>>>>Dragan, your socialist roots may be showing.
>>>
>>>Or a lack of knowledge of how it really works. From what I gathered, it's just putting your money in someone else's hand, and the popular wisdom (from back home) is that there's only one thing which grow's in someone else's hand, but that one is not printable.
>>>
>>>> Sure, the stock market and the way it operates are somewhat skewed for the fat cats. IPOs in particular should be overhauled. But the securities industry is heavily regulated and they do a pretty good job of it considering how much temptation there is to cheat when there is that much money flying around. The bottom line is ordinary Joes like you and me can expect to make good money in the market, too, and without any special knowledge. And without transaction fees, for that matter. There is no sounder investment than a mutual fund tied to the level of the market as a whole. Such index funds mimic the performance of the Fortune 500, or other standard stock group. Some years they go up, some years they go down, just like the stock market. Over time stocks outperform any other investment, including real estate.
>>>
>>>OK, so there are ways to play it safe. But if you want to buy something that'd yield more, how can you know whether you're betting your money on the next Enron?
>>
>>You must do your homework. Look into the numbers and make sure you understand what they mean. In addition, keep yourself very diversified. The people who lost "everything" in the Enron debacle were not smart investors. They were too top heavy in Enron stock. I'll now wait for Perry to call me horrible person.
>
>But, Jake, your homework really adds up to little or no useful information!
>You saw post Enron how all those on TV and publishing newletters and writing columns were pushing stocks for their own benefit. Their companies had vested interests or they got kickbacks from companies directly.

"Trust but verify". There were numerous signs before the collapse about Enron. Especially if you lived in California during the lead-up to the collapse. Power prices were rising dramatically and LOTS of people started looking into the energy companies. Companies under investigation are very dangerous to be completely invested in.

>It's really a myth that you can watch/study any stock and make accurate determinations. You've gotta be on the inside, talking their lingo and understanding their connections and their motives. You've gotta be inside to know when important moves are going to be happening, why and when.

Many investors do very well simply employing a number of proven techniques. Some follow historical market trends looking for specific patterns, others follow consumer or political trends again comparing them to historical data for analysis. The stock market is a risk but as with any risk you can make sound decisions if you put in the time and effort to make it a calculated risk.

>And you and I can never get anywhere near the inside to be able to make any differences.

If you look for business opportunities you'd be surprised what you'll find. Startups did not end with the dot-com bust, they just have to actually produce something besides hype now. Many industries are out there are going to be huge in the future and now is the time to get in early. Stem-cells, genetics and alternative energy for example.

>And don't forget that all the while the corp is maqking more profits there is someone somewhere who is getting screwed for them to be able to do so.

The stock market, unlike futures, is not a zero-sum game. Now if you want to talk about turing $1000 into $100000 in the cattle futures market...