(references <a href="http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576496241939456906.html" rel="nofollow">http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190414060...</a>)<p>Well, that's why the crash isn't like 2008, but you could have found that out for yourself - I question the value of a financial adviser that just retweets the WSJ. I'm willing to provide that service for only 50% of what s/he charges you :-)<p>Here's the basic problem: governments are spent up as the article says, but some corporations are in a good position because they've been able to clean up in the aftermath of the previous crisis thanks to an easygoing regulatory environment, rather than because of any innate brilliance or rock-solid fundamentals. Global markets can push individual governments and central banks around, but they're probably not able to stand up to coordinated political action. That could take the form of imposing severe haircut on treasury bondholders as happened with Greece recently, or some radical reform of legal regimes - a global corporate tax treaty, for example. Central banks in emerging markets that have large AAA holdings don't enjoy this sort of instability either; there could be a sudden consensus to level the regulatory playing field and compete on monetary policy (for example).<p>You could get out of paper altogether and take refuge in gold, but it's not like that market is immune to meddling either. Or just pick the least leveraged companies with the least exotic business models and corporate structures, and hope that their fundamentals and lack of politicking brings them through unscathed. I have no idea what the 'right' investment strategy is, but given the global scope of the problem, my bet would be on a global financial summit followed by some new Bretton Woods type consensus: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system</a>