Network Marketing Success can be one of the most satisfying things you can do with your life. Having freedom is huge. Time free, financial freedom can be among the most rewarding when you work a home.

It takes a lot of work, maybe more than you realized when you first started out. Here are some tips on how to keep going when things get tough.

There will be days when you feel like giving up. Don’t give in to those feelings. Success is not found overnight. You are going to have to put in a lot of time and effort when it comes to building your business, but you can do it. It is ok to take a “mental health day” once in a while, but when that day is over, you need to get up and start working again.

Stay motivated by hanging up pictures of your kids near your computer or phone and writing down what you want to accomplish with your work at home business. Maybe you want to pay off credit card debt or save for retirement or take the family on a far away vacation. Whenever you feel discouraged – read what you wrote down or look at the pictures of your kids. It will inspire you to keep working!

Find a mentor – someone who has already found MLM success. They know exactly what you are going through and can offer advice when you ‘get stuck’ on something. They can also help keep you accountable when it comes to your goals.If you haven’t taken the time to write down your goals, take the time now. By having your goals written down on paper you will have a clear definition of what you want. Once you have them on paper, take a closer look at each one and write down specific action steps you can take now to achieve them.

For instance, if your goal is to build a website, what are three things you can do today to accomplish that? Keep looking forward toward your goals and you will find yourself achieving Network Marketing success!

Lisa Willard is a MLM Coach and Trainer. Learn her secrets and discover Network Marketing Success. She can be reached through her website at http://www.network-marketing-success-tools.com

Gold should continue to consolidate over the next few weeks but, the next big move is likely to be up.

This is the view of Sprott Asset Management’s chief investment strategist John Embry, who says he is looking for the price of the yellow metal to hit around $1,350 to $1,400 by late spring.

Speaking on the inaugural Mineweb Gold Weekly Podcast, Embry says the recent downward trend seen in the gold price is nothing more than a healthy correction.

“Gold had a 300 dollar plus run in US dollars from July into the early part of December and it has come under heavy pressure subsequently. It certainly has engendered immense bearishness amongst the commentators which is actually good from my perspective. I think the fundamentals are undisturbed and as a result it is setting up for another strong buy.”

Asked about the link between gold and the US dollar, especially the recent strengthening of the dollar against the euro, Embry, says, while there is often a very clear link, the problems in the US and, by extension, the US dollar, are everywhere – especially given the huge budget deficit it is sitting with – so “the idea that one should run away from gold and into the US dollar because it is strengthening against the euro and several other currencies to me is actually preposterous.

“The idea that the US dollar is a safe haven today is flat out wrong,” he added, “and that is going to be one of the major factors that are going to change the perceptions in the gold market going forward.”

Another reason for Embry’s conviction about bullion’s next move, is the increasing role gold will play as a protection against , debasement.

“I think a lot of the world’s wealth is figuring out that we have little choice given the debt problems in the world and the resultant unlimited creation of money and so I think there is a solid investment bid in the market for gold.”

He adds, that concerns that have been raised about the possible impact the jewellery market is likely to have on the long term rise of gold because, he says, “all great bull markets in precious metals come from their reestablishment as money.”

Most analyses of the president’s State-of-the-Union speech Wednesday night have dwelled on its potential impact on his electoral fortunes in 2010 and 2012 in the face of widespread angst in the country and political gridlock in Washington. But among the longer-term consequences of our political meltdown is something that could overshadow the fate of the stimulus, financial reforms, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the next presidential election itself: the slow but inexorable decline of the U.S. dollar. For over 60 years, the greenback has been the world’s key currency, underwriting a good deal of American prosperity and influence in the world. Over the next decade, it will decisively lose its exalted status.

A permanently weaker dollar means that military commitments and foreign assistance will become much more expensive in real terms.

The dollar will be depreciating for a number of reasons. Foremost is our soaring budget deficit, well over $1 trillion annually; our ballooning national debt, which increased last year by a third to reach $7.6 trillion; and the inability of the political system to deal with the problem, which will only get much worse as 75 million baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. On Wednesday night the president talked of freezing some domestic spending, but given how dramatically budget outlays have expanded these past few years, his initiative was at best symbolic. Mr. Obama said he would create a presidential commission to examine policy alternatives, but the recommendations will not bind the Congress. A day before, Congress refused to create a commission with teeth, the Republicans saying it was a stalking horse for higher taxes, the Democrats saying that the commission would aim to cut social programs.

The problem with a continuation of this farce, which has been going on in some form for years, is that our debt repayments will eventually be debilitating, causing us later this decade to borrow nearly a trillion dollars a year just to pay interest. We could of course throw ourselves into severe austerity to honor our debts, slashing spending and raising taxes to levels as yet not even being discussed by our politicians. But a politically easier way would be to devalue the dollar—perhaps by allowing more inflation—so we can pay our creditors in currency that is less valuable than it was when the debt contract was made. It is hard to believe there is any other outcome for our gutless political system than to choose the second way out.

Another reason why Washington will push the dollar south is that a weaker greenback will stimulate sales abroad by making them cheaper in world markets. In his Wednesday night address, the president pledged to double exports over the next five years, a massively ambitious goal. Unfortunately, the U.S. has little choice but to try, because the big surges in consumer demand are no longer in America but in countries like China, India and Brazil.

Beyond what the U.S. will do to depreciate the currency, some of our biggest creditors will also be looking to reduce their holdings of dollars—dumping them on markets and further eroding their value—because they will not want to hold a deteriorating asset. China, the single largest lender, has already been vocal about its concerns, but so has Pimco, America’s largest fund specializing in bonds. The problem is that we need these lenders not only to keep up their lending but to vastly expand it.

