B (3:00)

Thanks so much for having me.

C (3:01)

So President Trump wants to go in. He says he wants to consider using military force to acquire Greenland. Let's just start with your initial reactions to this news, and then let's get into what resources they have and why he's going after them.

B (3:19)

President Trump's focus on Greenland is actually aligned with his broader approach to foreign policy. What we saw starting January last year was actually a realignment of our foreign policy very closely tied to critical minerals. In a way, it feels a bit like we're playing a real life game of settlers of catan. So if you think about foreign policy announcements on Ukraine, Greenland, Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, minerals has featured in every one of those discussions. And a lot of this hinges on the fact that we are really contending with the fact that China has a dominance on the critical minerals that we need for our national economic and energy security. So, you know, we don't have all of those geopolitical biological reserves here at home, so we're looking to go out and secure those resources from other places. And Greenland has some really good deposits.

C (4:11)

What is the sort of makeup of those deposits? Like, what do they have that we don't have? How much do they have? What does the resource richness look like in Greenland?

B (4:23)

So the biggest mineral, I mean, you know, here in the US we have a very long list of critical Minerals. We have 60 of them. Um, but the one that we are most vulnerable and that has kind of dominated political and market rhetoric over the last year are something that we call rare earths. And rare earths are a group of 17 minerals. And the funny thing, they're not actually rare. They're found everywhere, but it's kind of hard to find them in commercially dense quantities. So we need rare earths. The number one thing we think about is we need them for every form of defense technology, because they go into the permanent magnets that are used in our missiles, lasers, tanks, fighter jets, submarines. And last year, in April, China, which actually has a pretty big dominance on these rare earths, and particularly something we call heavy rare earths, which just means that they have a higher atomic weight for those heavy rare earths. China actually had 99% of processing capabilities. Now, we need those heavy rare earths. And while the US has rare earths, we don't have a lot of those heavy rare earths. What we have in Greenland are two of the biggest rare earth deposits in the world, and they are particularly well endowed with those heavy rare earths. So, you know, if we want to process those and then turn them into end technologies. We are going to have to go beyond our borders, which is what makes Greenland particularly attractive. But we can come back to this later. It's a very complicated mining jurisdiction.

C (5:42)

Yeah. Why is it so complicated? Let's, let's get to it now.

B (5:45)

A couple of things. So the first thing is from the time that I mine and I get these minerals out of the ground, I've got to get them to the port, right. And, and Greenland has very little infrastructure. It has a couple hundred miles of road, like less than 200 miles of road. So I need a lot of transportation infrastructure, whether it's road, rail, going to further develop the port. The second thing we need is we need a lot more energy infrastructure. Globally, mining uses close to a fifth of the world's energy. And so in a place like Greenland, where you have the lowest population density in the world, we're going to have to build a lot of energy infrastructure. The third thing, mining is not well loved in Greenland. So there are a couple of high profile projects that have actually gotten stopped because communities don't want the mining. And we know that that social license to operate is actually very precarious globally, but particularly in Greenland. And the final thing I would say is there is changing policy in Greenland. And an example of that is rare earths are rarely found alone. They're usually mined with other things. And in the case of Greenland, they're actually mined with uranium and uranium obviously being radioact. So Greenland has kind of gone back and forth on a ban on mining uranium, which by extension impacts whether you can get those rare earths out of the ground. So those policy changes can make it quite complicated.

C (7:04)

When you think about the decision to go into Greenland, I mean, just looking at Venezuela, where it's kind of a similar situation, you have incredible natural resources in the region. Also you'd need to build and invest in a ton of infrastructure to actually get those resources out of the region and use them. But when you think about the way it's been approached, I mean, in Venezuela we had sort of these debates. What was it actually about? Was it about Maduro or was it about the oil? That's definitely a debate, but he seems to be making it clearer and clearer. It's definitely a lot about the oil when it comes to Greenland. Can you just go in there and take it? I mean, is that actually a viable strategy? As an expert on strategic and international studies, is that going to work? To just say it's ours now?

B (8:04)

It's much more complicated Than oil in Venezuela is the short answer. And the reason is this. Venezuela, we've been taking oil out of the ground for a very long time. There are American mining companies that know and extract oil in Venezuela. In Greenland, you're talking about a very nascent industry. You're talking about an industry that has really never been developed. We mine zero rare earths right now. And for some context globally, the average from the time that I identify a minimal deposit to the time that I'm extracting it is 18 years. Just for context here in the United states, it's actually 29 years. So mining is not an industry that I can go in tomorrow and have a shovel ready project three to six months from now. So Venezuela has the benefit of the oil being a very well developed industry compared to mining being very nascent in Greenland.

