Full Content
Something has quietly shifted in how lithium is being treated at the policy and capital level and I think it changes how this commodity cycles going forward. The U.S. formally designating lithium as a critical mineral isn't cosmetic. It influences permitting priorities, federal funding pathways, and how institutional capital thinks about downside risk. When a commodity gets linked to national security and industrial policy, the risk framework changes. You're seeing the same dynamic play out on the supply side. Zimbabwe banning raw mineral exports last week is part of a broader trend of resource nationalism — producing nations want to capture processing value domestically rather than export raw feedstock. That reduces supply chain flexibility for Western buyers and puts more pressure on domestic production pipelines. Meanwhile demand has structurally broadened. Grid storage, AI infrastructure power demand, and EV adoption are all pulling in the same direction. These aren't correlated demand sources the way they would be in a purely consumer-driven cycle. The commodity itself hasn't changed. But the geopolitical and policy architecture surrounding it has materially shifted. Curious how others here are thinking about critical mineral commodities in this kind of environment — does policy alignment change your view on long term price floors? submitted by /u/Aggressive_Rush2357 [link] [comments]