Why does all this matter? A permanently weaker dollar means that military commitments and foreign assistance will become much more expensive in real terms. Everything we import from abroad—from oil, to food, to autos—will have a higher price tag, as foreign suppliers demand more dollars to compensate for its decline vis-a-vis their currencies. Since imports are so woven into the fabric of our economy, that, in turn, could unleash serious inflation. On the other hand, we could see a massive wave of foreign acquisitions in the U.S. as foreign companies, some government owned, will be able to purchase American companies and real estate at bargain basement prices.

You can debate all you want about the advantages and disadvantages of a declining dollar. But the question is no longer whether it will happen but rather when, and how. Thus, it pays to prepare. A change from a dollar-centric world to something else could create financial instability everywhere. To prevent that from happening, the U.S. should be working on designing a new rule-based global monetary system, in which the dollar plays a strong role alongside the euro and eventually the Chinese RMB, plus a new currency issued by the International Monetary Fund. Many American companies will do well to expand their operations overseas, where their earnings in foreign currencies can make them stronger and more profitable. Investors will need to diversify their assets internationally to a much greater extent than most have.

I’d much prefer to be predicting a strong dollar, one befitting a great nation on the rise. Right now, however, that seems like a hallucination.

So far in early 2010, we have been seeing a short-term bounce in the U.S. dollar, just like we predicted in our December 21st, ‘Top 10 Predictions for 2010′. One catalyst for this short-term bounce has been China’s actions to cut down on lending in order to counteract their $586 billion stimulus plan, which caused China’s economy to overheat and their GDP to rise by the most since 2007. Another catalyst has been comments from President Obama, which include his support of a “spending freeze” and the “Volcker Rule”.

The U.S. dollar was overdue for a short-term bounce from a technical standpoint, because more people had become bearish on the U.S. dollar than ever before. The catalysts we mentioned have not changed the fundamentals of the U.S. dollar. They have only provided a short-term excuse for traders to take nominal profits on assets they perceive to be riskier, like U.S. stocks and precious metals, in order to buy what they perceive to be a safe haven, U.S. dollars.

Although for the past couple of weeks, investors have been reacting exactly like in late-2008, we don’t expect to see a repeat of the financial crisis of 2008 with U.S. stocks and precious metals rapidly declining at the same time. There is simply too much excess liquidity in the system for this to happen. The next financial crisis won’t be a crisis of a lack of liquidity, but will be a crisis of too much liquidity.

We have long been saying that we believe the prices of U.S. stocks to be overvalued. We expect to see precious metals prices decouple from the prices of U.S. stocks in 2010. Gold and silver provide both the safe haven investors sought in late-2008 when they mistakenly bought U.S. dollars, as well as the protection from inflation investors sought in 2009 when they mistakenly bought overvalued stocks. Inflation will become more evident to everyday Americans in the months ahead as some of those taking profits on U.S. stocks, seek to spend their U.S. dollars on consumer goods and services. When the prices of consumer goods and services begin to rapidly rise, the need to own gold and silver will become very obvious to the general population.

The current rise in the U.S. dollar and decline in U.S. stocks might actually strengthen the fundamentals of gold and silver. It is now more likely that Bernanke will continue to hold interest rates at 0% for a longer than expected period of time. Therefore, a rise in the U.S. dollar today could be setting the stage for a crash in the U.S. dollar as soon as late-2010, followed by the onset of hyperinflation.

It was just announced last week by the Congressional Budget Office that the 2010 budget deficit is expected to reach $1.35 trillion. A $1.35 trillion budget deficit assumes 2% GDP growth in 2010, which we believe is improbable. This morning it was announced by the White House that they are projecting a $1.56 trillion budget deficit this year, which accounts for a 7% increase in non-defense discretionary spending, not including costs for last year’s stimulus package. With the stimulus package included, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending would equal 17%.

During his State of the Union address, Obama promised a three-year discretionary spending freeze in an effort to cut down on future deficits. However, this spending freeze won’t begin until 2011 and it excludes defense, education, as well as programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which currently make up over $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities. If Obama was serious about cutting down on the budget deficit, he would implement dramatic spending cuts across the entire Federal Budget immediately.

Obama’s new budget is projecting the deficit to decline to $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2011 and then to $700 billion in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. This budget assumes that the economy will recover and tax receipts will rise. Unfortunately, the only reason the economy is showing signs of recovery today, is due to the Federal Reserve’s 0% interest rates. Interest rates will inevitably rise a lot higher over the next few years, which will put an end to the economic recovery. Combined with the retiring babyboomers, tax receipts are much more likely to decline in the years ahead. Once you take into account the likelihood of rising interest payments on our national debt, NIA believes the U.S. is on a path towards a very minimum of $3 to $4 trillion budget deficits this decade.

Obama’s support of the “Volcker Rule”, which would ban banks from making speculative investments into hedge funds and private equity funds, is another example of Obama addressing the symptoms of our problems and not the underlying causes. If the government allowed insolvent banks to fail, they wouldn’t be able to recklessly speculate in hedge funds and private equity funds. Smaller banks with competent management would’ve taken over the assets of the failed banks that had incompetent management, and today banks would be competing with each other based on safety and who takes the least risk. By the government adding more regulations to address the problems they caused, they are creating new unforeseen problems that will have to be dealt with in the future, while preventing the free market from efficiently sorting out the mess we are in today.