JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Ineptocracy — the word du jour

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) –

A system of government where the least capable to lead

are elected by the least capable of producing, and where

the members of society least likely to sustain themselves

or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for

by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of

producers.

Thanks to treeman today (and before that Brice, Rupert, and Speedy who said: Ineptocracy — See also “Swan Song”).

Merci. ‘Tis a gem. If it is not in the Oxford now, it will be…

 

It could be that an ineptocracy is the inevitable end point of democracy……

…..

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Possibly said first by Alexander Tytler (circa late 1700′s)

I posted this quote first in July last year in the slow death of democracy, a post so very relevant still.

Everyone takes the path of least resistance, and democracy sits balanced on a high peak above the rugged terrain of a hundred thousand years of tribal existence. No matter what direction that complacency takes, all roads lead to the valley of tyranny.

—–

 

 

 

9 out of 10 based on 88 ratings

122 comments to Ineptocracy — the word du jour

  • #
  • #

    So good I am going to cite it elsewhere.

    And feel free to push mind arson for refusing to teach content and insisting on cultivating emotion instead of reason. And gypsy administrators who come into a job to mandate and implement controversial policies and practices and then use that implementation to move onto a promotion at our expense.

    And invisible serfs collars for what these education and climate change and sustainability will do to people and societies and economies just trying to be individuals and make their own decisions without constant statist coercion.

    Ineptocracy-we will know it is famous when the French start to use it without translation. Like a do with engenage for the stealth drip-drip but it all fits together policies.

    10

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    It’s a structural problem in universal franchise democracies. The 2 main constituencies are taxpayers and those the government bribes with payments of various forms. The party representing the latter (Labor in Australia) tries to increase its constituency by increasing the bribes and the number of people who receive them. Since their time horizon is the next election, they go into debt to do so. Knowing that the cost of that debt will fall almost completely after the election.

    This is the reason for the sovereign debt crisis rocking the world at the moment. Despite what you may hear there is no way out of this crisis, bar hyper-inflation or wholescale repudiation of debts and a collapse in world trade.

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    The problem is easily fixed.

    [1] Outlaw the borrowing of money by Government.

    The root cause of the problem is the fiscal incoherance of democracy – there is always a majority of people who will vote for lower taxes, and there is always a majority of people who will vote for increased government spending – the two goals are mutually exclusive without deficit spending – so politicians in an effort to win votes and stay in power will engage in deficit spending.

    The way to stop that, is to take the power away from government by outlawing in the constitution the borrowing of money in any form by the government.

    There is also a moral principle in play that is being violated when people (bureaucrats) incur obligations that have to be honoured by other people (taxpayers) without their consent or recourse when the money is wasted. (Sounds like theft).

    [2] Take away the sovereign power of taxation from government and give it to the people. (How you ask…)

    Define the taxation system in the constitution, and disallow the creation of new taxes by the Government. Define the tax as a 20% GST on everything charged at the final point of sale. Keep it simple so that it is easy to understand and will fit into a constitution. It is difficult to rort or avoid. Eliminates the useless work of the army of accountants and tax lawyers that are currently employed by people to minimise their taxes. Ensures that everyone pays tax. Ensures that the government has a vested interest in growing the economy. Eliminates the capacity for legislative co-option by special interests to produce complicated tax systems that entrench the power and wealth of special and vested interests.

    Simple minded arguments against the above #1 – But the poor will pay as much tax as the rich? No the poor will pay a lot less in actual tax then the rich, and the rich don’t pay 20% tax now – ref army of accounts/lawyers and legislative co-option above.

    Simple minded arguments against the above #2 – But what about if disaster strikes and the government needs extra revenue to meet it. I didn’t say that the government couldn’t save money, a prudent government would establish sovereign wealth funds to provide funds for “rainy” days.

    Simple minded arguments against the above #3 – But, but, but I’m a tax accountant – Get a real job!

    Note that Australia has a GDP of approximately $1.5T REF 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia would produce a tax budget of approx $300B to cover all outlays at the Federal and State level.

    The constitution is where the will of the people is articulated, real reform begins at the constitution (but does not end there). Personally I think that every soverign power needs to be articulated in the constitution – in this way the soverign powers will finally be dispersed to the people instead of concentrated in the abusive and kleptomanic hands of the few.

    Soverign Powers (partial articulation): The definition of the currency, the definition of the law, the definition of the language, the initiation of war, the definition and collection of taxes (tribute), the initiation of violence to enforce the law, the appropriation of property, etc.

