Raponomics

UPDATED Aiko's Freak Exposure Theorem - "Post to Be" and Its Interesting Results

2015-05-14T23:06:00.001-04:00

Despite the laziness that Omarion, Chris Brown and Jhene Aiko exhibit in replacing the term “supposed to” with “post to”, even the laziest songs possess some analytical gems that we must explore in depth. Specifically, we at Raponomics want to explore Ms. Aiko’s “freak exposure” analysis:

If your dude come close to me

He gon' wanna ride off in a ghost with me (I'll make him do it)

I might let your boy chauffeur me

But he gotta eat the booty like groceries

But he gotta get rid of these hoes for me

I might have that nigga selling his soul for me

Ooh, that's how it post to be

If he wants me to expose the freak

Above, Ms. Aiko puts forth an analytical framework that yields some interesting results. Let’s explore her statement in depth. For simplicity, let’s assume Ms. Aiko represents a representative female in her model. Ms. Aiko argues that three conditions must exist in order for her to “expose the freak”.

Condition 1: He must “eat the booty like groceries.” In our model, we will represent this booty-eating variable as b. This is a binary value – either one eats booty or doesn’t eat the booty. There is hardly an in-between for this particular condition.

Condition 2: He must “get rid of the these hoes from me.” In our model, we will represent this “hoe” variable as h, the number of hoes that the model gentleman has. Unlike b above, one could imagine that the number of hoes could vary, but must be strictly a non-negative number. The reader should keep in mind that the removal of hoes will be represented as “-h”.

Condition 3: He must be willing to “sell his soul for me”. While this is a “fuzzy” condition, let’s assume for purposes of simplicity, that this third condition must be met – a willingness to sell a soul. We will represent the presence of a soul with s. The reader should keep in mind that the sale of the soul will be represented with “-s”.

If we allow f to equal the freak exposure variable, we have the following condition:

b – h - s ≥ f

which is to say in order for Ms. Aiko to affirmatively expose the freak, she must place a higher value on the combination of booty-eating less the presence of hoes less the existence of a soul than exposing the freak. If the above condition is met, we can assume Ms. Aiko is more than willing to expose the freak and at the very least is indifferent between exposing the freak and having her conditions met. Rearranging the above equations, it must hold that:

b ≥ f + h + s;

or, eating booty is valued greater than or equal to a freak with a soul, who has hoes. Interestingly enough, the number of hoes does not matter. But keep in mind from above that b can only take on the value 0 or 1. If we assume the gentleman is not a booty-eater (or b=0), it automatically follows from the conditions above that no hoes must exist, Ms. Aiko is not a freak and no soul exists. Empirically, this makes sense. Assuming that the gentleman does eat booty (or b=1), either there is a single hoe, a single soul or a single freak. This is an interesting and powerful result. Ms. Aiko is inherently saying the existence of a soul will make the gentleman eat booty or, in other words, eating booty is completely independent of whether Ms. Aiko is a freak. By definition, if Ms. Aiko finds a man with a soul she believes, by her conditions, he will eat the booty like groceries. Even further – she needs not expose the freak (the condition where f=0). This is a powerful result that comes from Ms. Aiko’s analysis. Let us be clear – we do not purport to test the theoretical power of Ms Aiko’s Freak Exposure Theorem. We simply look to analyze the corollaries of her Theorem. There does exist a duality condition where from the gentleman’s viewpoint:

f ≥ b – h - s

meaning, the gentleman will only enter the transaction if the freak exposure is of greater value to him than eating booty, getting rid of his hoes and losing his soul. We will not explore this side of the duality condition in this post, like its “post to be”, but we hope to tackle this side of this equation in a future post.

**Please note this warning: the conditions are assumed to be additive... Ms. Aiko is not clear. They may very well should be analyzed as multiplicative conditions. We hope to take that approach in an updated post and analyze its results.

A multiplicative approach:
For the benefit of the reader, we must explore a multiplicative approach. From yesterday’s analysis, let us assume a multiplicative analysis, so from above we now have:

b * -h * -s ≥ f

which quite literally mean all conditions at a single point of time t must be met before the freak is exposed. Rearranging, we have
b * ≥ f / (-h * -s), but our denominator has two negative signs which we can rearrange such that:

b ≥ f / (h*s).

We assumed for simplicity, b can only take the values of 0 and 1, h is a non-negative integer and s, for the moment is an unknown. Let examine the case where
b = f / (hs).

