Gold is unique in that it is one form of "raw wealth", that is, actual wealth and not "value-added" like manufactured goods. That makes gold rather more stable in value, although not in price. So when the price starts to rise it is an indication that the trust in the value of currency is dropping. Presently there is also that "bull factor" and emotions driving the price increase. (of course, lack of trust is an emotion, I guess).

So the rise in gold prices is a serious warning that trust in money is falling, which, given the inflationary actions of the fed, is reasonable. And the future will be "interesting", but not fun.

I had not considered risk/non-risk as the two stock categories previously, but the separation does make sense. But with always being cautioned that "past performance is no promise of future performance" I have always considered stocks to have some risk factor.

Some organizations do seem to have much more skill available for making choices, while some others seem to be rather random in their directions. Looking into organization management prior to investing, and observing past performance, do seem to be wise moves, and certainly better than running on emotions.

I think that I am making sense here. Possibly not, though.

Pipeline companies do perform a vital service and so they will mostly do well. BUT there is a caution about one, which is Embridge. Yes, presently it is doing quite well and paying quite well. But there is a disaster slowly building in that Embridge has declared that they will not be responsible for the corrections needed for the environmental damage done when one of their pipelines fails and dumps huge amounts of oil into the Great Lakes. When that terrible accident happens, the courts will decide that Embridge IS INDEED financially liable, and will also need to pay large penalties, since they have been warned in detail quite a few times. At that point there would be no dividend, and probably no profits at all. The total penalty will need to be large enough to convince them that it is far less expensive to avoid massive oil spills.

The nagging problem with debt is always that it must eventually be repaid. And the question always when assuming debt is "What is the value of what is being purchased?" Incurring debt without receiving adequate value is a poor choice, but it seems that is what is happening.

The fact that a few of the giants are swimming very well does not compensate for all of those who are drowning. A high average based on a very few is really a lie. I am used to being lied to, but that does not mean that I don't mind it. Likewise, I am used to seeing the fed do things to save their friends while damaging the rest of us.

At some point there needs to be a change in what is done and who does it, and whom it is done to. The best way will be for quite a bit more regulation, with my favorite part being reducing "leverage". Many things should be restricted to cash only, as a start.

(Whoa!, I seem to have gone off on a rant there, for a bit.)

The big point is that just because a few stars are doing quite well and holding up the average, the reality is that most are not doing so very well.

Interesting.

My presumption has been that those interested in this whole blog-chain have good reading skills and the ability to focus their attention long enough to read 500 to a thousand words. Most activity within the financial realm requires those abilities. It is way to easy to be distracted a moment and miss part of a video presentation.

I would much rather have had this excellent article in a text format, instead of a video presentation. Text allows one to slow down and absorb the wisdom, and easily review a sentence with serious meaning. With a video it is delivered at whatever pace the presenter chooses, often faster than it can be absorbed adequately. And when I see a lot of value I would like to gain some benefit from absorbing a bit of it.

Things can ALWAYS get worse, no matter how bad the situation is. But that is not at all comforting.

My caution is that anything created by people can be destroyed by people, if they make enough dumb moves. Unfortunately it loks like that is the agenda of our government today. There is a great deal to saving us besides assuring adequate stock value growth! A year or three without any inflation would not hurt the majority of us at all. The rich would get no richer, but that is a far distance from even becoming middle class.

And certainly there has been a steady trend towards the embracing the theory that one is not responsible for one's safety. Just look at the hazard warnings on almost every product.

And, about socialism in any of it's aspects, I would quote Margaret Thatcher: "The Problem With Socialism Is That Sooner or Later You Run Out Of Other People's Money."That is true, and if the way around it involves creating much more money,(DEBT), then the problem is that debts must eventually be payed off.

This reality is quite disturbing, in that the organizations had so much debt that they were, and are, unable to work with it. That means too much of the income left and not enough was used for the expansion. I try to fun things a bit differently, with the income invested back into the business rather than taking on huge amounts that are counting on hoped-for income, based on assumptions. Gambling on guesses requires good luck, a commodity not always found in abundance.

I had been thinking that the high prices of prior times were mostly due to excessive profits. Now I see that they were based on running on the edge of disaster. Not my style at all.

Very Interesting.