    00

    • #
      Florian Euring

      You are 100% right! What also must be outlawed is the uncontrolled printing of banknotes by the government. If government spendings as well as government incomes (taxes) are limited by the law or the constitution of thr respective country socialists will stopped buying the votes of the inept and politics will be improved.

      Greetings to Downunder from Germany

      Florian Euring

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      This is good. Consumption taxes are good. The more you consume (of anything, goods or services) the more you pay. Save your money and don’t consume, and you pay less tax. Simple.

      The only problem is that such a system tends to develop black markets, based on barter, as people exchange goods (at point of creation) with services. I kill a cow, and have more meat that I or my family can consume, so I give some meat to the builder, who fixes up my roof for free, and I give some to the baker, who supplies me with bread for free, and so on. Since these service are at no cost, nobody pays any tax.

      To get over this problem the Government must have a army of auditors who go around and check on how many cows I have born in a season, and then account for where each cow went. The same applies to the builder who used nails on fixing my roof, and these must also be accounted for. And the weight of grain grown to make bread must also be tracked through the system, and so on …

      The net result is that you actually increase the bureaucracy, rather than remove it.

      10

  • #

    I worked for a few years as a high school physics and chemistry teacher in the public education system. This was about the time that The Peter Principle was published. It held that in any organization, people are promoted to their level of incompetency and will continue to be incompetent thereafter.

    I discovered, in the so called public education system, that the Inverse Peter Principle was at work. It holds that in government run organizations, people are promoted promoted proportionally to their incompetency. Hence the least competent run the system and the most competent escape and move to the private sector. In the succeeding half century, I have seen vanishingly few examples to the contrary to the Peter Principle in private enterprise and the Inverse Peter Principle in any level of government.

    Only in situations when the persons own wealth is at stake do you see competency predominate. When it relates to other people’s money, incompetency rules the day much more often than not.

    The problem is not that people aren’t moral enough. It’s that they hold the wrong ideas about what is moral. Then, if they accrete the power to force their ideas upon others, they do it.

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    This clip is so apropo for this post. REF: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/farage-euro-titanic-has-now-hit-iceberg

    Nigel Farage lets rip at the nutters governing the Eurozone.

    01

  • #

    In America, while today we “fight for Democracy” across the globe, we should understand that the founding fathers were insistent that they were fighting not for a democracy, but, as a revolution against tyranny, for a representative Republic.
    A little bit of democracy was needed as a counter to tyranny, but, like too much oxygen, democracy in pure form was considered to be very dangerous, or, to use a fashionable word: unsustainable.
    SO, while the constitutional system was also fashioned as an antidote to tyranny and monarchy, everywhere you look they built in things to curb “unchecked democracy.” To start, there is no national referendums (propositions). Also, we have House members that are elected by the people every 2 years, but, as a check against democracy, Senators were appointed by State legislatures every 6 years. Supreme Court justices gain lifetime appointments to further counter the “passionate swings of the mob.”
    And, yes, at a time when Adam Smith understood the miracle of the free enterprise system, the founders’ paramount concern was that democracy would lead an inexorable push for a redistribution of property and income to the have-nots, and so to a resultant collapse of the economic system.
    Unfortunately, nearly all the checks against the potential insidiousness of democracy have fallen away, or come under increasing assault.
    Sure enough, today, with the rise of Obama, and the new demographics and the “new morality,” conservatives try to face down the seemingly unconquerable democratic movement toward a complete and communist style redistribution of income and property.
    One check against democracy was literacy and age requirements for voting, on the grounds that those that were educated and mature were more likely to understand the system, and also to hold property, and thus not call for property redistribution. Now, even having to show your identification, is legislated against by the leftists / redistributionists.
    And the critical check against system destroying property redistributions was, most obviously, property qualifications for voting. This qualification was essential, but now is 100% removed. Those that see what is happening now, and call again for reinstituting property qualifications, are, inappropriately, derided as crazy reactionaries. A system with property qualifications is said to be obviously unfair, BUT what is unfair is the tyranny of the majority… in so many ways. Let’s say 55% of the people don’t want restaurants to serve soda or beef… they can outlaw it, as well as countless other things, and the spirit and freedom of the people will in such a way be quashed. Most unfair, and deleterious, is when the lower 51% legislate laws to take away the assets of all the others, and give the $ to themselves. Redistribution will impede the economic system, and if taken to an extreme, destroy it.
    Currently, there is some hope that a growing conservative feeling (as a reaction to the radical Obama) will allow a democratic triumph against the perils of democracy that the founders understood.
    But this will be only a short-term victory. In the longer term, with the checks against unimpeded democracy removed, and with a rising tide of low income uneducated immigrants, the system is imperiled. We are talking about socialism, and frankly, full communism, democratically instituted, in the United States.
    The long term hope, though, is that we do everything we can to educate the current conservative majority (barely!) about the dangers of unchecked democracy, and work to reestablish the required checks, or… no exaggeration … our govt and our way of life as we know it is doomed.

