Wealth is generally calculated as our net worth, or our assets minus our debts. Our assets are limited to the value of our financial securities (stocks, bonds, and real estate). Debts are what we owe others. In total, US residents hold close to 170 trillion dollars of wealth. That number makes us the richest nation on the planet. Thanks (or no thanks) mainly to our inheritance laws, we do not tax wealth. It is passed on to others tax free. And as long as we do not spend our inheritances, they double in value every 10 years (via dividends, unterest, rents, and capital gains). That $170 trillion will almost certainly become $340 trillion by 2035; then $680 trillion by 2045; and by 2075 it will have grown to $5.5 quadrillion.

While the foregoing numbers sound as we are all rich, we are not.  The top 10 percent of US residents own 90 percent of all our wealth, or $153 trillion of the grand total. The next 40 percent own $17 trillion, while the bottom 50 percent hold no wealth at all. By 2075, the bottom 50 percent will still have no net worth (zero times any number is still zero).

But what will happen to our country when the wealth of the wealthiest becomes 32.34 times higher than it is today? $153 trillion gives them immense political power now. But $5 quadrillion will give their children the power to rewrite every law to whatever they want them to be. We are almost pre-destined to become a country of elitist autocrats by the few, and obedient zombie slaves by the many. It is confirmed by the mathematics, by all we have learned about human conduct, even by the laws of physics. The Earth will still be here, although the risk of nuclear war will also rise exponentially as greed wraps its tentacles around those at the top and squeezes them into caricatures of themselves. We could have radioactive debris in all the wrong places. Perhaps those hiding out in the mountains of New Zealand will escape a nuclear holocaust, but at the price of being set back to re-live the Stone Age.

There is a tiny opening that could alter the wealth distribution curve and change the course of human events. It is called "hidden" wealth, or undergrouond reserves of rare earth elements.

The following summary is the response by Micro Soft's AI model to my query about rare earth and other minerals known to exist in US public lands. It has been estimated that the public lands in the US hold about 170 trillion dollars worth of such minerals.

*          *           *           *

Q. What are the dominant minerals, and how long might it take to retrieve them? What might change in the economic and geo-political outlooks by mining them?

A. The most valuable minerals on U.S. public lands are rare earth elements, gold, silver, copper, uranium, and other critical metals. Extracting them could take decades to centuries, depending on environmental reviews, permitting, infrastructure, and the sheer scale of reserves.

Dominant Minerals on U.S. Public Lands

Public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service contain a wide range of mineral resources. The most significant include:

• Rare earth elements: Bastnaesite (Mountain Pass, CA), monazite (southeastern U.S.), and mixed rare-earth compounds in the West. These are critical for electronics, renewable energy, and defense.
• Precious metals: Gold and silver are widely distributed and historically mined across Nevada, Alaska, and other western states.
• Base metals: Copper, lead, zinc, and nickel are abundant and essential for construction, batteries, and wiring.
• Uranium: Found in the Colorado Plateau and Wyoming, vital for nuclear energy.
• Industrial minerals: Fluorspar, gypsum, limestone, mica, and heavy mineral sands (used in construction and manufacturing).
• Gemstones: Turquoise, opal, and other locatable gems are also part of the mineral wealth.

Q.  How Long Would It Take to Retrieve Them?

A.  Mining on public lands is governed by the 1872 Mining Law and modern environmental regulations. The timeline depends on several factors: 

• Exploration and permitting: Can take 7–10 years due to environmental impact studies, public comment periods, and federal/state approvals.
• Infrastructure development: Mines require roads, power, water, and processing facilities, adding another 5–10 years.
• Extraction and processing: Large-scale mines often operate for 20–50 years, depending on deposit size.
• Environmental and legal constraints: Withdrawals of land from mining, lawsuits, and policy changes can delay or block projects.
• Total timeline: From discovery to full production, a single mine might take 15–20 years. To tap the full $170 trillion estimate, it could realistically take centuries.

Key Takeaway

While the mineral wealth of U.S. public lands is immense, rare earths and critical metals are the most strategically important today. However, the time horizon for retrieval is extremely long, constrained by environmental safeguards, legal frameworks, and the sheer scale of resources. In practice, only a fraction of that $170 trillion will be accessible in the near future.

Scenario Overview

If the U.S. aggressively mined public lands to unlock vast mineral wealth, it would shift not just markets but strategic leverage. Minerals like copper, nickel, lithium, rare earths, and uranium sit at the heart of energy, defense, and digital infrastructure. A rapid push would recast the U.S. from a demand-side buyer to a supply-side shaper—altering trade relationships, industrial policy, and the pace of the energy transition.

