I'm of mixed feelings about topics like this. The speculative markets are one of the things that have done some major damage to world economies, and I feel that in the next thrity years the way in which wealth influences the world will likely change substantially. I think the hoarding of financial resources to allow unequal advantages in a population will at the very least be much harder to do. Eventually it will get to the point where lots of money is no longer the status symbol it is now and it won't really open much more in the way of door.
?
But until then, odds are in the favor of money. So to get from here to there you have better odds with more money. Just keep in mind that it'll be carefully calculating things that is most important. Enough efforts to gain money to give you best return on your investments, but not so much that when the advantages are lost you are not stuck with years of wasted investment in something that no longer returns on the investment put into it. Much like buying a house used to be considered the wisest of investments, but now there are thousands or even millions that are paying down debts on houses that are worth less than they owe on them. and they have to work longer to pay off those debts.
?
as to the investments that make sense. keep in mind the other factor that plays into these things. Just because something is groundbreaking doesn't mean it will succeed. Gene therapy scares enough people and the rest don't understand it, I predict that's not likely to succeed heavily. As a gradual safe spot it may be a good choice to maintain value on investment so long as they don't take risks. One F up with media attention and this goes the way of a Japanese nuclear program.
?
So obnoxiously the best bets are things that are least able to be really risky. They are also not sudden wealth generators because success takes risk, or long slow steady progress. Risk makes fortunes but destroys more than it makes. Steady succeeds more but you can't reap the advantages for decades.
?
America is heavily invested in cars, fuels and electricity. Look for an old reliable or a daredevil in those areas. If you go the daredevil route your best bet is set a limit to how long you will remain invested with them, then bail out and switch to another. Even if the first makes more headway, because ultimately staying with risky people too long means to bare some of the consequences of that risk eventually.
?
Personally I'd take a smart risk taker until I had doubled my investment and pull out the original and put it in steady investments. Reevaluate the most recent actions of my risky and guage what the potential returns on other smart risky are up to. Go for the ones with the best medium term? return on investment (short term is too risky and often cuts corners, long term takes to damn long to get a return on investment and risks claiming the prize because somebody got there first) and shift if you need to. any investment that loses half it's value isn't worth sticking with. Never dip into your original investment once it's in stable and steady long terms. You can shift it around if your choices look to be in danger, but never move it back into risky markets. If you need new money to top off your risky funds after a few hits, earn it from working extra. repeat this process quarterly.
?
On top of that, only spend on needs. the rest invest. For the purposes of this discussion securing food supplies and water, and other self sufficiencies counts as investments and needs. In short minimise outgoing money, maximize incoming money and invest that in income generating assets.
Source: http://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/3552-stocks-worth-investing-in-in-the-near-future/
PECO Hurricane Sandy update mta ellen degeneres tomb of the unknown soldier tomb of the unknown soldier HMS Bounty
No comments:
Post a Comment