And the following chart shows the not-so-fun ride foreign investors have taken in Dow stocks over the last decade.

A European investor who bought the 30 Dow stocks 10 years ago in October 1999 when the Dow was almost exactly 10,000 is nowhere near breaking even though the Dow – as we look at it -- just broke through 10,000. That red line tells the whole story, and that decline is because of the dollar’s steady decline over much of the decade.

A foreign investor converting euros into dollars to buy U.S. stocks loses money when the dollar declines, as it has for much of the last decade. This year the Dow is up about 14% (not including dividends) but in euro terms the gain is about half that – about 7%.

Think of it this way, those investors made 14% on their U.S. dollar-based investment. When they convert back to euros, the gain gets cut more than 50%.

In real money, if a European started with 1,000 euros at the beginning of the year and converted to dollars, that person would have received $1,395 of our American dollars to plunk into Dow stocks. (It took 0.71 Euros to buy a buck back then when the euro was worth $1.39.) Those stocks would now be worth $1,590 – 14% more dollars. Trouble is, you need $1.49 US dollars to buy a euro now (it takes just 0.67 Euros to buy a buck today), so the conversion back leaves you with just 1,066 Euros, a crummy 6.6% return, not including dividends.

But the bigger point: Don’t confuse rising stocks (or gold, or oil, or even vintage Cadillacs) with a falling dollar. One reason the Dow’s performance looks so good (in dollars) this year is because the greenback is weakening.

Just like oil going up as the dollar falls, the stocks of truly global companies, like Microsoft, do the same. The stocks of those companies are global assets quoted in dollars. So when other currencies gain, the value of these companies also gets a lift. Evidence that the stock market gains we’ve seen Stateside this year are influenced not just by fundamental improvements but pure currency fluctuations.

On a side note: When I would talk to friends about eating pig and all the parts growing up, they always looked at me in digust. Now it feels adventuresome.

But how good of deal is Cash4Gold? It's a question never asked by most reporters - like somehow it's in bad taste to ask a company called Cash4Gold how much cash you get for your gold.

As you probably have no idea what your old junky jewelry is worth - much less the raw gold value once melted down - it can be hard to determine what you're getting. To answer this question, my husband and I mailed an actual 100% pure gold coin down to the Cash4Gold people much cash my gold would get.

Bottom line: Cash4Gold is legit. But is it - as spokesman MC Hammer who appears in various Cash4Gold advertisements might say - 2 legit 2 quit? Convenience comes at a very high cost.

Too see how much cash you get for your gold from Cash4Gold, check out this video from my August 29th live show, "Your Questions, Your Money" airing from 10am to 2pm. This check was opened live on TV.

But it's worth nothing you do not have to accept Cash4Gold's offer. You have 12 days to call them or mail the check back. And they do respond promptly.

The other day I was watching one of those ubiquitous real-estate TV shows when I heard a realtor say something you don't hear often enough: "You shouldn't install granite counters into this home because no other homes at this price range in this area have them."

Hallelujah. Amen. And then some.

Nevertheless, there’s still so much bad bubble-era advice being doled out about real estate. Well, the following is not fact. It's fiction.

1. Buy as much home as you can afford. Even after the breathtaking three-year decline in home prices, I still hear this mantra over and over. This line from a well-known TV realtor continues to ring in my head: "You qualified for a $295,000 mortgage and you should spend that." When the budding buyer protests, the realtor responds with a curt, "You can't get what you want for less."

The home shopper is worried about going too deep into debt and the realtor wants her to party like its 2005. And we know all know how long that hangover's lasted.

Here are the two reasons NOT to buy too much house. You could lose an amount of money that you cannot afford to lose. Yes, home prices can decline. Because homes are bought with large amounts of leverage, a small decline can wipe out your entire investment and then some. In buying too much house, that loss will be too great as a percentage of your income and savings.

Two, the minute your income declines you bought MORE house than you can afford. As soon as someone takes a 20% hit to their pay (easy if you're in a commission-based job) or suffers a job loss, that house payment becomes beyond your means.

The basic concept of buying a modest home over renting is sound because of the forced savings. But overreaching and buying too much house is not wise. A bigger home is not a better investment.

2. A dollar in renovations can add a dollar or more in home value. When is this true? When you're Jasper Johns and you go to the art store, spend $50 and paint a mural on the wall of your house. Otherwise, renovations don't magically add value to a home.