    00

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    Govenrment is also an example of the Peter Principle in action.

    00

  • #
    Garry Stotel

    I read that when the Statue of Liberty was presented to USA, Congress refused to fund its erection, and private individuals paid for it.

    Recently, Congress voted $20 Million to be spent on restoration of the very same Statue of Liberty.

    Spot the difference of approach as time passed…

    When founding fathers of the USA were giving voting rights, they did not include: a)women, b)black people c)poor people . Only TAXPAYERS could vote.

    This is the solution, when only net contributors to the system can actually decide on how to spend the money they contributed to the state.

    What we have now? Recently EU ruled that prisoners must not be excluded from voting… This is mockery of democracy, and does not make any sense.

    Those who contribute tax, will by definition stand on their own two feet, and be prudent, educated, successful, reasonable people.

    00

  • #
    Mike in Kentucky

    Today I saw that the Federal Government is suing the state of Florida for trying to purge illegal immigrants from the polls.

    The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I thought that only United States Citizens were entitled to vote? If that is true, it therefore follows that people who are not citizens should not be on the polls.

      00

  • #
    Magic Turtle

    “Everyone takes the path of least resistance, and democracy sits balanced on a high peak above the rugged terrain of a hundred thousand years of tribal existence. No matter what direction that complacency takes, all roads lead to the valley of tyranny.”

    When you find yourself confronted by a breaking tsunami, I would suggest that the path of least resistance is the wisest one to take. It is not a matter of complacency. Today’s ‘democracies’ are being swept away by a global tidal wave of technocratic totalitarianism and it is already too late to stop it. This new political-social movement is being propelled by a natural drive in the collective unconscious of humanity and it cannot be arrested by any external means. The more we resist it externally the more deeply we fall into illusion and under its power.

    The only solution is for each one of us to get in control of the inner-totalitarian who resides within our own self. Democracy can only work when people are not set upon dominating each other. Real democracy is based on the mutual agreement of the individual members of the group but our existing so-called ‘democracies’ are all based on the fundamental principle of coercion by an all-dominating central government that is really nothing more than a self-serving power-clique like the royal families of old. That principle is the essence of tyranny, not democracy.

    In order to have real democracy that is robust, durable and impervious to corruption, it is necessary to replace our current centralized decision-making systems with decentralized ones so that the direction which the whole group takes really is determined by the mutual agreement of the people instead of by a centralized technocratic bureaucracy behind closed doors. But most people are not even thinking in such terms as yet and a viable decentralized model democracy has not yet even been formulated.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    We may think that Labors policies are inept, unsuitable,improper,foolish,silly and nonsensical but judging by Julia’s past history she knows exactly where she is headed and where she is taking us.In her eyes her policies are apt for the direction she wants to take us.The road the Labor party is on leads to the United Nations and World Government.But if government should be a servant of the people and not a master,what is apt? Voters continue to vote for new slavemasters at every election but the only difference between the Liberal and Labor mastership is that the Liberals do it slower.

    “Nothing in politics happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way.” President Rooseveldt.

    The Real Julia –

    http://jaimartinkovits.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=34

    ……

    Labor Has a Cuckoo in its nest –

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_plan_for_power/

    …….

    The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance

    http://www.alor.org/Library/FabianSocialistContributiontotheCommunistAdvance.htm

    00

  • #
    Jesus saves

    Oh god the irony! Here’s Nova who

    [SNIP. Baseless ad hom’ssuch as that drivel one might just get you a free vacation into the sin bin. Show some courtesy to your host] Yoda

    00

  • #

    She’s standing on the city wall defending civilization from the barbarians like you, Jesus saves.

    00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Hold on people – before we get to down let’s remember we have trod this road before.
    Thatcher and Reagan gave the necessary leadership in the 80’s to reverse similar sicknesses in the UK and US governments of the day.
    With backgrounds in business, Science and Economics and a desire to unburden their populations from big government, union strangulation, widespread laziness and sinking morality they re-energised conservative principles in government leadership. They led the world into a period of sustained growth and wealth generation which improved conditions for all, everywhere.
    On the back of this solid structure we have slipped back to actions and behaviours (look no further than Europe today) that are, at best, slovenly. To more recent generations it has all been so good that it must surely be time to play, rather than work and then play.
    Similar leaders will appear again, now that their time is here.

