The Financial Crisis Explained in Simple Terms

(This was emailed to me with its "author" unknown) Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin. In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - to drink now but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans). Word gets around and as a result increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi’s bar. Taking advantage of her customers’ freedom from immediate payment constraints, Heidi increases her prices for wine and beer, the most-consumed beverages. Her sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic customer service consultant at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing limit. He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral. At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert bankers transform these customer assets into DRINKBONDS, ALKBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then traded on markets worldwide. No one really understands what these abbreviations mean and how the securities are guaranteed. Nevertheless, as their prices continuously climb, the securities become top-selling items. One day, although the prices are still climbing, a risk manager (subsequently of course fired due his negativity) of the bank decides that slowly the time has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi’s bar. However they cannot pay back the debts. Heidi cannot fulfil her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy. DRINKBOND and ALKBOND drop in price by 95 %. PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80 %. The suppliers of Heidi’s bar, having granted her generous payment due dates and having invested in the securities are faced with a new situation. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor. The bank is saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock consultations by leaders from the governing political parties. The funds required for this purpose are obtained by a tax levied against the non-drinkers. Now you understand the financial crisis?

The Debt Spiral in this Economic Climate

You have an endless pile of bills, some needs which have to be paid now and others in contemplation. At the background credit card, loan payment, or other debt, endless calls and letters from collection agencies. Respect For Your Sanity

Some thoughts

They cannot take away our self--respect if we do not give it to them. – Gandhi

Know your rights – e.g. if collectors are not authorised to contact you in the office (like in some Jurisdictions) then complain .... always in writing .

Limitation starts once again from an acknowledgement of a debt. Your 6 years starts all over again.

Do not make any commitment you cannot keep (under pressure)

They can't get blood from a stone, hence acknowledge their call (you are probably paying for it anyway) and budget yourself for Repayment, basic needs first. Thereafter prioritize.

Seek A Financial Consultant but usually whatever advice can received is "within you" and be done by yourself..... search yourself

"All blame is a waste of time. No matter how much fault you find with another, and regardless of how much you blame him, it will not change you. The only thing blame does is to keep the focus off you when you are looking for external reasons to explain your unhappiness or frustration. You may succeed in making another feel guilty about something by blaming him, but you won't succeed in changing whatever it is about you that is making you unhappy."

Wayne Dyer

Police Report (No Further Action)

from AG's Chambers - What do you do

After an investigation had been conducted, why was the case that I reported was NFA (no further action) or the suspect was not charged in court? Can I appeal against such decision of the Public Prosecutor? If I can, to whom can I forward my appeal to?
Thursday, 23 October 2008 06:22
Decisions on cases investigated by the police or any other law enforcement agency will depend solely on the available evidence. If there is credible evidence that corroborates the complainant’s allegation, then the suspect involved may be prosecuted in court. On the other hand, if the evidence shows otherwise, then no prosecution will be instituted. This is based on the basic principle relating to the institution of prosecution whereby it rests solely on the evidence.

There are several factors that lead to the decision to NFA a particular case. Among others are the lack of evidence to prove the case, the non-availability of important witnesses, the suspect cannot be traced, etc.
The decision of the Public Prosecutor with regards to the decision made against a report lodged may be appealed against by the complainant. However, the decision to accept the appeal is vested solely in the Public Prosecutor. This is clearly spelt out in Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution where the power to institute criminal prosecution is vested with the Public Prosecutor. Although the powers are vested in the Public Prosecutor, the complainant can still appeal to the Public Prosecutor against his decision to NFA or to charge the suspect, especially when there is new evidence that can corroborate his allegation and hence changing the decision of the Public Prosecutor.

A written appeal may be forwarded to the Prosecution Division, Attorney General’s Chambers, either through the State Prosecution Unit or direct to the Headquarters in Putrajaya