The renovation itself is a depreciating asset: It will lose value over time. If it's depreciating, how is that an investment? How quickly a renovation depreciates is another matter. Eventually, all that granite will be as dated as Formica. In several years, those stainless steel appliances might as well be avocado green.

Frankly, bad renovations are a liability. The buyer has to remove and replace them.

During the housing bubble, renovations did appear to add value. Now they might make financial sense if you do all the labor yourself. But when home values were climbing by double-digit percentages every year, almost all renovations looked like they made money simply because prices were rising. If you did nothing, you probably also made money. People overvalued their improvements and underestimated the overall bubble trend in prices.

Renovations also made sense during the boom years if the person buying a house was getting a mortgage with no money down. They couldn't borrow additional money to make improvements. So the ones made by the seller did make sense. At least then they did.

Another issue is taste. That brand new kitchen or bath will rarely match the exact taste of a prospective buyer. As a buyer I would rather pay less for the house before it's renovated, take the dollars I saved and redo the house to my taste. I am thankful that my 1965 modern ranch house still had the original bathrooms and kitchen in it. I would not have been willing to pay up for someone else's work, which surely would've included stainless, granite and neutral colors in everything to make the house more appealing to the average buyer. I say, "Long live my Frigidaire Flair."

3. Your house is what you paid for it plus what you put into it in renovations. See above. People are still trying to price their homes based on what they paid and what they spent to fix it up. "I've got $280,000 into this place, that's what it's worth." In a declining market, this thinking should be thrown out the window.

4. You "lost" if another bidder wins the house. This is a realtor tactic to gin up a bidding frenzy for a home, which leads to a sale and a higher commission for the realtor. The advice is: You must up your bid to beat all other potential buyers to win the house of your dreams. But it's not a good thing necessarily that you possibly overpaid for a home. Some realtors act like you lost if someone pays more for a house that you were competing for. You don't "win" if you paid way too much. Somehow it's smart to be the highest bidder?

5. Don't insult the seller with a low-ball offer. This only applies if the seller is your sibling and you're worried about family fights over the holidays.

Good thing.

Based on my own experiences in its stores lately, the chain should keep the customers as far away from some of the staff as possible. The service is bad enough to tarnish the brand…permanently.

My research is certainly not scientific – merely anecdotal. But it cannot be a coincidence that I’ve encountered terrible service and terribly rude employees in four different stores in two different states at different times of the day and week. First, there was no service. No one says hello or offers to help if you’ve got an armload full of clothes. Indifferent. Dismissive. Disgraceful.

The attitude: “We don’t care about you.” Fine. And I don’t care to spend money there.

I digress. The point is: In this economy a store or chain cannot afford to lose a single customer. And if you charge higher prices, the customer service needs to be that much better. I might tolerate snippiness if the t-shirt costs $10 but not if I am paying $45 for one.

But why put up with attitude at all when chains that deliver good value also provide terrific service?

Look at Chick-fil-A. The fast-food chain was already pleasant enough: good food, clean stores and smiling employees who say “It’s my pleasure” when thanked.

The company’s is taking that even further – going “the second mile” as it calls it. Chick-fil-A has an etiquette training program in place for its entire staff. Seriously. As President Dan Cathy joked the last time I interviewed him, “Teaching barbaric heathen young teenagers to say yes ma’am and no ma’am.” He insists the response from the customers and the general good will that it builds is enough to make the good service stick among employees.

As Cathy said, “This is a day in which a lot of people are discouraged and have a lot bad things going on in their lives. I think that restaurants or any retail service have an opportunity to really give people an affirming [experience] and treat them with honor, dignity and respect. People want that. They need that today as never before.”

Amen.

A vacation. Something that still feels foreign to me.

When I was little, other families would rent beach houses or drive to Disney World. We didn't. Once every few years my parents would take a three-day weekend. We might make it to the beach. But that was it.

Why weren’t we like other families who took vacations? Now I understand.

My parents owned and operated their own business. They simply couldn't leave town.

Running a small wholesale grocery business, they always ran so lean and worked with such a tight budget that there was no one there to fill the gaps when they were gone.

My grandfather was so dedicated to the business that he famously (at least in my small hometown) unlocked the front door of the wholesale house every New Year’s Day for 63 years. New Year’s Day was not a day of rest; it was when they took inventory.

My family never took a break or got a break.

But I know my parents and grandparents are not unique. Their kind of work ethic is on display every day among small-business owners across the country.

People dedicate their lives to the businesses they start or run. Maybe they love what they sell or the service they deliver. Maybe it’s just about the joy and pride of providing for your family, being your own boss and about serving your community.