    00

    • #

      Mr. Stewart is correct. I well remember the “malaise” of the Seventies. I was young and the future looked difficult. Everything worked out fine then, as it will now.
      I have to trust that the voters in the US still have a majority that understands our Constitution limits government. We may be close to the 51% sucking at the public teat, but we’re not there yet.
      You folks down under, with your greeny government and carbon tax. There but for the grace of God..(and perhaps a couple of elections) go the USA.

      00

  • #
    mondo

    Actually, that wonderful quote “A democracy cannot exist…..” is from Alexis De Tocquville.

    00

  • #
    pat

    someone explain why there is such foreign interference?

    14 June: Australian: Graham Lloyd: ALP sets boundary for ocean park row
    THE world’s largest system of marine reserves will be unveiled today with the release of plans that put limits on oil and gas exploration in Western Australia, extend reef protection in the Coral Sea and open the way for compensation potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars for the fishing industry.
    The plan falls short of demands by environmental groups to create the world’s largest single marine park in the Coral Sea in which all commercial activity would be banned…
    Senator Boswell said the process had included a sophisticated campaign funded largely by the US Pew Environment Group. “Of the 487,435 submissions that supported the closures, there were only about 1000 genuine submissions,” Senator Boswell said.
    “The remaining 486,000 were computer-generated from environmental websites, with most coming from outside Australia.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alp-sets-boundary-for-ocean-park-row/story-fn59niix-1226394942445

    14 June: Pew Environment Group: Media Briefing – Rio+20 Talks
    On Thursday, June 14, at 10 a.m. EDT, the Pew Environment Group, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) will host a media phone briefing on the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, or Rio+20…
    http://www.pewenvironment.org/get-involved/events/id/85899398245

    Agenda 21 all the way:

    United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service
    Pew Environment Group
    http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=agsp&id_article=3331

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Ah, ‘the problem’!

    SF writers were there first, in this case C.M. Kornbluth in 1951.

    You can find the short story complete on the net, but I’m not sure of the copyright so I won’t link it. Well worth reading.

    00

  • #
    Bite Back

    So we should resign ourselves to that fate? I don’t think so.

    Get to work everyone and fight it. You have more power than you think.

    00

  • #
    mc

    The logical result of ineptocracy must be that the pool of people who cannot produce will increase over time until the burden carried by the producers on behalf of the non-producers becomes too great and the whole system collapses. On that day those who prefer the rule of force to the rule of reason and justice will rejoice.

    Consider for example Peter Spencer and the Thompsons. These people have had their practical capacity to produce either destroyed or severely curtailed yet we know that they possess tremendous potential capacity to produce and to contribute to society. Must they now wear the label inept non-producer? Certainly not.

    Destroy society’s technical, intellectual culture and infrastructure, destroy its morale and you will ultimately see YOUR capacity to produce diminished or destroyed too, we’re all in this together folks. Be very carful not to add insult to injury, the next person to have his or her productive enterprise removed or destroyed could be YOU! YOU could find yourself being labelled inept non-producer, oh what sweet justice!

    Yes all roads do lead to the valley of tyranny, POTENTIALLY. It all depends on us, all of us.

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    I like the von Mises quote: “Every penny casts a vote”, showing that the most truly democratic institution we have is the free market. Political democracy is a very poor, very crude version of democracy in comparison.

    So, increasing the scope of the market and reducing the scope of politics results in more and better democracy.

    The point is that technological progress over the centuries has steadily reduced the need for group/political action to over-ride individual choice. We are now pretty close to the point where almost all political action can be replaced with individual decisions (which would include supporting private charities etc).

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    From reading Humphrey McQueens essay “Chinese Crackers”, it is seen that if China has a recession Australia goes into depression. With Australia’s manufacturing sector dismantled Australian prosperity is reliant upon mineral exports.

    This may appear to be government ineptitude but for the world government planners the end justify’s the means.

    An excerpt-

    ………Our forebears believed that they would grow rich if only the Chinese wore woolen socks and put sugar in their tea. In The Glugs of Gosh (1917) poet C J Dennis portrayed his fellow Australians as “exchanging pianers and pickles and spanners – For seventeen shiploads of stones”
    .
    From the late 1950s, Australians transferred that cargo cult mentality across to Japanese mineral imports, leaving Australia as a lucky country run mainly by second
    rate people who share its luck, as Donald Horne recognised in 1964.