Global power dynamics and leverage

• Supply chain control: Dominance in critical minerals would reduce dependence on China for rare earths and battery metals, weakening Beijing’s ability to wield export controls and pricing power.
• Standards setting: The U.S. could lead on sustainability and traceability standards, pressuring allies and rivals to align with “clean” supply chains tied to U.S. market access.
• Strategic deterrence: Enhanced access to defense-critical materials (rare earths, titanium, high-purity graphite) would harden U.S. resilience in protracted crises and lower the risk of supply coercion.
Alliances, trade routes, and blocs
• Rewired alliances: Security and trade ties could deepen with mineral-hungry allies (EU, Japan, South Korea), exchanging access for industrial co-investment and joint stockpiles.
• Reduced resource diplomacy abroad: With less need to source overseas, the U.S. might re calibrate relationships with resource-exporters (Chile, Congo, Indonesia, Australia), potentially shifting aid and investment priorities.
• New trade frictions: Exporters could respond with local-content rules, higher royalties, or preferential agreements among themselves to keep bargaining power, raising the temperature in commodity diplomacy.
Energy transition and industrial policy
• Faster electrification: Cheaper, more reliable supplies of copper, lithium, and nickel could accelerate grid upgrades, EV adoption, and storage deployment, compressing transition timelines.
• Manufacturing reshoring: A mineral base at home would spur refining, cathode/anode production, magnet manufacturing, and semi-processing, creating regional industrial clusters and reducing bottlenecks.
• Technology shifts: Abundant materials might tilt innovation: for example, more copper could favor conventional conductors over costly substitutes; plentiful rare earths could boost permanent-magnet motors over induction alternatives.
Environmental, social, and domestic politics
• Intense land-use conflicts: Mining would collide with conservation, tribal sovereignty, water rights, and biodiversity—especially in the West—provoking legal battles and local opposition.
• Regulatory bifurcation: States may split into pro-mining and conservation-heavy regimes, creating uneven permitting timelines and patchwork national outcomes.
• ESG credibility test: If the U.S. pairs expansion with strict environmental safeguards, it could set a global benchmark; if not, reputational risks could undermine alliances and green-industrial leadership.
Market impacts and pricing
• Price moderation: Greater supply would likely tame volatility and curb super-cycles in copper, lithium, and rare earths, reshaping investment strategies and lowering capital costs for energy projects.
• Refining bottlenecks: Raw ore alone is not leverage; the choke-points are refining and processing. Without rapid midstream build-out, the U.S. risks exporting concentrates and importing finished materials, blunting strategic gains.
• Strategic stockpiles: Larger, more coordinated reserves could stabilize markets during shocks, but might invite accusations of market management if used aggressively.

Global countermoves

• China and processing dominance: Competitors could double down on refining capacity, proprietary chemistries, and recycling, keeping value capture downstream even if upstream shifts to the U.S.
• Resource nationalism: Producer countries may tighten control—higher royalties, export quotas, in-country processing mandates—to retain revenue and influence.
• Technology substitution: Rivals might accelerate materials innovation (sodium-ion batteries, iron-based cathodes, rare-earth–free motors) to reduce dependence on U.S.-controlled inputs.

Timeline and feasibility realities

• Long lead times: Exploration, permitting, and infrastructure mean most effects would unfold over 10–20+ years; transformative geopolitical shifts would be gradual, not immediate.
• Capital intensity: Trillions in investment across mining, water, power, rail, ports, refining, and recycling would be required, with workforce and community constraints shaping pace.
• Policy coherence: Outcomes hinge on consistent federal and state policies, predictable permitting, and durable bipartisan support—without which momentum could stall.

Key risks and uncertainties

• Environmental degradation: Missteps could trigger water crises, habitat loss, and legal injunctions, undermining legitimacy at home and abroad.
• Boom–bust cycles: Overbuild risks price crashes that deter long-term investment and destabilize mining regions.
• Geopolitical backlash: Perceived market dominance could spur coordinated responses—from export clubs to antitrust scrutiny—to dilute U.S. influence.

What to watch

• Permitting reform paired with safeguards that reduce timelines without weakening protections.
• Refining and recycling capacity growth to capture downstream value, not just upstream ore.
• Allied supply agreements that link access to environmental standards and co-investment.
• Technology pivots in batteries and motors that either amplify or sidestep critical mineral demand.
• Community benefit frameworks that build trust, including tribal partnerships and local revenue sharing.

*          *          *          *

Summary

Personally, I believe that mineral rights on or in public lands belong to all US residents. If we were to vigorously pursue a policy of finding, mining, and consolidating our efforts, and converting them into wealth, while distributing that wealth equally among our residents, we could eliminate our national debt, and raise all household net worths by about $1 million each. We could be all that we ever wanted to be in almost every aspect of our lives.  At least in theory.  

It's often enlightening to at least discuss what is possible and potential in solving issues deemed too difficult to take on.