2009 was the year that commodity investment, and the weak dollar that accompanies it, finally went mainstream with a barrage of public interest and investment dollars barreling into this once-overlooked asset.

Most investors tend to make commodities an all-or-none bet, a risky proposition especially considering they re more correlated with equities than ever before. According to the Journal of Indices, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI) reached a 0.65 correlation with the S&P 500 in 2009 the highest relationship since the index was created in 1969.

While commodities are no longer the alternative hedge they were when we started writing about them early in the decade, they can still serve as part of diversified portfolios. My favorite metals moving into 2010 aren t gold or silver, but platinum and palladium, covered in this space nearly one year ago as an undervalued opportunity. Platinum rose over 80% during the year while palladium soared over 100% both are receiving renewed attention ahead of the launch of two physically-backed exchange-traded-funds that track the metals, joining previously established products like UBS E-TRACS Long Platinum (PTM) and iPath DJ AIG Platinum ETN (PGM) . Unlike gold, both remain well off their all-time-highs.

Bailout Beat Goes On

If you re like me you are sick of hearing about bailouts. Yet the year ends at it began, with another $3.8 billion dollar bailout to GMAC, where taxpayers have now dropped a cool $16.3 billion dollars.

Along with private equity firm Cerberus Capital, whose stake would have been completely worthless if not for the intervention, Government will own 56% of the company and appoint four board members.

The politically connected lender joins General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as supposedly private firms in which government is actually calling the shots. Taxpayers, now unwilling shareholders, involuntarily pay for it all.

Bailouts are uniformly unpopular a plurality of those polled in a recent Rasmussen poll said they believed the stimulus programs have actually hurt the economy, yet they continue under Democrats just as they were started under the Republicans. Why?

Shortly put, neither political party advocates for freedom. Progressives, for example, are uniformly against aid to banks or financiers, yet strongly support bailouts for deadbeat homeowners not paying their mortgages. Republicans bizarrely advocate to keep government out of health care yet promise constituents to save Medicare.

Meanwhile, inflationary indicators are already starting to stir. 2009 saw a sharp drop for the dollar along with the worst year for Treasurys since 1978, with yields now bumping up against 4-month highs.

Proponents claim it was government intervention that stopped the financial crisis. Regardless if that s actually accurate, why do I suspect we will be paying for it in 2010 and beyond?