Ivan Hansen, a retired Danish police officer, loaded up his basket at the supermarket, carefully checking each product to avoid buying anything made in the United States. No more Coca-Cola, no more California Zinfandel wine or almonds.

The 67-year-old said it’s the only way he knows to protest U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies. He’s furious about Trump’s threat to seize the Danish territory of Greenland, but it’s not just that. There are also the threats to take control of the Panama Canal and Gaza. And Trump’s relationship with Elon Musk, who has far-right ties and made what many interpreted as a straight-armed Nazi salute.

On his recent shopping trip, Hansen returned home with dates from Iran. It shocked him to realize that he now perceives the United States as a greater threat than Iran.

“Trump really looks like a bully who tries in every way to intimidate, threaten others to get his way,” he told The Associated Press. “I will fight against that kind of thing.”

A growing boycott movement across Europe

Hansen is just one supporter of a growing movement across Europe and Canada to boycott U.S. products. People are joining Facebook groups where they exchange ideas about how to avoid U.S. products and find alternatives. Feelings are especially strong across the Nordic region — and very possibly strongest in Denmark given Trump’s threats to seize Greenland.

Google trends showed a spike in searches for the term “Boycott USA,” and “Boycott America,” as Trump announced new tariffs, with the top regions including Denmark, Canada and France. At the same time, a global backslash is also building against Tesla as the brand becomes tied to Trump, with plunging sales in Europe and Canada. In Germany, police were investigating after four Teslas were set on fire Friday.

Elsebeth Pedersen, who lives in Faaborg on the Danish island of Funen, just bought a car and made a point of not even looking at U.S.-made options.

“Before Elon Musk started to act like a maniac a Tesla could have been an option. And maybe a Ford,” she said.

French entrepreneur Romain Roy said his solar panel firm has bought a new Tesla fleet each year since 2021 but canceled its order for another 15 to take a stand against Musk’s and Trump’s policies.

Describing the United States as “a country closing in on itself,” he cited Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and Musk’s arm gestures. He said he was instead buying European models, even though it would cost an additional 150,000 euros ($164,000).

“Individual consumers, society, our countries, Europe must react,” he told broadcaster Sud Radio.

Responding to consumer demand, Denmark’s largest supermarket chain, the Salling Group, created a star-shaped label this month to mark European-made goods sold in its stores. CEO Anders Hagh said it’s not a boycott, but a response to consumers demanding a way to easily avoid American products.

“Our stores will continue to have brands on the shelves from all over the world, and it will always be up to customers to choose. The new label is only an additional service for customers who want to buy goods with European labels,” he said in a LinkedIn post.

‘I have never seen Danes so upset’

For Bo Albertus, “when Trump went on television and said he would by political force or military force take a piece of the Danish kingdom, it was just too much for me.”

The 57-year-old said he felt powerless and had to do something. He has given up Pepsi, Colgate toothpaste, Heinz ketchup and California wine, and replaced them with European products.

He is now an administrator of the Danish Facebook page “Boykot varer fra USA” (Boycott goods from the U.S.), which has swelled to over 80,000 members.

“Drink more champagne,” one user posted after Trump threatened 200% tariffs on EU wine and Champagne.

Albertus, a school principal, told the AP he really misses the strong taste of Colgate. But he’s been pleasantly surprised at finding a cola replacement that is half the price of Pepsi.

Trump’s policies have “brought the Danish Viking blood boiling,” said Jens Olsen, an electrician and carpenter. He is now considering replacing $10,000 worth of U.S.-made DeWalt power tools even though it will cost him a lot.

He has already found European replacements for an American popcorn brand and California-made Lagunitas IPA beer, which he calls “the best in the world.”

“I’ve visited the brewery several times, but now I don’t buy it anymore,” he said. He has mixed feelings because he is a dual Danish-U.S. citizen, and has spent a lot of time in the United States. But he can’t contain his anger.

“I’m 66 years old and I have never seen the Danes so upset before,” he said.

Michael Ramgil Stæhr has canceled a fall trip to the U.S. and is among many choosing to buy Danish instead of American-made, though he cannot pinpoint the exact moment he made the decision.

“Maybe it was when (Trump) announced to the world press that he intended to ‘take’ Greenland and the Panama Canal, and if necessary by military force. That and the gangster-like behavior towards the Ukrainian president in the White House,” the 53-year-old Copenhagen resident said.

“The man is deadly dangerous and is already costing lives” in the developing world and Ukraine, added Stæhr, who works helping disabled war veterans, many of whom got injured serving alongside U.S. troops in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. He himself served in Bosnia.

Rising anger in France, too

Edouard Roussez, a farmer from northern France, launched an online group, “Boycott USA, Buy French and European!” that in just two weeks has attracted over 20,000 members on Facebook.

Roussez believes a boycott of U.S. companies is a good way to express opposition to Trump’s policies, especially “the commercial and ideological war” he believes Trump is waging against Europe.

