The market is always right, except when it’s not, and the only way to tell the difference is after the fact. If the market is to be trusted on this one, why was it not to be trusted on the housing bubble, or the dot-com bubble, or the tulip bubble?
The root problem is that the market isn’t a source of information, just a means of communicating it. When the market makes correct predictions, it’s because the people that make it up are getting good information from other sources. Too much hype about the market as a source of information, however, leads the investors in the market to try to draw their own information from the market, leading to positive feedback (and every system with positive feedback breaks down, later or usually sooner).
Chronos makes a good point, but it’s worth remembering that the market still tends to be a leading indicator of economic conditions. For example, the market turned higher in March of 2009 - nearly 6 months before the official end of the recession in September I believe.
As far as commodities go, I think there is definitely bubble potential there. For example people keep bidding up the price of things like potash and lithium because there are so few good sources currently. But higher prices encourage the development of other resources and the discovery of new ones - not to mention searching for alternatives.
Beware however of the people claiming that we have or soon will reach “peak oil”. This has become a religion in some circles and you need to carefully consider the source.
Also, the idea of it taking a century to find alternatives to oil is ridiculous. Brazil already does quite well using mainly ethanol. And industrial scale production of biofuels isn’t that far off. Craig Venter of Human Genome fame claims to be working on microbes that can convert cellulose directly to gasoline - and he’s someone I would listen too even if what he’s saying sounds like hype.