In the case where b=0, or, there is no booty eaten, then f must by definition equal zero. No freaks exists in the absence of eaten booty. If h*s = 0, we would have an undefined solution. On the other hand, if b = 1 we now have:

1 = f / (hs)

Let’s assume for simplicity, the one must have a soul or not, so it can only take on values of 0 and 1. This is only an assumption for purposes of analysis as we do not purport to know “how much soul” someone can have (eg. reasonable people can disagree whether Justin Timberlake, for example, is “soulful”). We know that it may range anywhere between 0 and 1, but can possibly take any value in between. It is a relative judgment. Again, we simplify our analysis by only considering the case of 0 and 1. In the case where s = 0, we have an undefined solution – a zombie like state if you will. If s = 1 on the other hand, our equation becomes

1 = f/h or, rearranged, f = h.

What a result! Using a multiplicative analysis, Ms Aiko has literally said, assuming the case where a soul exists, and a booty is being eaten, you must have freak exposure and hoes being equal. I will leave it to the reader to reach their own ultimate conclusions, but in our view, if Ms Aiko is the only person around to get her booty eaten, it stands to reason that she must be the source of h. Clearly, this is not the result that Ms. Aiko expects. We implore her to review her theorem and submit a new analytical framework to expose her freak.

Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater: Inefficient Allocation of Incentives In the Tax Market and its Correlation with Increased Foreign Investment in “Pirates” by Rick Ross.

2012-12-15T14:52:00.003-05:00

Normally Raponomics does not delve into matters of faith and the spirit. However, every once in a while a spiritual philosopher blends matters of the celestial with the concrete with such adroitness that we would be careless if we did not offer their dissertations a worthy look.

We have found such a spiritual philosopher. We have found such a blend.

William Leonard Roberts II, aka Rick Ross aka Ricky Rozay aka your Favorite Hustla’s Favorite Hustla, (hereinafter referred to as “Ross”) is a man of obvious faith. What makes this theoretician a cut above the rest is, unlike most spiritual philosophers, he understands the explanatory power of economic theory in equal measures. Ross does not cloud persuasive power with rigid dogma. He understands the joint role that belief in a grander scheme has with remaining tethered in the mathematical and economic principles that undoubtedly exist on earth’s surface. In pursuit of these dual lenses for the answers to all great philosophical inquiries, Ross has exerted himself tirelessly to find his rank among the great theorists of our day. His efforts have paid off.

His work ethic is undeniable. One needs to simply peruse his calendar from July of last year to understand his Protestant devotion to the craft.

In his third album, Ross proclaimed that his words and his faith were “deeper than rap.” He further elucidated:

I look at the game and the business and all different aspects, it's a lot of great lyricists on the corner that will never properly understand the business and know how to market themselves and get in a position where they can gain capital. I look at all the strategies people use and what made them successful. What made Birdman just as relevant today after selling 50 million records? That intrigues me. To see the class of Jay-Z, his accomplishments and see how he sits backs and accurately makes his moves.

One can truly sense the intellectual curiosity of young Ross in his musings on the paths to greatness. You can also taste the yearning to be recognized. Ross works, to borrow a pun, religiously to be known in the annals of history as one of the greats. In his treatise “Pirates,” Ross may have finally found that groundbreaking work.

Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater: Inefficient Allocation of Incentives In the Tax Market and its Correlation with Increased Foreign Investment in “Pirates” by Rick Ross.

Ross is attempting to tackle a very complex and dense issue here. For the lay person, the issue at hand is the government’s role in giving tax breaks and loopholes to large corporations in order to incentivize increased domestic investment. As a background, there is a natural problem that all First World governments face: high levels of Democracy and employee rights also increase market wages. Succinctly, the more power that workers have and the less the government plays a role in setting equilibrium wages, the higher a worker’s wages will become.

The problem presents itself because poorer nations do not have such high market wages, and they typically have governments that set policies to depress wages as well. Therefore, poorer economies can entice large corporations to do business in their countries because employee wages are dramtically lower.

To offset this natural phenomena, First World governments often provide tax incentives to large corporations in order to reduce the comparative advantage of lower wages and persuade these corporations to keep their business in the home country, thus employing more domestic workers. This, in turn, decreases unemployment and increases overall economic stability.

However, as Ross argues persuasively in his dynamic work “Pirates,” the government can overstep its bounds and actually create too many tax breaks ('subsidies"). In essence, when the tax system has so many subsidies, savvy corporate entities can game the system and not pay taxes at all. Further, the governments cannot prevent this because the system has become so complex that they do not have the manpower or the resources to outsmart these savvy entities.

Let us now enter into the world of "Pirates" and use the words of Ross to further illuminate this complex conundrum.

