Saturday, 9 May 2009


.......... And God spoke unto Adam and He said:
“Why does it take you so long to come to the phone?”
Adam said; “Have you seen the size of this garden?
 Also I wish you would have a word with that angel you sent with a blazing sword.
 I’ve got scorch marks on the dahlias and the heat is bringing on the chrysanths
 too early........”
God said, “The angel is Security and outside my remit. 
But there has obviously been a mistake.
He shouldn’t be there till apple picking....... “

He continued: “I wanted Dobermans but Finance estimate an overall saving with flames

 that is very impressive. It’s something they picked up from the Competition. By the by,

 we are working on garden staffing levels. Research and Development were going to let

you invent the plough but then we planned electricity which I personally am very excited

 about and cannot wait to create Faraday.”

Adam said; “Talk is cheap. When do I get to invent the plough?”
God said; “It’s in the pipeline. Meanwhile R and D have come up with this new concept. 
Run it up the tree trunk and see if it flaps.”
Adam said; “God, sometimes you say things which are a mystery to me....”
God said; “Goes with the territory. But about this R and D idea - it will do the
 gardening; it’s an entertainment concept and does home nursing.
“R and D are working on a modem called sex which completely does away with the
 spare rib method I originally planned. It will need a User Manual. I’m thinking of 
calling it the Ten Commandments.”
Adam said; “Does this machine of R & D’s have a name?”
God said; “What’s in a name? as Shakespeare is going to say.
 We were going to call it ‘slave’ and then ‘skivvy’ but Marketing said names like that
 give off the wrong vibes, consumer-wise. So what we finally came up with was Woman. What 
takes the Woe out of Man? Woman! Neat, eh? Copywriting and Graphics reckon we could achieve a 98 per cent
 penetration of A and AB markets.”
Adam said; “I want an assurance from management that this woman machine
 will never be programmed to take executive decisions......”
And God spoke and He said; “Thursday already? I have to go. 
I have two days’ creating to do before my rest day....”
And He rang off. It was only later when Eve harvested the apples and there
 was this Leak from Head Office about relocation that Adam remembered he 
had been given no guarantees about negative parity for the woman machine.
And Adam was sore afraid.
I think they should change the name. Not “Rule Britannia”.
 Not anymore. “Misrule Britannia” would be more appropriate. 
In Parliament the criminals write their own laws. When I worked away from home
 I paid for my own lodgings. The wrong we have done to the Ghurkhas has still not been
 righted and now we are refusing permission for the Iraqi interpreters to take refuge 
here, even though they  live under an imminent threat of death in their own country because 
they co-operated with an invading army. 
We cannot blame our immigration policy because we don’t have one. When it suits us
 we lay down the red carpet for IRA thugs; the architect of mass murder in Africa 
has been granted refuge here. What we laughingly call Learned Judges pontificate on 
the rights of various many hued unsavoury characters to blot our landscapes. 
But Heaven help anyone who tries to help us.
First published in “Punch” on April 3, 1957, but VERY pertinent to what’s happening today!

Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.

Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.

Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references
 to reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.

Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.

Q: They also mention Assets of £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts.
 Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.

Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.

Q: Then they haven’t got it?
A: No.

Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.

Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts.
This is called Liabilities.

Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn’t theirs.

Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.

Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts,
so it is really lent to the banks.

Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.

Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.

Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can’t really say that.

Q: But you’ve just said it. If I put £100 into my account the bank is
liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. 
But they go and lend it to someone else, and he is liable to have to 
pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s the same £100 isn’t it?
A: Yes, but....

Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t
really any money at all?
A: Theoretically......

Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven’t any money, where do they
get their Reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.

Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your £100 to someone they charge him interest.

Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That’s their

Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that.........

Q: When I lend them my £100 why don’t I charge them interest?
A: You do.

Q: You don’t say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.

Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.

Q: But of course I’m going to draw the money out again!
If I hadn’t wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!
A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.

Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability.
Wouldn’t they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.

Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?
A: Certainly.

Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they’ll let you have some other customer’s money.

Q: But suppose he wants his too... and they’ve already let me have it?
A: You’re being purposely obtuse.

Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.

Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?

No comments: