Today's number three. That's how many

feet far the horned lizard can squirt

blood out of its eyes. This strange act

is a biological defense mechanism that

keeps all predators away. All except for

Army Hammer.

Welcome to Profy Markets. I'm Edson. It

is January 8th. Let's check in on

yesterday's market vitals. The S&P 500

and the Dow lost steam, ending the day

in the red. The Nasdaq rose. Shares in

homebuilders fell after President Trump

said he'd ban institutional investors

from buying single family homes.

Blackstone, a major investor in the

asset also fell as much as 9%. Trump had

a busy day. He also said he won't allow

defense companies to issue share

buybacks and dividends. That sent

defense stocks down with Loheed Martin

dropping 5%. And finally, the yield on

tenure treasuries fell after ADP private

jobs data showed that hiring rose

moderately in December. Okay, what else

is happening?

Fresh off the extraction of Venezuela's

president, President Trump has turned to

another target, Greenland. The president

first proposed buying the Denmark

territory back in 2019, but now he says

the US quote needs Greenland for

national security. The White House said

it's weighing a range of options to

acquire the island and hasn't ruled out

the use of military force. That

triggered sharp push back from European

leaders who insisted that quote

Greenland belongs to its people. So why

is Trump fixated on this territory and

what does it mean for markets? Here to

help us understand what is happening,

we're speaking with Graceland Basaran,

director of the critical mineral

security program at the Center for

Strategic and International Studies.

Graceland, thank you for joining us on

Profy Markets.

>> Thanks so much for having me.

>> 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

uh to this news and then let's get into

what resources they have and why he's

going after them.

>> 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 Katan. So

if you think about foreign policy

announcements on Ukraine, Greenland,

Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina,

minerals is 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 geological

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.

>> What is the sort of makeup of those

deposits? Like what do they have uh that

we don't have? How much do they have? Um

what is the resource richness look like

in Greenland?

>> 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. 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 and

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 wellendowed 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.

>> Yeah. Why is it so complicated? Let's

let's get to it. Now,

>> 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

uh Greenwood has very little

infrastructure. It has a couple hundred

miles of roads, like less than 200 miles

of roads. So, I need a lot of

transportation infrastructure, whether

it's road, rail, going to further

develop the ports. 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 a 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 radioactive. 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. 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 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 it

what was it actually about? Was it about

Maduro or was it about the oil? Um,

that's definitely a debate, but he seems

to be making it clear and clear 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? Like, is that

going to work to just say it's ours now?

>> 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 m and extract

oil in Venezuela. In Greenland, you're

talking about a very nent industry.

You're talking about an industry that

has really never been developed. We mine

zero rare earth right now. And for some

context, globally, the average from the

time that I identify a mineral 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 3 to 6 months from now. So,

Venezuela has the benefit of the oil

being uh a very well-developed industry

compared to mining being a very nent in

Greenland.

>> I guess the part of my question though

is is the the threats towards Greenland.

It's basically saying we're going to use

our military if you don't agree. Um and

I'm just curious to get your take on

what that means and also the efficacy of

that. Like 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?

>> I don't think it is a good way to go to

Greenland. I think the thing about

>> I you know what we really want to see

look Greenland number one wants to

develop its mining sector. It's very

open with that. I was on a panel in

London with the adviser to the mining

minister of Greenland um 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. Um you know and they but what

they they really want to do is they want

to do it in a way that's collaborative.

And what we saw um in December 2025 was

a very strategic project backed by the

European Union for graphite, another

commodity that China has a pretty big

strangle hold on, actually move ahead

and get a permit for exploration in

Greenland. So it's really, you know,

Greenland has this potential as a place

that wants, you know, we they've

obviously been a very key strategic ally

to the US. We have military bases in

Greenland. It's historically been a a

fairly positive relationship. A country

that wants to develop its mining sector

that wants to work with Europe that has

open been open about wanting to work

with the US. Um you know I think we can

do it in a way that's positive and

collaborative without necessarily

needing to play settlers of katan with

Greenland.

>> It's known that Greenland is this highly

uh strategic

its placement on the globe is highly

strategic from a geopolitical

perspective. um that's why we have the

military bases there. Uh 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?

>> 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 that 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

nearterm 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 increasing

play on uh 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, you know, kind of take the

build the airports of Greenland and have

that level of ownership on national

security grounds. So, you know, it is I

think in the near term we have so much

tension in the world and particularly in

the Indoacific that that's the near-term

goal. The longer term goal is we see an

area with a lot of resource potential.

>> Just before you go, how do you think

this plays out in the next year or so?

If you had to make a prediction,

>> 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 uh 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. All right, Gracelyn

Bascaran, director of the critical

mineral security program at the Center

for Strategic and International Studies.

Grayson, appreciate your time. Thank

you.

>> Thanks for having me.

>> We'll be right back. And if you're

enjoying the show so far, be sure to

like and subscribe to the ProfG GP Pod

YouTube channel at the link below.

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 unrealized 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

Connor 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 1st, 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 Saxs and Chamath

Palahatia and Bill Aman 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're 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 Teal, Paul Malaki, 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

proportionally 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, add in an

item, 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 Aman has said

the idea is okay. So has Mark Cuban. So

has Abigail Disney, the ays 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 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 and 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.

Thanks for listening to Profy Markets

from Profit Media. If you liked what you

heard, subscribe to our YouTube channel

and tune in tomorrow for our

conversation with Josh Brown.