Commodities are gambling, not investing, unless you have insider data.

You need to research demand trends and set a level of confidence for the demand in 2027. Is the world increasing electrification? Definitely. Then you need to research mining outputs and allocation of who is buying that copper. It's work. Reading investment articles like this is a waste of time, they are written by commodities brokers looking to pump.

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.

I get the insider scoop on copper prices from how often the lights go out from all the tweakers stealing copper wiring from my neig