New Words-Ineptocracy

Was watching CNBC this morning and I learned a new word. Usually I learn my new words from the former President Bush, or the former Chicago Mayor Daley.

The word is: Ineptocracy

1. Ineptocracy
*_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*

Use in a sentence:

The occupy protesters are part of the ineptocracy movement.

thanks for the link Instapundit

45 thoughts on “New Words-Ineptocracy

  1. Scott Adams got there first:Dilbert’s Law postulates that the least capable members of an organization are placed into management positions to get them out of the way of the people who actually get things done.

    1. Dilberts law itself is a variation on the “Peter principle” where within hierarchical organizations, individuals are promoted based on merit until they achieve positions where they can no longer function, and then they stop getting promoted.   The implication is that once you hit higher levels of management, nobody is actually capable of doing their jobs.

      Dilbert’s law was also stated earlier as Putt’s law, basically that within any technology related organization, the ones who actually understand the technology will be the only ones working on it, with those who don’t being relegated to management.

      These sorts of organizational analogies sort of break down in government, where individuals can potentially be elected or appointed to fairly high-level positions without any relevant understanding or experience whatsoever.  

      In other words, instead of the cynically inverted relationship between skill and position posited by the above eponymic laws/principles/rules, in government there will often be no relationship between the two whatsoever.   

    2. Dilberts law itself is a variation on the “Peter principle” where within hierarchical organizations, individuals are promoted based on merit until they achieve positions where they can no longer function, and then they stop getting promoted.   The implication is that once you hit higher levels of management, nobody is actually capable of doing their jobs.

      Dilbert’s law was also stated earlier as Putt’s law, basically that within any technology related organization, the ones who actually understand the technology will be the only ones working on it, with those who don’t being relegated to management.

      These sorts of organizational analogies sort of break down in government, where individuals can potentially be elected or appointed to fairly high-level positions without any relevant understanding or experience whatsoever.  

      In other words, instead of the cynically inverted relationship between skill and position posited by the above eponymic laws/principles/rules, in government there will often be no relationship between the two whatsoever.   

    3. Dilberts law itself is a variation on the “Peter principle” where within hierarchical organizations, individuals are promoted based on merit until they achieve positions where they can no longer function, and then they stop getting promoted.   The implication is that once you hit higher levels of management, nobody is actually capable of doing their jobs.

      Dilbert’s law was also stated earlier as Putt’s law, basically that within any technology related organization, the ones who actually understand the technology will be the only ones working on it, with those who don’t being relegated to management.

      These sorts of organizational analogies sort of break down in government, where individuals can potentially be elected or appointed to fairly high-level positions without any relevant understanding or experience whatsoever.  

      In other words, instead of the cynically inverted relationship between skill and position posited by the above eponymic laws/principles/rules, in government there will often be no relationship between the two whatsoever.   

  2. The new movement needs a slogan. Recommend variation on Antoinette: “Let Us Eat Cake!”

    (Still chuckling over Pelosi’s “New Direction for America” –say it allowed –i mean, aloud)

    🙂

  3. “. . .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”

    No need to coin new terms like “ineptocracy” when the already existing phrase “social democracy” has this phenomenon well-covered already.

  4. Finally a word that truly describes the ideology and policies of the Obama administration, one you will hear more often along with “thugocracy”.
    John

  5. This is exactly what the government in South Africa is. You may not agree with me, but just try to prove me wrong!! 

  6. I prefer this definition:  
     a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of governing themselves. 

  7. Another Republican word that means NOTHING, as usual. They are actually describing themselves.  What a hoot!

    1. If you are in the mindset of always thinking this talks about “Them” and not “Us” then you are most assuredly a staunch member in good standing of the ineptocracy fan club.

  8. Pingback: December 26, 2012

Comments are closed.