    Until Rex Connor became Minister for Minerals and Energy in 1973, no Swank of Gosh had
    thought it necessary to put a number on the contribution of the mining industry to Australian welfare. The answer came in the 1974 Fitzgerald Report, which calculated that, far from adding to the national coffers, the Australian tax payer
    had subsidised BHP, CRA and Aloca to ship our dirt to Japan to the tune of $137m.15

    Five years later, then Treasury Secretary John Stone warned that a coming boom in energy exports meant that we must dismantle our still substantial manufacturing sector to manage a new bout of currency appreciation. Stone’s resources boom confirmed Banjo Paterson’s conclusion from observing cattle booms and Northern Territory booms: They all went bust.

    Within seven years of Stone’s pronunciamento, treasurer Keating was bleating about a banana republic as the exchange rate plunged…….
    http://www.surplusvalue.org.au/Humphrey_Articles/Chinese%20crackers.pdf

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    So a democracy cannot last, because the people will vote for their short term benefit rather than their long term benefit.

    A bit like burning coal now, and leaving a mess for future generations?

    10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      No John,

      Because burning coal now, will maintain a civilisation from which future generations, with new ideas, can emerge.

      It is called, “The Law of Wing-Walking*: Ensure you have a grasp on something new, before you release what you are currently hanging on to”.

      * Wing-Walking was (and is) a stunt where somebody climbs out of a biplane cockpit, and walks out on the wing to tie a long ribbon onto one of the struts.

      00

  • #
    pat

    this may satisfy some, but not yours truly, because the Coalition needs to abandon the ETS as well, and say so now:

    14 June: Herald Sun: AAP: Abbott says scrapping carbon tax is easy
    Mr Abbott said suggestions that it might be difficult for a future coalition government to repeal the tax were wrong.
    “What parliament has done, parliament can undo,” he told a community forum in Adelaide today.
    “Getting rid of the carbon tax is as simple as getting legislation through the parliament.”
    Mr Abbott said the next election would essentially be a referendum on the carbon tax and if Labor lost the party was unlikely to “commit suicide twice” by continuing to back the tax.
    But he said if Labor did try to oppose legislation to repeal the tax in the Senate, then a Coalition government would call a double dissolution election.
    “The constitution provides for a double dissolution precisely to accommodate a situation where a recalcitrant Senate is frustrating the mandate of the elected government,” Mr Abbott said.
    “I will not hesitate to have a double dissolution election if that’s what it takes to repeal the carbon tax.”
    Mr Abbott said getting rid of the tax would be the Coalition’s number one priority in office.
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/abbott-says-scrapping-carbon-tax-is-easy/story-e6frf7ko-1226395623763

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I must say this is the last website I expected to find extolling the virtues of a non-elected group of people who think they know best running the country compared to a government democratically elected by the people.

    “elected by the least capable of producing” is particularly strange comment. Is Monckton the guest author here?

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But Australians, do not get to elect their leaders. Australians do not get to decide which policies they wish supported, and those that they do not.

      The people get to elect a representative for their particular geographical location (and by inference an amorphous party that “owns” a package of policies).

      Some of the policies proposed by the party, the people might want, and some they might not. But they are the party’s policies, decided by people who run the party organisation, and who are not directly answerable to the people of the electorate. The are not necessarily the representatives policies, but the representative is there to do as he or she is told, and not to make policy. It is also the party organisation that tells the representatives how to vote in the caucus room when new leaders are being elected, not the people.

      How many Australians voted for Julia Gillard to become Prime Minister, in preference to Kevin Rudd?

      00

      • #
        jollygreenwatchman

        “leaders” ? We don’t have or need no steenkin leaders and it is misleading this blog’s USofA and Canadian visitors to suggest otherwise I reckon.

        We vote for political parties to represent us, not lead us. The parties may well elect or appoint their own leader but that is all. Our Prime Ministers are never our “leaders”, they are merely public servants employed by us to do the job of representing us until either we have had enough of the political party they lead, or the political party itself has enough of them !

        As for our current PM, unlike with our PM-in-waiting (who actually was elected by ballot by his political party to lead them, and later, the majority of Oz voted for that political party coalition to represent us but we and they were cheated of that), she was not chosen by the majority of Oz to represent us and nor was she elected by ballot by her political party to lead them.

