INEPTOCRACY - by David Hill Published in The Times on 13 February 2012 Much like inheriting a billion pounds only to die broke or forfeiting a three goal half time lead; ineptocracy is one's failure to succeed from a position of strength. A political example of ineptocracy would be South Africa's ruling party the ANC; who after 18 years of leading one of the most fertile and resource rich countries in the world hasn't developed any sustainable solutions to generating wealth for its people beyond affirmative action, land redistribution and the nationalization of assets. After almost two decades of rule, the ANC's sole solution to endowing its people is still to merely take wealth away from others. Surely this is their failure? "SOUTH AFRICA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHOSE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY FAVOURS A MAJORITY WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO HAVE COMPLETE POLITICAL CONTROL" Consider that South Africa is the only country in the world whose affirmative action policy favours a majority who also happens to have complete political control. In the rest of the world affirmative action is designed to favour the politically un-represented minority, not the politically strong majority. South Africa now appears to have a system of government whereby the ruling party is elected by the non- contributing majority, who in turn are then rewarded with subsidies, goods and services paid for from the earnings of the contributing minority. The flaw with this system is that nowhere does there exist a plan, nor an incentive, for this impoverished majority to actually start contributing to the economy and hence they continue to demand more from their elected leaders who in turn continue to deflect the wealth generation burden onto the contributing minority. Clearly this cycle of diminishing returns is not sustainable as eventually the expectation of the non-contributing majority will become too high and the burden on the contributing minority will become too great. In the end something has got to give as no economy can bear 20 million people supporting 50 million people. To further illustrate just how poorly the ANC has done at generating wealth solutions for its people over the past 18 years, consider Germany and Japan who at the end of World War II were completely decimated by the Allied bombings and were thus economically distraught. Neither had any industry, agriculture nor natural resources to generate wealth from, yet within 20 years both countries had uplifted themselves to being highly employed, economic powerhouses. Clearly both these governments achieved vastly more for their people with significantly less over a similar period of time and without disadvantaging any demographic. So the fact that after two decades of complete political control the ANC has failed to secure wealth generation systems for its people beyond affirmative action and nationalisation, well is that not the very definition of ineptocracy?
Another classic example of the failure of socialism is the Gillard government and the Australian unions.
i am more interested in; what do you all suppose is a FULL PROOF social system that is fair to all? .
A classic example of the failure of capitalism. ------------------------------------------------------- The coming economic collapse of the western world.
My point was that this is going to descend into "Oh, no that GFC things wasn't real capitalism" and "Well, the socialised healthcare systems in most Western countries are clearly superior to the American free market system", followed by "You're wrong, the OBAMACARE system shows how bad socialism is for people" and "No, the Obama administration's reforms aren't real socialism", etc, etc.
You know, I really hate all these labels, the ism's and such. To me it all comes down to personal responsibility. If you have a situation where people are not personally responsible for their actions, then it will be abused. This happens right throughout both the political world, and also throughout the corporate world where rules have been setup especially to prevent people from facing personal responsibility for their actions. No wonder govt and big corporates are in bed together.
Why should this thread be any different? By the way, I didnt mean to thank you, just quote you Anyway, one day you will see the light and agree with us so we will need to have these conversations so you can trawl back through our pearls of wisdom.
cant compare germany/japan to south africa; the mentality is different. Its like comparing a man whos been free all his life and another who just got out of jail. Apartheid just ended in symbols like you are allowed to live in same neighbourhoods use same public transport etc; when apartheid really ends you get zimbabwe; everyone turns away from you cause you gave back ownership to real owners. thats why they print those trillion dollar notes
Well it's pretty close ... the government steals from the productive part of society and redistributes (what's left after lining their own fat pockets) to their supporters.
Thank you Yippe for posting such a non-PC, non rose tinted glasses, article. Argentum there's some debate in academic circles as to who were the "real" owners of the land that is now South Africa. As the Afrikanners moved east from the Cape, 350 years ago there was a lot of unpopulated, empty space not claimed in the sense we know today by anyone (including African tribes). A lot of the African tribes hadn't even moved south to SA either at the time the Afrikaners were building the foundations of what is now SA. In conversation with educated African friends (white collar university lecturers etc) the problems with AFrica are numerous and include: -Rotten one party political systems -Tribalism - every leader favours his tribe to the detriment of others. Tribal rivalries also compounded in some cases by Christian vs Muslim emnity and violence. -Endemic and widespread corruption -Lack of a skilled/educated workforce. -Lack of an effective judicial/legal system There are more than a few AFricans i know that have parents that would have preferred a return to being British colonies as the parents had lived through British rule and could compare the 2. The positives i'm told were integrity in the above matters. Political rights were the only thing the blacks lacked. Mu auntie left Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) before Mugabe took over in 1981. She had also visited Australia in the 70s and said without a doubt, Rhodesia was more advanced and prosperous than Oz! She would have never left Rhodesia to come here! Salisbury the capital was more like a European city in its cleanliness and orderliness. Alas no more. The result of a socialistic, corrupt party ZANU-PF and its devil of a leader - Mugabe destroyed a beautiful country. This is what Gillard and co are doing to us here........
By your logic, the current system we have in the western world may as well be as close to capitalism. Its pretty close too right? We have direct ownership over assets and properties and people do pay for their mistakes for the most part.
This is also a symptom of socialism IMHO. For example, it feels to me like I got myself educated, got a decent job and a decent income, bought some assets, and now, through ludicrous taxes, I'm paying (heavily) for that mistake! :/
Then you should be happy for socialism and capitalism then since your definition of both economic systems seem so layered upon each other that you can't have one without the other .
@Byron I agree with everything you said and Zimbabwe would still be very prosperous if Mugabe didn't take that road. However I places like Zimbabwe and Falklands as many others were potential gold mines hence the reason they were "taken". In the hands of the Argentines/Zimbabwean native people it would stay undeveloped/misused. Look at the wealth/ land distribution pre Mugabe; everything owned by whites thats of value. This process still continues in some African countries today. Ethipia for eg. recently kicked out inhabitants of a large region to rent/sell the land out to foreigners to use for agriculture to Chinese and others. And 20 years from now some president will come and say this land ain't chinese and the'll be kicked out which i think is fair. The problem is Whites from Zimbabwe really do see the land as theirs (last 2-3 generations) as do the European countries where they are originally from. So they severed all ties to Zimbabwe to punish it for those actions as well as encourage the neighbouring countries not to be friends with it politically/financially etc. Being then isolated the only way was down. The Blacks that got the farms were not good farmers either.When they do finally kick Mugabe out(or he dies), the whites get "their" farms and only then will relations with other countries be normalised and then all Zimbabwean dollars might be worth something again. Africa is still pretty much a colony of Europe I reckon. Oh and the South African government also plans to start taking land away very similar to Mugabe; thy announced it they are stalling for now but if that happens dont hold any savings in Rand unless they are gold Kruggerands