C (8:54)

I guess part of my question though is the threats towards Greenland. It's basically saying we're going to use our military. If you don't agree and I'm just curious to get your take on what that means and also the efficacy of that. Do you think that that is going to be an acceptable way to go in and get Greenland? Like, do you think that that could actually play out that way?

B (9:21)

I don't think it is a good way to go to Greenland. Okay, you know what we really want to see? Look, Greenland, number one, wants to develop its mining sector. It's very open with us. I was on a panel in London with the advisor to the Mining Minister of Greenland who spoke very openly about wanting to develop those resources. But to do it in a way that is mutually beneficial both to investors but to the people of Greenland, like Greenland needs more economic activity as well. They really want to do is they want to do it in a way that's collaborative. And what we saw in December 2025 was a very strategic project backed by the European Union for graphite, another commodity that China has a pretty big stranglehold on, actually move ahead and get a permit for exploration in Greenland. So it's really. Greenland has this potential as a place that wants. They've obviously been a very key strategic ally to the U.S. we have military bases in Greenland. It's historically been a fairly positive relationship. A country that wants to develop mining sector, that wants to work with Europe, that has been open about wanting to work with the U.S. i think we can do it in a way that's positive and collaborative without necessarily needing to play settlers of catan with Greenland.

C (10:33)

Right on the geopolitics of all of this, it's known that Greenland is this highly, its placement on the globe is highly strategic from a geopolitical perspective. That's why we have the military bases there. That's why it could be potentially a strategic asset. Balancing that against the natural resource side to it. Which one do you think is more important to the administration? Do you think this is about the military base and having that geopolitical asset or do you think this is more about. There's a ton of stuff in there that could be really valuable.

B (11:11)

Look, I mean, I think we have to think about this as a near medium and long term, right? In the near term, I don't think that there's an illusion that Greenland is not going to give us minerals in the next six months are suddenly going to reduce our reliance on China. Because a lot of these projects have a long project development timeline, as I said to you earlier. I mean that could span from a decade to two to three decades. So it's not a near term mineral solution. What it is though, in a time when, number one, geopolitical tension in the Indo Pacific is increasing quite rapidly. We saw just this week that Japan actually, or sorry, China cut Japan off of access to dual use materials because of some of the comments it made to Taiwan. Second, we have seen China making an incre play on Greenland. I mean, in the last seven years you've seen this grow. I mean, at one point Denmark actually had to intervene so that China didn't come in and kind of take the build the airports of Greenland and have that level of ownership on national security ground. So it is, I think in the near term we have so much tension in the world and particularly in the Indo Pacific that that's the near term goal. The longer term goal is we see an area with a lot of resource potential.

C (12:21)

Just before you go, how do you think this plays out in the next year or so if you had to make a prediction?

B (12:28)

It's difficult to say at this point. My hope is that given the Europeans have made a very clear position that they are not going to, they're not open to the US coming and taking Venezuela, that we can find a way to take a more collaborative and more diplomatic approach to Greenland, acknowledging that this is not an adversarial relationship that we've had with Greenland. It's actually been highly strategic and we can expand that strategic partnership going forward.

C (12:56)

All right. Gracelyn Baskeran, Director of the Critical Mineral Security Program at the center for Strategic and International Studies. Gracelyn, appreciate your time. Thank you.

B (13:07)

Thanks for having me.

C (13:10)

After the break, California's Billionaire Tax debate heats up. If you're enjoying the show, give property markets a follow.

D (13:32)

This week on Net Worth and chill. I'm giving you an exclusive sneak peek at my new book, well endowed, hitting shelves February 3rd. I wrote this book because I believe everyone deserves to build wealth that actually works for their life, not just follow some cookie cutter financial advice that wasn't made for us.

A (13:46)

Us.

D (13:46)

I'm sharing the real strategies for building generational wealth, investing with confidence, and creating the financial future you actually want. This isn't just another personal finance book. It's a roadmap for taking control of your financial destiny and building the kind of wealth that gives you options, freedom and peace of mind. Pre order well endowed now, wherever books are sold and get ready to transform your relationship with money. Listen to this week's episode wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.com YourRichBFF for most of the history of.

A (14:15)

Television, if you missed a show, you just missed it. It was over. It was gone. But then this little company called TiVo came along and gave people superpowers. You could pause live television, you could rewind it, you could save it and watch it later. It was incredible. And the people who had it could not stop talking about it. This week on Version History, a new chat show about old technology, we talk about the history of TiVo and how it is that a company whose products actually no one ever really had or used became one of the most iconic stories in tech. All that on Version History. Wherever you get podcasts.