        What is more, her political party was not chosen by vote of the majority of Oz to represent us. The only reason she is PM and her party isn’t “the opposition” is because three so called “independents” chose to betray the majority of their constituents who were led to believe they were voting for fellow conservatives who would typically side with the conservative/centrist political party than with far-left greenazi lunacy.

        Oz is now impatiently waiting for a new election so as to correct this massive and expensive blot upon our political history as well as deal out some well deserved payback that may well render certain political parties as being all but extinct (one can but live in hope).

        We are basically itching to fire this particular batch of unelected public servants who have clearly chosen to serve themselves rather than represent us the way they ought.

        That said, it is worth saying again that in Oz, we DON’T elect our Prime Minister and our Prime Minister is NOT our leader.

        In this land DownUnder many of us would lay down our lives for our Queen and our country but I suspect it would be a rare few who would be inclined to do the same for a mere so called “public servant” who happened to also have the title of “Prime Minister” temporarily associated with their name.

        Not sure many of us would want the USofA system of politics here in Oz either and what with our typical “tall poppy syndrome” coupled with a gneral disdain for rallying and political spectacle, it is doubtful USofA politics would ever work here anyway.

        Thank goodness ! 🙂

        00

  • #
    J Cuttance

    just made Jonova my homepage based on this post. Taxreceivers and will fatten and retire on golden handouts at the expense of taxpayers until there’s a meltdown.
    All roads lead to Athens…

    00

  • #
    Anton

    In view of Finkelstein, Australia badly needs someone like this man:

    http://ezralevant.com/2012/06/ezra-levant-tells-the-canadian.html

    Ezra Levant is an entrepreneurial journalist with legal training who now has his own TV show on an independent network in Canada. His decision to fight back with a combination of legal knowhow and mockery vs the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, which in practice censored politically incorrect public statements, led very recently to repeal of the insidious anti-free-speech Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. (He taped his own inquisition and posted it on YouTube.) Now the PC Establishment is going after him again and this is his very robust response. It’s worth every second and be sure to see it to the end.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    The first sign of intelligence is the ability to laugh at oneself. So kudos to you, Matt. For the bonus point question, “How many government departments does it take to change a light globe”?

    00

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    “Ineptocracy”. Brilliant.

    00

  • #
    Catamon

    Ineptocracy.

    Great Word!! But, the definition needs to be slimmed down to get rid of the Whinging, Ayn Rand reinterpreted, Teabagger crap. As it stands its just silly.

    You really don’t want to have to argue about the definition of a great word like this, just whether its applied appropriately.

    A better, more generally useful, and above all precise definition would be:

    Government by those who are inept.

    Much better chance of making it into the Oxford if its not some kind of lame joke.

    00

  • #
    Catamon

    I’m sure you will recognise this more specific definition, since no doubt you work assiduously to provide expertise to just such a government instrumentality.

    I do not and never have worked for the Liberal Party Winston!

    But seriously, here you are falling into the trap of trying to define a word that should be usable by many of any persuasion political or otherwise in terms of your own, particular views or position. That kind of framing is, well, just so, inept reguglican type behavior that really is sooooooo a decade out of fashion mate, but no doubt still in their book.

    A proper definition should be short and precise, not verbose and subjectively fuzzy. An argument as to the application of a defined word can be as verbose, subjective and if you like just plain as silly as you’d care to make it.

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I propose that the ineptitude is a facade to provide the public with a bunch of disposable clowns to blame, while all the time, behind closed doors, the ultra rich who really know the game are running everything.

    00

  • #

    The Ontario Liberal and Ontario NDP Parties, the definition of ineptocrats:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/14/kelly-mcparland-c-d-howe-pokes-a-big-hole-in-ndps-high-tax-fantasies/

    “…Laurin notes that Ontario already redistributes taxes from rich to poor more extensively than most other provinces. “The top 1% of earners shoulder more than one-quarter of all income taxes, while the bottom 75% shoulder about 12%,” he writes. The share of taxes paid by the wealthiest earners is more than double their share of taxable income, while the top 10% pay two-thirds of all net income taxes.

    The difficulty in grasping this appears to arise from the general level of financial illiteracy that pervades much of the population, the same limited grasp of basic economics that fuels a society deep in debt and willing to pay usurious rates of interest on credit card debt, as long as they can handle the monthly payment. It’s a weakness shared across geographical and social lines, and seems to pervade New Democrats and their adherents. The simple notion that rich people should pay more sells well, if you assume the government can simply raise the rates and happy millionaires will fork over the cash. But that’s generally not what happens: there are plenty of legal and wholly ethical ways to reduce the share of income that’s exposed to tax, and the higher the rate, the greater the motive there is to do so. That’s why jurisdictions that once levied draconian levels of taxation — at one time Britain’s marginal rate could reach 98% — eventually reduced them, finding they just didn’t work.”

