Whether discussing corporate greed, rampant government spending, rising unemployment, regulatory systems, or any of the other recent headlining debates it all leads to the divided discussion on today’s resulting Government involvement.

…are they doing too much?….too little?

…should they stay out of the way and let the markets correct themselves or quit with the side stepping politics and take real action before further irreparable damage is done? etc. etc.

In the last year we have witnessed economic corrections resulting in the folding of a housing market, a credit lockup, a failing financial sector, a recent oil pop, insurance and rating agency scandals, forced redemptions, unseen VIX levels.....etc. etc. etc.

In light of the holiday season, it seems the newest data being watched is that of the retail sector. With knowingly weak and worsening consumer spending numbers, one would be expected to question the stability of an already weakening commercial real estate market.

The Bull/Bear ratio, a market indicator popular with insiders, is a poll of investment professionals that gauges whether they are bullish, bearish, or neutral on the stock market. The weekly publication by Investor's Intelligence is considered the most relevant measure of market sentiment as participants have daily dealings within the financial markets.

Economists and traders will find that most market indicators relying on forecasts are worthless in our present environment. Unemployment, inflation, consumer confidence, GDP... the data of traditional economic indicators are lagging.

One of many flaws is that the information is aged by weeks, sometimes even months, by the time reporting is done.

Barclays (BCS), like most large banks, has been ordered by British Treasury to raise billions in new capital, and made the decision to do so by turning to the Middle East.

Barclays is trying to show that it is far too strong and well equipped to be bailed out by British taxpayers but has gone forth in efforts to raise 7.3 billion pounds ($12.1 billion) from investors.

Contrary to popular belief and applied assumptions, Democrats are the historical victors to the claim 'better for the stock market'.

Since 1929, both parties have held the presidency for approximately 40 years each. According to The New York Times and data from Bloomberg, during this period the consolidated returns for the S&P under Republican rule give a gain of only 0.4%. If you exclude the 30s crash under Hoover, Republican reign produces a gain of 4.7%, still far below the compounded rate of 8.9% produced by their Democratic counterparts. Over that time, a theoretical $10,000 investment in the S&P over Democratic rule would have grown to over $300,000. Under Republican rule, the same $10,000 investment would be just over $51,000 today...and putting Hoover back in the mix dwindles your return leaving you with only $11,733.

Many  "Tricks of the Trade' are not applicable or even relevant to the normal day to day trader or public investor, but here is an old play with a new spin that anyone can use and appreciate.

You will hear most channels of information say that the level of a fund manager's performance is based on whether he does or does not beat the market. While I do not necessarily agree with this, I will show you how an average investor can consistently beat the market every year  while actually cutting their overall risk by nearly half.