Hallucination of money, while nigga's stomach just rumble

Ross pivots quickly to the underlying conclusion of his analysis: the government is providing loopholes and tax breaks (See Subsidies) to the “Haves” with the promises that this federal subsidy will be the catalyst for increased domestic investment and consequently improve the lives of the “Have Nots.” Ross avers that this has not occurred, as is evidenced by the phrase “nigga’s stomach just rumble.” Let us see if Ross provides a cure for this ailment.

Nigga living in rubble, within him labelled the rebel
Any nigga wan' rumble, somebody hand me a shovel
Gotta silence the lambs, get on my Buffalo Bill
Stepping off the Sonoma with the black dufflebag filled

This is where Ross’ biblical tradition really shines. Borrowing Liberation Theology, Ross provides a narrative from the perspective of the wealthy corporate decision-maker to highlight the mind state that has created this dilemma. The phrase “any nigga wan’ rumble, somebody hand me a shovel” is a vibrant portrayal of the disparities of power within this struggle. The corporate decision-maker is not troubled by the collective efforts of the working class to challenge the validity of their shifting to foreign investment. The cockiness of the phrase “any nigga wan’ rumble” is made ever so clearly by the curious use of the apostrophe. What is more striking, however, is what the corporate decision-maker seems to be stating about how he purports to combat the efforts of the working class.

Ross deftly displays how the working class, in this instance, is actually inadvertently fighting against itself. When the mythical corporate executive states “hand me a shovel,” he is personifying the average working class American. Thus, the corporate "shovel" is the divide of American working class unity. Essentially, the corporate decision-maker will “silence the lambs” by getting on his “Buffalo Bill” (i.e. aggressively turning the herd against itself) and forcing the working class to fight amongst themselves over the promise of mythical dufflebags full of prosperity.

Historically we have seen this phenomenon play out time and time again. The moment that the workers of the world begin to coalesce behind a common cause, those in power find psychological means to divide this united force. From using race-relations to break up unions, to alienating working class northerners amongst post-reconstruction southerners, the power of psychological distraction to force the “individual” to deviate from the collective interests of his economic strata is uncanny.

Brilliant! Ross outlines where our nation will lead should we continue to follow this path. He has also allowed us to view this problem through the lens of the corporate antagonist. We now only need to hear Ross’ remedies to prevent us from following this path to truly find salvation in this joyous masterpiece.

I'm rolling the dice, four, five, six
Young nigga, nineteen, four or five bricks
Praying on you niggas, sinners full of hate
God forgives and I don't, only hustlers relate

Ah! Ross insinuates to us that he will provide us with his strategy to overcome this dilemma by comparing his forthcoming solution to rolling a 4, 5, 6 in Cee-Lo (a winning combination in a dice game played throughout America). He also insinuates that it will be the youth of America that will be the impetus in implementing his solution. Let us delve deeper.

Product is in demand, profit not far behind
Got on my mother pearl, she fucking up father time
Babies be having babies, I'm talking 'bout how I grind
Niggas thinking its voodoo the way bricks be multiplying

Hmmm. Ross has provided us with the mathematical equation that will help us understand the underlying solutions of his economic theory.

First, Ross provides a basic economic principle that as demand increases, the market participant will also increase his profits if he adjusts the amount of goods he supplies to the market to meet demand.

However, he also provides us with a limiting principle: namely that the reason that the we do not see the basic principle outlined above is that the corporate entities are taking the government subsidies (See mother pearl), but not increasing their domestic investment over time (See fucking up father time). Thus, what we see here is that the user costs (production expenses i.e. goods or equipment) are decreasing because of government subsidies, yet the expenditures on domestic labor are not seeing equivalent increases. The above tautology can be seen in the following equation:
A¹ + (G¹ + B¹) – G = (user costs).

Further, the marginal propensity to consume labor (See hire more employees) is not increasing as investment increases. Traditionally, one would see that as investment (in this instance, government subsidies) increases, their would be some sort of proportional increase in employment in the relevant sector.

ΔYw = ΔCw + ΔIw

However, as Ross has plainly stated: the corporations are not being incentivized by the government subsidies and are instead continuing to move their investments overseas.

In a dramatic turn, Ross explicates that the entire system of providing government subsidies to large corporations is creating greater losses to the American labor force than would occur if no system of subsidies existed at all. AHA! Ross is saying that we should do away with the system entirely. Striking! Ross warns that while the idea that not doing anything at all may appear to be a form of "voodoo," he assures us it is not.

Ross argues that “bricks be multiplying” or in this instance, the number of corporations are growing. As one generation leaves (See Babies be having babies), another one replaces it. Ross postulates that the next generation of corporate decision-makers will decide to remain in the country without the government subsidies.

Hmmm, this is an interesting proposition. Let us see if Ross explains why the next generation of corporate entities will have a greater aversion to bringing their businesses overseas in pursuit of larger profits.