    The ultra rich don’t actually need to work behind closed doors:
    They set up billion dollar ‘charitable’ foundations such as the Hewlett Foundation or the Rockefeller Foundation:

    “The Hewlett Foundation is part of a consortium of billion dollar American foundations that are funding environmental activism as a way to sway investment capital and market share in various industries, particularly in the energy sector. As described in the landmark strategy paper titled, “Design to Win,” voter and consumer campaigns are funded to push public policy makers to drive “massive change in investment flow” from so-called “dirty energy” to so-called “clean energy.” As I see it, this is business; swaying investment capital, swaying market share, shifting consumer and retailer demand, I don’t see this as charity. …The Rockefeller Brothers’ Tar Sands Campaign to choke off Canadian oil exports would benefit the U.S. in two ways: 1) deterring investment in the Alberta oilsands frees up investment capital to be invested in the renewable energy sector – or so the thinking goes. And 2) the campaign to block oil tanker traffic on the strategic north coast of B.C. would block oil exports to Asia and continue the U.S. monopoly on Canadian oil exports.

    I can see how the Rockefeller Brothers’ Tar Sands Campaign provides a public benefit to Americans but I do not see how the U.S.-funded campaign against the Canadian aquaculture industry and the Rockefeller Brothers’ Tar Sands campaign provide a measurable benefit to Canada – which is what Canadian charities are supposed to do.”
    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/17/vivian-krause-u-s-environmentalists-are-meddling-in-b-c-s-election/

    If the CIA were spending this type of money and lobbying politicians and decision-makers there would be a Royal Commission and the MSM would be up in arms. But apparently it is OK as long as you’re a ‘green’ (or is that greed) ‘charitable’ foundation.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Now this is “ineptocracy”

    “Queenslanders could fork out $685.000 every hour on interest payments alone as state debt balloons to an unprecedented $100 billion in six years.”

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/state-debt-headed-for-100b/story-e6freoof-1226396027024

    00

  • #
    J Knowles

    Ineptocracy is thriving in the UK.
    38 Degrees sent me this to-day.

    The government’s plan would mean phone and internet companies would have to keep details of your use of email, websites you’ve visited, phone calls you’ve made over the internet and how you’ve used Facebook and Twitter – for a whole year. [3]

    Theresa May, the Home Secretary, today claimed that the plans would only affect terrorists and paedophiles – and called people who value their privacy from government “conspiracy theorists”. [4] But that’s simply not true – the plans would allow the government to spy on every one of us. [5]

    If I want to read what civilized people such as Jo Nova put out, it is none of anyone-elses’ business. Perhaps “ineptocracy” is too weak a description.

    00

  • #

    OT as usual.

    Donna Lamframboise will be speaking in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth next month.

    01

  • #
    Angry

    A bit OT but well worth sharing !

    U.N. Climate Organization Wants Immunities Against Charges of Conflict of Interest, Exceeding Mandate, Among Others | Fox News

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12/un-climate-organization-wants-immunities-against-charges-conflict-interest/?test=latestnews#ixzz1xogwlQzd

    Why isnt Australian media looking at the UN and its dodgy plans for Climate Change ?

    This is BULLSHIT !
    These anti Human UN assholes want to commit the greatest FRAUD in history by using the LIE of global warming to introduce a communist one world government and yet do not want to be held accountable ????????

    I DON’T THINK SO !

    THEY SHOULD ALL BE EXECUTED FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY !

    00

  • #

    Power price increase notified in South Australia: mine is 18.2%.

    Gas price increase will be about the same.

    Time to put in a solar system.

    The carbon tax: the biggest own-goal in the history of Australian politics, evah.

    00

  • #

    To think we left South Australia in 1992 because the State Government had a mere 3.3 billion in debt due to the State Bank screwup. Queensland now is looking down the barrel of 90 billion.

    yeah MattB leaving the economy alone would have been better. A mild recession would have cleaned out some inefficient operators and we wouldn’t be in the debt hole.

    BTW my null hypothesis nowadays is that anyone seeking public office is a criminal psychopath. I’ve found by experience that this is rarely wrong and when it isn’t it is a pleasant surprise.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Houston, we have a problem, replies are appearing as separate posts.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Houston, we have a problem, replies are appearing as separate posts. Also out of order, my post at 40 was posted after my post at 96.

