We could have any number of things in 2027. I dislike heds like this, especially in the context of investing. It could also be $50,000 or $5,000. Commodities are gambling, not investing, unless you have insider data.
For someone carrying a ‘freelance journalist’ tag, dismissing macroeconomics as mere ‘gambling’ is an embarrassingly lazy take. You don’t need ‘insider data’ when global economic blueprints, multi-decade green transition policies, and nuclear power projects consuming millions of tons of copper are literally public record. This is publicly accessible data every housewife can analyze if she possesses basic arithmetic skills. Failing to analyze basic supply deficits and capex cycles isn’t a market problem—it’s a journalism problem. You threw out a wild $5,000 figure yet failed to provide even a single fundamental scenario in which it actually falls that low, proving you’d rather hunt for cheap clickbait than read a balance sheet. Calling a structural commodity market change which is driven by supply/demand mechanisms a coin flip is just a classic coping mechanism when you mistake your laziness for having an educated opinion.
If your best response is an ad hominem, I see no reason to explain my position. $5,000 was obviously hyperbole. Buy as many copper futures as you like, and enjoy feeling superior.
If your best response is an ad hominem, I see no reason to explain my position. $5,000 was obviously hyperbole. Buy as many copper futures as you like, and enjoy feeling superior.
Your bio says you ‘read news so we don’t have to.’ This exchange perfectly proves why just reading headlines isn’t the same as understanding structural macroeconomics.
When asked to back up a massive $5,000 copper call, you tucked your tail, called it a ‘hyperbole,’ and hid behind ‘ad hominem’ defense. In commodity markets, millions are moved by capex cycles, supply deficits, and balance sheets—not by freelance opinions and passive-aggressive exits. Don’t blame the audience for holding a journalist to professional standards.
To the readers: when a commentator dismisses global structural changes as a ‘coin flip’ and cannot defend their own math, they aren’t giving you an educated critique. They are just proving that reading the news doesn’t mean you know how to analyze it.
You just don’t like that I’m not buying your shit. Which is fine. You looked up my profile. Which is fine. From there, you’re inventing stuff. This is a terrible “article” to prove the fundamentals. I’m not going to smile and nod as you peddle useless info as investing advice. And yes, I read news so others don’t have to; this is not news, so that’s not relevant to the topic at hand.
Just accept that not everyone is going to lap up bottom-of-the-barrel “investment” “news.” We aren’t particularly Trumpy in these parts.
Also, if you can’t see obvious hyperbole, that’s not a me problem. So take your projection machine and point it elsewhere.
You threw out a wild $5,000 figure yet failed to provide even a single fundamental scenario in which it actually falls that low
Investors decide en masse following the US midterms to pull out of AI. Over the next few months, datacenter projects become abandoned, contracts are shredded, and all the resources allocated for them (both for the datacenters themselves and for the electricity needed to power them) suddenly have nowhere to go. The market becomes flooded with these resources, including copper, and the value tanks.
Do I think this will happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Sure, why not?
I have breaking news for you: we need copper for much more things than AI related chips. Same with electricity especially in developing parts of the world. There is world outside of the United States of America. Tons of brass are needed in military alone.
we need copper for much more things than AI related chips. Same with electricity especially in developing parts of the world. There is world outside of the United States of America.
I fail to see how this is relevant. If all of the copper allocated for AI datacenters and their related infrastructure suddenly entered the market, the price would tank. At the very least, it would fail to reach Deutsche Bank’s projected price by a long shot.
The point is not that the price will reach or won’t reach some value. It’s that the headline makes no statement of value. It could have easily been “Deutsche Bank projects the price of copper to be as high as $22,050 per ton by mid 2027” which would have been a statement of fact at least, though wouldn’t be very interesting. Instead, we got the equivalent of “The price of copper maybe probably might potentially be $22,050 per ton possibly by maybe middish 2027 or so, probably” which is a completely useless statement.
For someone carrying a ‘freelance journalist’ tag, dismissing macroeconomics as mere ‘gambling’ is an embarrassingly lazy take. You don’t need ‘insider data’ when global economic blueprints, multi-decade green transition policies, and nuclear power projects consuming millions of tons of copper are literally public record. This is publicly accessible data every housewife can analyze if she possesses basic arithmetic skills. Failing to analyze basic supply deficits and capex cycles isn’t a market problem—it’s a journalism problem. You threw out a wild $5,000 figure yet failed to provide even a single fundamental scenario in which it actually falls that low, proving you’d rather hunt for cheap clickbait than read a balance sheet. Calling a structural commodity market change which is driven by supply/demand mechanisms a coin flip is just a classic coping mechanism when you mistake your laziness for having an educated opinion.
If your best response is an ad hominem, I see no reason to explain my position. $5,000 was obviously hyperbole. Buy as many copper futures as you like, and enjoy feeling superior.
Your bio says you ‘read news so we don’t have to.’ This exchange perfectly proves why just reading headlines isn’t the same as understanding structural macroeconomics.
When asked to back up a massive $5,000 copper call, you tucked your tail, called it a ‘hyperbole,’ and hid behind ‘ad hominem’ defense. In commodity markets, millions are moved by capex cycles, supply deficits, and balance sheets—not by freelance opinions and passive-aggressive exits. Don’t blame the audience for holding a journalist to professional standards.
To the readers: when a commentator dismisses global structural changes as a ‘coin flip’ and cannot defend their own math, they aren’t giving you an educated critique. They are just proving that reading the news doesn’t mean you know how to analyze it.
You just don’t like that I’m not buying your shit. Which is fine. You looked up my profile. Which is fine. From there, you’re inventing stuff. This is a terrible “article” to prove the fundamentals. I’m not going to smile and nod as you peddle useless info as investing advice. And yes, I read news so others don’t have to; this is not news, so that’s not relevant to the topic at hand.
Just accept that not everyone is going to lap up bottom-of-the-barrel “investment” “news.” We aren’t particularly Trumpy in these parts.
Also, if you can’t see obvious hyperbole, that’s not a me problem. So take your projection machine and point it elsewhere.
Investors decide en masse following the US midterms to pull out of AI. Over the next few months, datacenter projects become abandoned, contracts are shredded, and all the resources allocated for them (both for the datacenters themselves and for the electricity needed to power them) suddenly have nowhere to go. The market becomes flooded with these resources, including copper, and the value tanks.
Do I think this will happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Sure, why not?
I have breaking news for you: we need copper for much more things than AI related chips. Same with electricity especially in developing parts of the world. There is world outside of the United States of America. Tons of brass are needed in military alone.
I fail to see how this is relevant. If all of the copper allocated for AI datacenters and their related infrastructure suddenly entered the market, the price would tank. At the very least, it would fail to reach Deutsche Bank’s projected price by a long shot.
The point is not that the price will reach or won’t reach some value. It’s that the headline makes no statement of value. It could have easily been “Deutsche Bank projects the price of copper to be as high as $22,050 per ton by mid 2027” which would have been a statement of fact at least, though wouldn’t be very interesting. Instead, we got the equivalent of “The price of copper maybe probably might potentially be $22,050 per ton possibly by maybe middish 2027 or so, probably” which is a completely useless statement.