C (14:55)

We're back with property markets. California voters are considering a wealth tax on billionaires. Unlike traditional wealth taxes, which apply to cash or liquid assets, this one time 5% tax would apply to unreal realized gains. Those could come from stocks, artwork and intellectual property. The measure was filed late last year, but it gained new momentum after Representative Ro Karna publicly endorsed it. And that endorsement triggered a sharp backlash from Silicon Valley this week. If the proposal gets roughly 875,000 signatures, it will be on the ballot in November. And if voters approve it, the tax will apply retroactively to people who are California residents as of January 1, 2026. So this is a big deal. And as I just mentioned, this has set the tech community on fire. We've seen backlash on social media from billionaires like David Sachs and Chamath Palihapitiya and Bill Ackman, among many others. To sum up their criticisms, the tax would basically just cause a mass exodus of all of the most successful and wealthiest entrepreneurs in the state and they also claim that it wouldn't make that large of a dent in the massive state budget of California. Meanwhile, the proposal supporters say that this is necessary to fight inequality. No matter what side you're on, one thing is clear. This is an unprecedented proposal that could really change California forever. Now, directionally speaking, I actually like this initiative because it tells me we are beginning to get on the same page about what the real problems in America actually are. It isn't transgenderism or wokeness or the media. The real problem, the big problem, is inequality. And I know we've beaten this horse to death, but that's because it's a pretty gigantic horse. A quick reminder of the numbers. $1 trillion. That's how much the top 19 households in America made in 2024. They now control roughly 2% of all household wealth in America. $52 trillion. That's how much the Top 1% controls now. That's roughly a third of all household wealth. Inequality is getting worse and worse. The rich are getting richer and richer. The poor are getting poorer. And we know where this is headed because we've seen this story before throughout history. We saw it in Russia and France and Germany. This is a perfectly paved road towards revolt, violence, and civil war. So when someone comes up with a plan to dramatically redistribute the wealth, I'm for it. A wealth tax on billionaires? Why not? Jensen Huang said it's okay. The trouble, however, is that almost every other billionaire says it's not okay. Larry Page, Peter Thiel, Palmer. Lucky. All the big power brokers in Silicon Valley, they have all sounded off about what an unacceptable proposal this is, and they appear prepared to do whatever it takes to fend it off. And as much as I'd like to just blow past their preferences, we also have to recognize reality. And the reality is these guys have a lot of power, including the power to just shut this whole thing down. Whether that's through lobbying or just fighting it out in the courts or simply leaving the state, maybe the country, I can tell you with near certainty this plan isn't going to go through as planned. Now, to be clear, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but at the same time, we should consider all our options and choose the one that has the highest probability of working. And this probably isn't that. So before we end, I would propose an alternative that probably would work, and that would be a borrowing tax. As you may know, the reason billionaires pay proportionately less in taxes is because they rarely have taxable events. Instead, they Just hold their assets, which rise in value, and they never sell. And that is a great strategy until you want to buy something, at which point you need cash to pay for it. And this is where the dirty secret comes in. Instead of selling their assets, what billionaires like to do is they borrow against them, usually at an extremely low rate. And this is not a taxable event, which basically means you can just borrow and borrow and borrow ad infinitum, and you never have to pay taxes. So here's a solution that we would propose. Make borrowing a taxable event. Let them keep their assets. But if they ever want to use those assets to fund their lifestyle, they have to pay a tax just like the rest of us. And the beautiful thing about this idea is one, it would work. It's estimated it could generate as much as $20 billion per year. And two, billionaires are not that against it. In fact, Bill Ackman has said the idea is okay. So has Mark Cuban. So has Abigail Disney, the heiress to the Disney fortune. Not every billionaire is going to be on board. But it does seem that, more importantly, many of them will be. Because unlike a flat, that wealth tax which simply seizes your assets regardless of your liquidity, this works a lot more like an income tax. It taxes you when you decide to get liquid. And that is simply a lot more realistic. Now, I'm open to other ideas that I'm also open to hearing why the wealth tax is better. But considering how dire the situation has gotten, we simply have to be serious about which ideas are actually viable, which are going to go through and which ideas are not. A wealth tax might theoretically be a good idea, but realistically it isn't because it isn't going to happen. And at this point, our view on this is quite simple. We need ideas that will happen. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Patterson and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our research team is Dan Shalon, Isabella Kinsel, Kristen o' Donoghue and Mia Silverio. Thanks for listening to Profit G Markets from Profigy Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. Tune in tomorrow for our conversation with Josh Brown.