“First of all, these are the companies that financed Donald Trump’s campaign,” he said on state-owned LCP television channel. “I’m thinking of Airbnb, I’m thinking of Uber, I’m thinking of Tesla of course.”

The irony of it all? The group is on Facebook. Roussez said only the American online social media platform gave him the reach he needed. But he’s working to migrate the group to other platforms with no U.S. funding or capital.

As for any impact on U.S. export profits or policymaking, that’s unlikely, said Olof Johansson Stenman, a professor of economics at the University of Gothenburg.

The boycott could have a psychological effect on Americans who see the scale of anger, but “some may also say, ‘We don’t like these Europeans anyway,’” Stenman said.

Some choices are harder than others

Simon Madsen, 54, who lives in the Danish city of Horsens with his wife and 13-year-old twins, says the family has given up Pringles, Oreos and Pepsi Max. Not so hard, really.

But now they’re discussing doing without Netflix, and that is a step too far for the kids.

He also wonders whether he should keep buying Danish-made Anthon Berg chocolate marzipan bars, which are made with American almonds.

It’s important, he said, for people to use the power of the purse to pressure companies to change.

“It’s the only weapon we’ve got,” he said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

In the 21st century, the most valuable assets aren’t oil wells, factories, data centers, or even AI large language models. The industries of the future require critical minerals. As the world seeks to generate massive amounts of energy, the real money isn’t in mining lithium, nickel, or rare earths—it’s in controlling how they move, process, and scale. A new industrial empire is being built, and just like John D. Rockefeller’s pipelines in the 19^th century, the infrastructure behind critical minerals will be an incredible wealth generator.

While most companies race to secure mineral deposits—be they in Greenland, Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Uzbekistan—the smartest players see a different opportunity: controlling the entire supply chain. The real bottleneck isn’t finding the necessary and rare minerals—it’s refining, processing, and transporting them. China recognized this early. Though it holds only 36% of the world’s rare earth reserves, it controls over 85% of global refining capacity. That control isn’t accidental. It’s an infrastructure play—one that has made China a dominant force in electric vehicle batteries, among many other things.    

The next Rockefeller won’t be a miner; they’ll be a processing systems builder. Consider:

• Processing facilities: The U.S., EU, and allies have massive deposits of lithium, nickel, and rare earths—but lack the infrastructure to refine them. New processing hubs will be the equivalent of 19th-century oil refineries.
• Supply chain control: Just as Standard Oil dominated through pipelines, the companies that master logistics—raw material transport, battery recycling, and AI-driven resource allocation—will control pricing and profits.
• Waste-to-wealth model: Much like Rockefeller turned petroleum byproducts into valuable products, the future’s biggest opportunities lie in recovering and repurposing “waste”—from extracting minerals from mine tailings to scaling battery recycling.

The fragmented nature of today’s mineral market mirrors oil in the 1860s. Mineral prices are volatile, companies operate in silos and are in distress due to lack of processing options outside China, and inefficiencies abound. But soon, the industry will consolidate. The ones who build infrastructure—rather than simply dig—will acquire competitors, dictate pricing, and create empires. China has already been flexing its monopolistic muscle in mineral supply chains to threaten U.S. investments.

Supply chain control

When governments realize that chasing basic sourcing of critical minerals does not automatically yield national mineral security, demand for localized processing and supply chain control will explode. The result? A private sector wealth creation event that could rival the rise of Standard Oil. The next Standard Oil won’t be an oil company—it’ll be one that controls the arteries of the clean energy economy. 

Infrastructure plays generate immense wealth by controlling the essential systems that enable industries to function and scale.

Consider today’s tech giants, which create immense wealth via:

1. Control over distribution and logistics: Amazon’s fulfillment and logistics network is comparable to Rockefeller’s pipelines, which controlled how oil moved. Amazon controls how many companies reach customers, making it a backbone of global e-commerce, with nearly two million small businesses using its platform. Over 60% of Amazon’s sales come from third-party sellers. 

2. Owning the “toll roads” of industry: Cloud-computing providers (Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, AWS) power the internet economy, collecting fees from companies that rely on their infrastructure. Similarly, Standard Oil didn’t just refine oil—it owned the infrastructure that transported and distributed it, ensuring everyone paid a fee.

3. Investing in adjacent industries: Tesla not only sells cars but also profits from carbon credits, energy storage, and software subscriptions. Rockefeller found value in byproducts such as tar (asphalt), petroleum jelly (Vaseline), and paraffin (candle wax).

4. Scale and network effects: Google controls much of the internet’s infrastructure via search, advertising, Android, and YouTube, ensuring that businesses rely on its ecosystem. Standard Oil built a massive refining and transportation network, making it nearly impossible for competitors to operate efficiently without using its services.  

5. Ruthless competition on cost: Walmart and Amazon undercut competitors with ultra-low prices, driving rivals out of business before expanding dominance. Rockefeller showed competitors his books, proving he could outlast them financially, then acquired them at discounted prices.

