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.