{"id":599017,"date":"2026-05-09T21:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-09T21:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/?p=599017"},"modified":"2026-05-09T21:30:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-09T21:30:00","slug":"commodity-supercycle-the-enemy-of-the-bull-thesis-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/?p=599017","title":{"rendered":"Commodity Supercycle: The Enemy Of The Bull Thesis"},"content":{"rendered":"

Commodity Supercycle: The Enemy Of The Bull Thesis<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

The commodity supercycle thesis is everywhere right now. Bank of America\u2019s Michael Hartnett, one of the most widely read strategists on Wall Street, recently declared\u00a0\u201ccommodities the biggest trade of the next five years,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0anchoring the call on deglobalization, chronic capital underinvestment, and a world drifting away from dollar dominance. As is often the case, the narrative is extremely compelling. However, it\u2019s also internally contradictory in ways that most investors aren\u2019t stopping to examine.<\/p>\n

After three decades of managing money, I have learned to be THE most skeptical of the trades that feel the most inevitable. That skepticism isn\u2019t contrarianism for its own sake, but rather the recognition that when a thesis achieves consensus, the crowd has usually already priced the easy part of the move, and the hard part is what comes next.\u00a0The commodity supercycle argument has real structural legs. But it also carries a reflexivity problem, a dollar mechanics problem, and a catastrophist assumption problem that, taken together, make the clean \u201cgo long commodities\u201d conclusion far messier than the headline suggests.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s work through each one carefully, and as always, with the data.<\/p>\n

The Reflexivity Problem: When the Trade Defeats Itself<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The most straightforward critique of any commodity supercycle thesis is that a sustained commodity rally is, by definition, inflationary. And sustained inflation is demand destruction. Before we get to the counterarguments\u00a0(there are legitimate ones)<\/em>, it\u2019s worth mapping out the feedback loop precisely, because the mechanism is more complex than the simple\u00a0\u201cinflation is bad for growth\u201d\u00a0<\/em>headline suggests.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Commodity bulls offer a legitimate counterargument here. First, they distinguish between demand-pull inflation, where a hot economy bids up prices, and supply-constrained inflation. The latter is where chronic underinvestment means the world can\u2019t produce enough regardless of demand levels. Hartnett\u2019s case leans heavily on the supply side, and that\u2019s the more defensible version of the argument. A decade of ESG-driven capital withdrawal from energy and metals, combined with the shale revolution\u2019s diminishing returns, has created real supply deficits in several commodity markets.<\/p>\n

The data below illustrates the scale of that underinvestment. Global upstream oil and gas capital expenditure peaked around 2014 and remained roughly 40% below that level as recently as 2023, even as demand returned to pre-pandemic levels. That is a genuine structural story, and certainly is worth paying attention to.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But even granting the supply-side framing, the reflexivity problem doesn\u2019t disappear. This is a point that is often forgotten in the\u00a0\u201cheat of the moment\u201d<\/em>\u00a0of a profitable trade. The markets are not static, but dynamic, and, as the old saying goes,\u00a0\u201chigh prices are a cure for high prices.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0There are two reasons why that is true.<\/p>\n

First, high commodity prices are a tax on growth by transferring wealth from consumers and manufacturers to producers. That transfer compresses the demand on which commodity producers depend. Governments and central banks respond asymmetrically to commodity inflation by releasing strategic reserves, imposing windfall taxes, or accelerating substitution. The 2022 oil spike is a perfect case study: WTI briefly hit $130 per barrel, the Biden administration released over 180 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and demand destruction combined with a Fed tightening cycle broke the trade within months of the initial spike.<\/p>\n

Secondly, high prices bring more supply online. When prices rise, producers are incentivized to produce more products. When that increase in supply collides with the collapse in demand, the cycle reverses quickly due to the supply glut. As shown in the chart below, the commodity market is notorious for booms and busts precisely because of this.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The 2022 episode compressed in real time what would normally take years to play out, but we also saw a similar episode from 2000 to 2007, as China consumed commodities in a push to rapidly grow its economy. That episode crashed in 2008 as the Financial Crisis crushed global demand. The policy\/producer response isn\u2019t hypothetical; it\u2019s a documented reflex, and the more dramatic the commodity rally, the more certain the policy response becomes.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Dollar Contradiction at the Heart of the Thesis<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Here\u2019s the fault line that most commodity bulls don\u2019t address directly, and it\u2019s the one I find most analytically significant:\u00a0virtually all commodities are priced and settled in U.S. dollars in global markets.\u00a0<\/strong>That\u2019s not incidental; it\u2019s the structural backbone of the petrodollar system that has anchored dollar demand since the 1970s. When oil prices rise, petrodollar recycling intensifies. Commodity exporters accumulate dollar surpluses and recycle them into U.S. Treasuries and dollar-denominated assets\u00a0(including U.S. equities, gold, and other commodities)<\/em>. More commodity volume at higher prices means more dollar-denominated transactions, more dollar liquidity needs, and more dollar reserves held by commodity-importing nations.<\/p>\n