6. Regulatory resilience through complex structuring: If governments move to break up Big Tech companies (e.g., Meta, Google, and Amazon), investors in these firms can still benefit from their individual growth trajectories. Even after Standard Oil was broken into 34 companies, Rockefeller’s wealth multiplied because he retained ownership in each one.

Just as Rockefeller became the richest man of his era by controlling oil’s movement, today’s wealthiest individuals and companies control the infrastructure of AI, cloud computing, e-commerce, and financial systems.

The upshot? The biggest fortunes are made not by chasing commodities, but by building the indispensable infrastructure that industries rely on. The forthcoming revolutions in AI and robotics might commoditize labor, but those who control the compute infrastructure (Nvidia, TSMC, OpenAI, etc.) will profit most. And they, in turn, will ultimately rely on ancient inputs from the earth. As such, the processing infrastructure of critical minerals represents a new frontier of significant wealth creation.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

At one point in your life you’ve likely been told, “Money can’t buy you happiness.”

Two renowned economists—the late Daniel Kahneman, a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, and University of Pennsylvania professor Matthew Killingsworth—decided to put this adage to the test.

Separately, Kahneman and Killingsworth published two different papers with conflicting results about the relationship between money and happiness. In Kahneman’s 2010 study, he and his colleague, fellow Nobel Prize winner Angus Deaton, found that happiness increases with income up until $75,000, after which it plateaus.

Killingsworth’s 2021 study, on the other hand, found that happiness increased alongside income with no limit.

In 2023, the two experts combined forces to finally answer: Is there a limit to how much money can bring you happiness? 

It turns out for most people, there isn’t.

How much money you need to be happy

The acclaimed economists’ study, published in the journal PNAS, found that how happy money makes you depends on your overall emotional well-being. Drawing upon more than 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily survey of 1,000 U.S. residents conducted by the Gallup Organization from 2008 to 2009, researchers found that correlations between money and happiness were split into three groups based on well-being: least happy, middle-range happy, and the most happy.

They found that for the least happy group, happiness rose with income until $100,000, then plateaued. For those in the middle range of emotional well-being, happiness continued increasing linearly with income with no limit, and for the happiest group, happiness rose and then actually accelerated once they were past $100,000.

“In the simplest terms, this suggests that for most people larger incomes are associated with greater happiness,” said Matthew Killingsworth, a senior fellow at Penn’s Wharton School and lead paper author, in the press release. 

“The exception is people who are financially well-off but unhappy,” he added. “For instance, if you’re rich and miserable, more money won’t help. For everyone else, more money was associated with higher happiness to somewhat varying degrees.”

One of the coauthors, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania Barbara Mellers, reflected that these findings show that money and emotional well-being aren’t connected by a single relationship. Happiness is dependent on a multitude of factors—and for the most unhappy, money alone cannot change that once you reach a certain income level.

The team of researchers behind the study believe that these findings could have real-world implications beyond how people relate to money. This kind of knowledge matters to individuals navigating career choices or weighing a larger income against other priorities in life, Killingsworth said.

That being said, Killingworth emphasizes that well-being depends on much more than income. 

“Money is just one of the many determinants of happiness,” he said in the press release. “Money is not the secret to happiness, but it can probably help a bit.”

Why money makes you happier

Everyone has different reasons more money would make them happier: a relief from the stressful grips of student loan debt, being able to afford a nice home, providing for kids, having money to travel, better access to quality medical care, and creating a cushion for retirement.

But there are other factors at play when it comes to income and happiness.

Forbes reported that the late happiness researcher Ed Diener—nicknamed Dr. Happy—wrote in his book Happiness, “Financial resources can serve as a buffer against life’s negative events,” meaning that more money allows you to avoid the life stressors and worries that can come with being less fortunate.

Humans also often fear scarcity, according to University of Texas professor Raj Raghunathan. He notes in his book If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Happy?, that feeling like we have enough is crucial to happiness: “When we are feeling abundant, life seems like a cozy mess: perfect despite its imperfections.” With that comes a sense of security, feeling like we have access to all the resources we could need.

More money also leads to a greater sense of freedom, according to sociologist Rachel Sherman and author of the book Uneasy Street: The Anxieties of Affluence. When she asked wealthy New Yorkers about the benefits of being wealthy, many responded that it provided freedom, a sense of control over their lives, and a feeling of autonomy.

Lastly, your happiness also depends on how you use your money. A 2017 study found that using money to buy time—specifically, buying time-saving services like help with common household chores such as cleaning, shopping, and cooking—increased happiness. Other research indicates that spending money on others and prioritizing experiences over material possessions both promote greater happiness.

For more on happiness:

• These are the 10 happiest cities in America, according to new research
• Researchers have followed over 700 people since 1938 to find the keys to happiness. Here’s what they discovered
• What time of day you feel your best and worst, according to research
• Hawaii is the happiest state in America. Here’s how the rest of the country ranks

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com