The hard work is there -- where paid vacations do not exist.

Knowing that, the most frustrating thing to see is that these dedicated business owners do not get a break from Uncle Sam. The government, especially lately, never seems to make things easier.

Instead, let’s make life and namely work even harder.

Let’s continue to add hundreds – no, make that thousands – of pages to the tax code, so filing your taxes becomes more complicated, frustrating and costly. This is a bi-partisan effort mind you.

Oh and let’s raise your taxes while we’re at it. That’s what House Democrats want to do for many small businesses to pay for the health care overhaul.

Let’s mandate that you provide health insurance and tax you if you don’t. Another idea from Democrats in the House.

Let’s insert another hidden tax through a cap and trade system. In the works in Washington.

Even when the government tries to help some, it fumbles badly. The stimulus package expanded COBRA health insurance benefits for people who had lost their jobs. But once again, the burden fell on the business owner. Employers had to cover the beefed-up benefits (a 65% subsidy) and then essentially had to wait to be reimbursed by the government. Many were scared of possible cash crunches, which I heard about frequently on “Your Questions, Your Money.”

Why can’t the government do something to make life easier for the men and women who’ve created up to 80% of the jobs in this country, who sleep too little, who work too hard and rarely take a vacation?

I don't have that answer.

My family’s story:

After being rebuffed by Uncle Sam for an even bigger bailout, business-lender CIT Group is now teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. If it goes the way of Lehman Brothers, we will soon found out if the confidence that’s come back in the stock and credit markets is ephemeral and fleeting.

Have we come far enough to let an important lender fail?

A rebound in the economy is on the horizon. The Federal Reserve sees it, along with just about everyone else.

And the credit markets -- by some standards -- are looking positively giddy. Junk and higher-quality corporate bonds have rallied sharply. Delinquency rates are improving on credit cards. American Express and Capital One both saw delinquency rates slip in June compared to May. In fact, both have seen improvements several months in a row.

Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of businesses -- from retailers to restaurants --would need to find credit elsewhere.

Hopefully, CIT's troubles were so apparent that some creditworthy companies took the hint and found alternative bank financing at comparable or cheaper interest rates.

According to a published report, research firm CreditSights thinks that a good chunk of its lending done to creditworthy customers could be taken over by another bank if CIT stops doing business.

"Businesses won't necessarily lose access to credit, but they will have to pay more with loan standards tightening on all loans including commercial and industrial loans" says Chris Low, chief economist at FTN Financial.

Now we wait.

Will CIT sink? And does the economy have enough to buoyancy to stay afloat if it does?

That might sound silly, even ignorant but it's the first tip-off that somebody is about to be scammed.

I've been asked that question by acquaintances, neighbors, even strangers. They're only looking for me to say, “Yes. Those companies do buy other companies.” But I don't even need to ask, “Why do you want to know?” I know why. They only want verification and validation that the “tip” they've heard – that some big-name company is about to buy a little-known company – is possible. And they're itching to buy in before the news breaks.

These people think they have inside information. They think they're about to get to get rich on a not-yet-disclosed buyout of some ridiculously small company.

The tip of course has been passed along through a circuitous route of friends and family from someone “in-the-know.” And these people think they've found an easy way to make big bucks. But the company's always some tiny, penny stock that you cannot find any legitimate information on. (The only information you can ever find is a litany of press releases from the actual company touting its prospects.)

Therein lies the thread that runs through scams and cons – big and small. People think they're profiting from something illegal or unethical at the very least. And the scammers and con artists use that to their advantage. Bernie Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme had whiffs of that. (Did the sophisticated feeder funds think that Madoff early-on was front-running using information from his legitimate market-making operation?)

This particular scam: Penny-stock companies are constantly selling shares of their worthless stock. The executives often are selling new shares that they have. That's how the executives make their pay and they find unsophisticated or gullible investors to buy the stock.

The only thing growing with these companies is the number of shares outstanding. Not revenue. Not earnings. Not even headcount.

And the buyers lose and can lose big. Thousands of dollars lost. Tens of thousands. I've seen it happen.

Here is how to know if you're about to fall for a stock scam: You think you're in on something that the public doesn't know. A friend or a “good source” tells you about this “impending news.” (These are people who would never fall for an email scam.) The stock trades for less than $1 a share and doesn't trade on a major exchange. The only news you can find on the company: press releases issued by that company.

And you think you're about to make easy money.