The Imaginary Incentive to Serve

The world we live in is governed by the laws of dominance and subservience. There is no way to escape the system until our tenure here is complete.

Most people are unwilling to entertain the idea that most of what we do in aggregations of people is instinctive and that we have inborn propensities that are always present. `

Two of the instincts are to exalt our species and exalt ourselves as we interact with others in in the various aggregations we belong to. Because we are so important and special to ourselves, it is normal to expect that others view us in a similar light.

The idea that an elected representative will have our interests at heart and work in our behalf seems perfectly reasonable. Out of that is derived the imaginary incentive to serve. Such an incentive exist nowhere in humanity or in any other species. It doesn’t work that way. Elected representatives see voters as their resource and out of self interest use the office to further their personal agendas.

Everyone in the world seems shocked that governments around the world are ignoring the people they have been elected to serve. I am not surprised in the slightest. I would be totally confounded if it was the other way around. Nature provides only one incentive, self interest. When representatives end up serving corporations and billionaires while actually taking from their constituents that is normal behavior.

Mainstream economists pack the imaginary incentive to serve into their models. That and many other reasons are why their models have no utility to society. Do not expect representation in government unless you force the issue.

Since I don’t engage in fantasy and honor no euphemisms, I can answer questions that no other economist can just by looking out my window.

This entry was posted in Daily Comments on by .

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.