I also don't know what you mean by 'amount of money out there'. The data is clear that as more money invested in commodities, the price of commodities rose and as less money was invested in commodities,the price of commodities fell. The relationship of money invested in commodity futures markets and the amount of money 'out there' aren't necessarily related. A huge amount of the money pumped into the economy as the financial crisis hit was spent to cover asset claims that weren't really ever there (the devaluation of capital).
I think it is dubious to argue that just because more money is being pumped into an economy that specific investments will automatically rise in bubbles. I don't know if that is what you are saying. You also are making a statement about expectations. Clearly people don't invest in things they think will not increase in value, but does that mean that expectations are more important than the production of those expectations through actual flows of money? When Goldman set up its Commodity exchange fund and went out and tried to convince investors that they should have it as a hedge against inflation, didn't the very act of setting up, getting the position exemptions from the CFTC, getting large investors to invest, and actually purchasing futures contracts to hedge their exposure in the fund cause the price to rise as. Or was it the expectation about the fund working? What I am saying is that I choose to focus on the actual human activity that creates results not the ideas that are used to justify/sell those activities. But I guess it takes both.
Brad