related trivia = CA has a bigger economy than Russia.
But the $52B can’t be spent. Or I should say that any mention of using any of the Permanent Fund money for any reason whatsoever spells the end of the utterer’s political career. There could be a plague that could be cured by spending one dollar of the Fund, and nobody would dare touch it. There is an element there who insists that the fund should be liquidated and an equal share given to each Alaskan, which they may as well do, since it will never get used.
Yes, but in a sale of Alaska it could be considered an asset, one that may be transferred to Russia. So while it can’t be spent today, with an Alaska that’s part of the US, the Russians may have different ideas.
The sovereign fund pays dividends into Alaska’s treasury. Think of it as an endowment; it’s there to earn money, not to be spent.
No for two reasons. One of my ancestors is buried there from when Russia had it the first time and secondly I was to shoot a griz. And not just any one but a Kodiak griz. With a flintlock.
(Seriously. I used to put in for the permit auction all the time and then they changed things and I lost track. But I still want to.)
Even if the 52 billion fund can’t be given to Russia (it doesn’t make sense that it would : when you move into a house, you don’t get the contents of the bank account associated with the owners of that house, do you? Nor would you get the contents of a trust fund dedicated to the upkeep of that house), the fact that it exists shows just how valuable the natural resources remaining in Alaska must be. And that’s just the oil. There’s probably a huge amount of various metals around there somewhere, not to mention all the wildlife and lumber and so on. There are probably trillions and trillions worth. Selling it, ironically, might “fix” certain encumberances on the property that prevent the place being exploited to the maximum extent. None of the national parks there would be valid anymore. If we lived in a world governed by mega-corporations, a sale of the place might very well be a sensible move.
Fling her over via trebuchet. Her and Vlad will be the next couple on the cover of People Magazine.
One thing is geopolitical; selling Alaska to the Russians would substantially decrease the distance from Russian soil to US population centers (by my estimate, there’s less than 900 miles from the southernmost point of Alaska to the northwestern point of the continental US), which could put the US at greater risk of nuclear annihilation. The likelihood of such an attack is obviously miniscule, but the consequences are quite literally apocalyptic and so this can’t be discounted. In the near future we’re at little risk of nuclear war, but selling Alaska would be permanent and therefore its prudent to look to the longterm. This could make selling Alaska a decision at any price; no amount of money could compensate for the threat to our way of life.
Then could she see the United States (or at least some part of Canada) from her front door step?
Alaska GDP is apparently about 40 billions (I found figures between 37 and 45 billions). So, I would say that 1 trillion (25 years of GDP, a return of 4%) would be a starting price. Untapped (hence not part of GDP) oil reserves are estimated between 1 and 10 billions barrels. Let's say 5. At 50/barrel, that’s $ 250 billions. Let’s double that for other mineral reserves Alaska might have. That’s 1.5 trillion.
Let’s round this up to 2 trillions for sentimental value, polar bears and such. At this price, you should agree to the deal, IMO. At 15 or 30 trillions, as proposed by the OP, Alaska is ludicrously overpriced. No one will take it.
Well, OK, but he has to ride her while shirtless into every diplomatic meeting…
Or maybe something that rhymes with it?
…like… store? Those T-shirts would sell…
You’re starting them at the top. Try “Hustler” first & see if the issues sell out.
I’d say sell Alaska for a couple trillion, with a reasonable 18.5% apr, and if payments ever fall behind repossess Alaska.
Russia may not go for it but oil companies would salivate at all the other resources.
You do realize that you are every bit the political ideologue as any of them, right?
I’d want the terms to specify that the payments could NOT be in rubles. I suspect USD would be best.
Personally, I’m thrilled when I can double my money on an investment - so sell Alaska for $.04 per acre. Maybe a nickle per acre just to make up for any hidden costs.
[sub]No, I’m not serious[/sub]