    00

  • #

    While we sit here talking cooling alarmism millions of acres of dead softwood forests in US states like New Mexico are burning! Global warming means pine bark beetles survive winter in huge numbers and in spring keep on going killing softwood trees.

    The crap financial and health system in the US is seeing black plague crop up in other parts of New Mexico and nearby states—even in affluent areas.

    So I think the fact a carbon price mechanism comes into force here in 15.5 days is great. I also thank my lucky stars that I am in Australia where the economy is sound and the health system available and affordable to all!

    This yank neocon crap KILLS countries and people!

    Another matter, some Lib and Nat pollies think the North will become the breadbasket as rainfall increases there, decreases in Southern Australia. Stupid! Too much rain will destroy the soils there: look up laterisation. A conclusion can be drawn from that. Anyone here game to draw it?

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Kleptofraudocracy

    Rule by thieves, and liars

    00

  • #
    Catamon

    Oh look, the comments have gone completely barmy. Are the gerbils playing up again??

    00

    • #
      Catamon

      Comment insertion on a random basis. what a hoot.

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        But look on the bright side, Cat, all of our wonderful old arguments in comments have been restored. Every alarmist talking point and its point-by-point takedown is unearthed again for all to see. Oh Happy days, oh happy days!

        Why are you not cheering? 😛

        01

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Well if any of you have a hard time getting started on these cold winter mornings, try reading these two news items as they are sure to get your blood boiling…

    Australian wind farms ‘would create $17bn’

    According Sinclair Knight Merz report, the construction of the “typical wind farm” of around 25 to 30 turbines can produce 48 direct building jobs and provide indirect employment of around 160 people locally, 504 state-wide and 795 nationwide.

    Alan Jones breached radio code: watchdog

    However ACMA found Mr Jones did breach the code when he told listeners in March last year that ‘human beings produce 0.001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’.

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Blog User Status Report

    PRE-MOVE Comments: OK.
    PRE-MOVE Comment Ratings: OK
    PRE-MOVE Comment Threading (since Oct 2011): OK

    Since host move in April…
    POST-MOVE Comments: OK.
    POST-MOVE Comment Ratings: Gone
    POST-MOVE Comment Threading: Gone

    Since today…
    NEW Comments: OK.
    NEW Comment Ratings: OK
    NEW Comment Threading: OK

    Looking pretty good now. Pass on thanks to Mr T and the network eggheads.

    00

  • #
    Stacey

    I think Suasan L Stebbings said something like:

    “When words have lose their meaning men will lose their reasoning”

    Another of her quotes:

    “Thinking is a tiring process; it is much easier to accept beliefs passively than to think them out, rigorously questioning their grounds by asking what are the consequences that follow from them.”

    00

  • #
    Paul R

    I’m not sure if this has been posted but Larry Pickering’s description makes things look far worse than ineptitude.

    http://lpickering.net/item/1499

    00

  • #
    Edward Forster

    Here is another unacknowledged anomaly, the chicanery of income taxes.

    Any businessman will tell you that his sales revenue must provide the money with which to pay sales tax , business taxes, council taxes, and employee payroll income taxes (ironically called “Pay As You Earn”), otherwise he would go out of business.

    And every business is in a supply chain to ultimately meet the demands of real people: the end consumers with cash to spend out of their real earnings: their take home pay. But it is the individual consumers that, by their purchases, support the whole hierarchy of commerce. Clearly, the real burden of taxation falls entirely on the consumer. So-called “taxpayers” are merely intermediaries in the taxation of consumers. Assisted by tax accountants, some intermediaries are not as dependable at forwarding the expected tax proceeds as government would like, by using the inevitable holes in complex income tax legislation.

    The hidden truth is that the total cost of government, that is all taxation, falls indiscriminately onto consumers equivalent to a much higher sales tax. In the UK, it is equivalent to a 100% mark up of sales cost price seen as 50% of the consumer purchase price. The more we spend the more tax we pay, rich or poor.

    Employees neither earn what they think nor are taxed what they think. No wonder governments over spend when the average voter considers that most taxation falls on someone else or should do. Changing to an equivalent single rate of retail sales tax would immediately expose the outrageous cost of government and prompt thoughts that perhaps some of the money might be better spent by ourselves. But, of course, politicians will never enact such a change.

    Income taxes are the curse of western capitalism, allowing governments to engage in what may be considered fraud and racketeering against their own electorates.

    00