A commodity supercycle, properly understood, is structurally dollar-supportive, not dollar-negative. As shown, many point to the decline in the US dollar\u2019s\u00a0\u201cshare\u201d<\/em>\u00a0of global foreign exchange reserves as\u00a0\u201cproof\u201d<\/em>\u00a0of its declining dominance.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The chart above tells a story the catastrophist crowd loves to cite, and they\u2019re not wrong that the dollar\u2019s reserve share has declined from its 2000 peak of roughly 71%. But look carefully at the actual level: as of late 2024, the dollar still accounts for approximately 57-58% of global reserves.\u00a0The next closest competitor, the euro, sits around 20%.\u00a0The Chinese yuan, despite years of de-dollarization rhetoric, accounts for less than 3%.<\/strong>\u00a0The decline is real, but only because the Euro did not exist before 1999, and the Yuan only became accepted for trade on a limited basis a few years ago. However, a crisis it is not, and a commodity cycle only strengthens the dollar position.<\/p>\n

This creates a direct contradiction with the other major pillar of the commodity bull narrative:\u00a0the dollar debasement story.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0If the thesis requires dollar weakness to fully materialize, and many versions of it explicitly do, then a successful commodity cycle works against that by generating incremental dollar demand. The two arguments pull in opposite directions, and that tension is almost never acknowledged in the thesis presentations.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The only scenario in which both the commodity bull and the dollar bear cases work simultaneously is one in which U.S. fiscal excess debases the dollar faster than commodity-driven dollar demand can offset it.\u00a0That requires a genuine crisis of fiscal confidence, a level of sovereign stress that isn\u2019t currently visible and isn\u2019t probable within a five-year investment horizon.\u00a0<\/strong>Yes, the U.S. deficit is running approximately $1.8 to $2 trillion annually, interest expense has eclipsed defense spending, and the CBO projects no credible stabilization path under current policy.\u00a0That is a real long-run problem over the next 30-50 years. But it\u2019s not a five-year catalyst.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The China Problem: No Replacement for the Original Engine<\/strong><\/h2>\n

China is the most critical lynchpin to the commodity supercycle. The 2000s commodity supercycle, the one this thesis is implicitly invoking as its template, was not primarily a supply story. It was a demand shock of historic proportions, and it had a name: China\u2019s urbanization and industrialization.\u00a0Between 2000 and 2012, China accounted for roughly half of all incremental global demand growth for steel, copper, aluminum, and coal. Its share of global iron ore consumption grew from under 20% to over 60% in that same period.<\/strong>\u00a0That\u2019s not a supply-deficit story. That\u2019s a billion people building cities that no one lived in, which have now become an economic anchor.<\/p>\n

That engine is now structurally impaired, and the table below illustrates why the India- and emerging-market\u00a0\u201creplacement demand\u201d<\/em>\u00a0narrative falls significantly short of the original.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

India\u2019s commodity demand growth is real, and the broader emerging market infrastructure buildout adds genuine incremental demand. But there\u2019s no single country or bloc that replicates the concentrated, high-velocity demand shock that China delivered between 2000 and 2012. The 2000s supercycle had a demand engine of historic scale running underneath it. Hartnett\u2019s version relies on supply-side logic. In the absence of a comparably powerful demand driver, the supply\/demand imbalance will not be as significant.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, as noted, China\u2019s property sector collapse has removed the world\u2019s single largest commodity demand driver. At its peak, Chinese real estate accounted for roughly 25-30% of GDP when the full construction supply chain is included.\u00a0That\u2019s not recovering in five years. The commodity demand that China generated during its construction boom was effectively borrowed from the future. Now that the borrowed\u00a0\u201cfuture\u201d<\/em>\u00a0is arriving, it came as a demand vacuum.<\/p>\n

Tail Risk Dressed as Base Case: The Catastrophist Problem<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The\u00a0\u201cdollar demise \/ U.S. asset exodus \/ bipolar world\u201d\u00a0<\/em>framing has been a persistent feature of bearish macro commentary since at least 2009. Every round of quantitative easing was supposed to be the moment dollar credibility broke. Every geopolitical fracture, the European debt crisis, Russia\u2019s annexation of Crimea, the U.S. credit downgrade, and the rise of the BRICS payment alternatives, was supposed to accelerate de-dollarization beyond the margin.<\/p>\n

None of it happened on the timeline or at the magnitude the catastrophist crowd predicted. And yet the narrative keeps resurfacing and gets refreshed with new catalysts because the old narrative failed. That is why those castraphosists always have a key statement:\u00a0\u201cjust not yet.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The table above makes a straightforward point.\u00a0In every major crisis of the past 20 years, the world\u2019s response has been to buy dollars, not sell them.<\/strong>\u00a0The de-dollarization that Hartnett and others embed in their commodity bull thesis requires the world to do the opposite. Rather, the world would shift away from dollar-denominated reserves and transactions in a sustained, structural way. There\u2019s no evidence that\u2019s happening at the pace or scale the narrative requires.<\/p>\n

