meanwhile, covers more than 70% of U.S. costs, to the tune of $1.8 billion per year. Until 2010, in fact, Japan covered all U.S. basing costs. (Page 41.) So President Trump might wrap up the American empire-by-invitation in Asia for savings of ... $1.8 billion. Get out of Germany at the same time and you save $5.8 billion per year. 

Only you don’t! Consider the cost of transferring 7,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam: $19.3 billion. (Page 49.) Scale that up by the other 43,000 American forces in Japan and you get $119 billion to withdraw without demobilization. Add in the 29,000 forces in South Korea and you get $197 billion. Throw in the 36,000 troops planned to still be in Germany in 2017 and you get $296 billion. 

Now, that is a one-time cost, not an annual flow. And it is likely exaggerated, since most of the Naval and Air Force personnel overseas will not be as expensive to relocate as the Marines. So lets arbitrarily cut the cost by 60%. 30-year treasury bonds are currently yielding around 2.5%. Call it an annual expense of $5.8 billion between 2017 and 2047. 

$5.8 billion ≈ $5.8 billion. No savings. With interest rates at a near all-time low and shaving 60% off the topline estimate. Huh!

And now lets return to the German issue. Germany pays a share of American construction costs for our bases, but those costs are lumpy. In  2009, Rand estimated total German support to total $831 million. (Page 154.) If that number is accurate for other years, then the U.S. pays only $5.0 billion for our three main overseas presences. And $5.8 billion > $5.0 billion.

Third take: This big Rand report. It is long and complicated and does not cover the complete withdrawal option. But their minimum posture saves around $2.9 billion per year ... assuming that foreign contributions remained unchanged.

In other words, the American defense perimeter does not cost all that much. 

Now we need to figure out what these cost estimates imply for the negotiations.

President Trump, in this world, cannot simply threaten to walk away, because that would cost him. He needs to make one of two additional threats:

1. He is willing to incur costs to the United States if negotiations break down. That is, he tells his counterparts in Berlin, Tokyo and Seoul that he is willing to pay money to bug out unless our satraps allies fork over even more money. Good luck with that one.

2. He is willing to bug out and downsize the American military budget. Now those cuts do not have to be large for us to come out ahead — we are talking maybe 1% of the total defense budget — but they would need to be made. 

So, yeah, I suppose a cost-cutting President Trump could threaten to cut American military spending unless those foreigners pay us more. But unless he is willing to resort to an outright protection racket, he would net us 1% of the military budget on the threat of making a 1% cut in the military budget. 

Yeah, that makes sense. Totally worth it. After all, it isn’t like you could just, you know, cut the military budget without threatening our allies ...