This doesn\u2019t mean the dollar is invulnerable. The fiscal trajectory is genuinely concerning over a multi-decade horizon. A term premium reset in U.S. Treasuries is already underway, driven by foreign buyers demanding more compensation for duration risk. These are real and worth monitoring. But they\u2019re 10 to 15-year dynamics, not five-year catalysts. Hartnett is packaging a legitimate long-run concern as an imminent trade driver, and that\u2019s where the analytical rigor slips.<\/p>\n

What This Means for Investors<\/strong><\/h2>\n

I want to be precise about what I\u2019m arguing and what I\u2019m not. I\u2019m not saying commodities are a bad investment or that the structural supply-deficit case is wrong; it\u2019s not. Energy, select industrial metals, and agricultural commodities face real, medium-term supply constraints. Those constraints should support prices above the levels they traded at in the 2010s deflationary decade. The capex destruction of the prior cycle created a genuine deficit. That deficit will take years to close, and that story is worth holding exposure to in a diversified portfolio.<\/p>\n

What I\u2019m arguing is that the clean, multi-year commodity supercycle narrative, particularly the version built on dollar collapse and a wholesale shift away from U.S. assets, overstates the probability of its own enabling conditions. And more importantly, it contains a logical fault line: the commodity supercycle itself is dollar-supportive, not dollar-negative. The two main pillars of the thesis pull in opposite directions.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But What About The AI Boom?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Here is the real question.\u00a0Can the artificial intelligence infrastructure boom replace China\u2019s urbanization as the demand engine underneath a new commodity supercycle?<\/strong>\u00a0The short answer is no, and understanding why clarifies exactly what kind of commodity opportunity we\u2019re actually dealing with.<\/p>\n

AI infrastructure does generate real commodity demand. Data centers require significant copper for power distribution and cooling systems. The grid expansion needed to support hyperscaler compute loads is driving demand for steel, aluminum, and transformers. Natural gas and nuclear power are being positioned as the baseload energy sources for facilities that can\u2019t tolerate renewable intermittency. Goldman Sachs estimated that data center power demand could grow by roughly 160% by 2030, a figure worth taking seriously.\u00a0Copper in particular has a legitimate AI demand tailwind, and uranium\u2019s renaissance as a clean baseload energy source is directly tied to this infrastructure buildout.<\/p>\n

But here\u2019s where the China comparison breaks down completely. China\u2019s urbanization moved roughly 500 million people from subsistence agriculture into cities over 20 years. It required building entire urban ecosystems. That boom required everything from roads and bridges to apartment towers, factories, ports, and railways. All scratch, simultaneously, across every commodity category at once. That was broad-based, high-intensity demand across iron ore, coal, copper, aluminum, cement, and energy, running in parallel. A true commodity supercycle requires that kind of breadth. AI infrastructure demand is concentrated almost entirely in copper and electricity. It doesn\u2019t move the needle on iron ore, agricultural commodities, coal, or the dozens of other categories that a genuine supercycle requires.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s an irony here that rarely gets discussed<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\u201cAI is simultaneously the most compelling new source of commodity demand and one of the most powerful long-run deflationary forces for commodity consumption.<\/strong>\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n

AI-driven efficiency gains in manufacturing, logistics, energy management, and precision agriculture reduce the per-unit economic output intensity of commodities. Predictive maintenance reduces equipment replacement cycles. Smart grid management reduces transmission losses. The same technology driving data center copper demand is also optimizing the systems that consume commodities everywhere else in the economy. Over a five-year horizon, those efficiency gains compound. The net commodity impact of the AI revolution is almost certainly positive. However, it is far more modest than the bull case narrative implies.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The highest probability scenario, a structurally elevated commodity price floor with significant cyclical volatility, doesn\u2019t support a set-it-and-forget-it long commodity position. It supports tactical, rules-based exposure management. The investors who generated the most alpha during the 2000s commodity bull weren\u2019t the ones who correctly read the structural thesis in 2001 and held through 2008. They were the ones who managed position sizes through the cyclical interruptions and had predefined frameworks for when to add and when to reduce.<\/p>\n

That discipline is exactly what the current\u00a0\u201cbiggest trade of the next five years\u201d<\/em>\u00a0framing discourages. When a thesis gets packaged as a multi-year certainty, it creates complacency about the cyclical risks embedded in the trade. Those risks \u2014 recession-driven demand destruction, Fed policy response, dollar strength in stress events \u2014 are precisely the ones that cause the most damage to investors who sized positions based on narrative conviction rather than risk-adjusted analysis.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nSat, 05\/09\/2026 – 17:30<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Commodity Supercycle: The Enemy Of The Bull Thesis Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, The commodity supercycle thesis is everywhere right now. Bank of America\u2019s Michael Hartnett, one of the most widely read strategists on Wall Street, recently declared\u00a0\u201ccommodities the biggest trade of the next five years,\u201d\u00a0anchoring the call on deglobalization, chronic capital underinvestment, and… Continue reading Commodity Supercycle: The Enemy Of The Bull Thesis<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":599008,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":[],"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","footnotes":""},"categories":[18,19,10,21,12,11,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-599017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cancel-culture","category-censorship","category-civil-liberties","category-election-integrity","category-equal-justice","category-free-speech","category-religious-freedom","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/599017","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=599017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/599017\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/599008"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=599017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=599017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=599017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}