Affiliated with wealth, associated with death
Self-made millionaire, snatch a triple beam off the shelf
Straight Grim Reaper, Air Jordans walking the streets
Blackberry boss -- one call, ya put to sleep

Interesting! Ross argues that the future generations of corporate entities will have a greater disincentive towards bringing their business overseas because the overall American economy is beginning to decline (See associated with death & Straight Grim Reaper). While corporations can drive up profits overseas, they still rely on the infrastructure, technological knowledge and transportation capabilities that is generated by American workers. Ross argues that the situation has become dire and the next generation of corporate entities will need to invest in America to ensure that their very infrastructure will have the capabilities to even send their business overseas in the next 50 years. Essentially, in the boom and bust cycles of all economies there comes times where the pursuit of wealth is paused, briefly, to contribute to the overall health of the ailing national economy. Ross believes that we are at that moment.

Should Ross be accurate in his propositions, we may find that the time to change tax policy is right now. By abandoning subsidies all together, Ross argues we will create a new generation of nationally invested corporate entities beholden to the overall strength of their mother country. Ross’ proposition is dire, but it is clear. Let us see if Ross has the ear of policy makers in Washington and whether the “Rozay Corrollary” finds its way into the annals of economic theory.

Argument Presentation: A.

Labor Market Allocation and Market Valuation - Determining Value in Opaque Markets - It's Good by Lil' Wayne, Jadakiss and Drake

2012-11-20T20:32:00.000-05:00

Darkseid has shifted our view to an important market that has been much discussed within the past few years: the labor market. I thank him for his timely posts on Labor Equilibrium and Trickle Down policies. Please, if you haven’t, I would ask that you digest his posts closely and carefully. Now, every once in a while, the “masters” of the rap universe, philosophers in their own right, release a song that clearly outlines the pitfalls of understanding the labor market as it is traditionally modeled in economic theory. While I may be very bold in saying this – this is that song.

First, let’s examine the players in this philosophical tirade. Jadakiss, known as Jason Phillips to his parents, is arguably a legend. Lil’Wayne, or Dwayne M. Carter, has been making a name for himself over the past few years. Finally, Drake (his middle name), or Aubrey Graham, under the tutelage of Lil’ Wayne has entered the discipline with a force unseen in history. Now, let us examine the arguments in “It’s Good.”

You who are rich and whose troubles are few,
May come around to see my point of view, What price the crown of a King on his throne, When you're chained in the dark all alone....

What an introduction! “You who are rich and your troubles are few.” Clearly, the authors begin with the premise that the economic positions of those who are “rich”, undefined in this thesis, have few troubles. We can agree that the rich (we’ll define it based on net worth) would have the resources available to pay for unexpected problems that may arise. But clearly, the authors have picked out only the set of economic actors who are rich and meet the condition "troubles are few." We assume it allows them the resources to purchase other goods. The authors continue that those sets of economic actors will come to see the “price of a King on his throne, when [they] are chained in the dark all alone.” We will come to see what this means in a bit.

Jadakiss begins his argument:

I’m as real as they come, I follow the rules

I’m still in the hood but I probably should move

Made enough money, I don’t fuck around

I just felt they needed me, so I stuck around

We need to deconstruct the economic meaning behind this first verse. Under normal economic consumer theory, as consumer income grows, they begin to substitute away from inferior goods to normal goods. Specifically, they switch to luxury goods, a good whose demand increases more than proportionally as income rises (elasticity greater than 1). Jadakiss should under normal consumer theory consume more “house” in a higher cost neighborhood. He sees the externalities associated with his leaving the hood as an implicit cost, thereby extending this “new” consumer theory to include the externalities of consuming luxury goods on the “hood’s” need for Jadakiss to continue to reside there.

Feds got my man, shit is real son
Cause my god son just became my real son

Think life is a game but all you get is a turn

You live and you learn, either you freeze or you burn

Kush in the air, I’m pushing the gears

Love turned into hate, hate turned into fear

Jadakiss presents a fatalistic vision of capitalism Economic actors are faced with a single choice or decision point and must learn from that single choice. He does not go on about whether opportunities will present themselves again, so we are left to guess what he believes about choices after the single decision point.

If it ain't right, I don’t sign the deal

Shoot me in the watch, I got time to kill

Gasoline, propane, ain't no salary cap in the dope game

Ain't no collective bargaining on cocaine

So in other words nigga, do your thing

Wow! What a claim! “Ain’t no salary cap in the dope game, ain’t no collective bargaining on cocaine, so in other words nigga, do your thing.” Jadakiss makes the claim that there is no salary cap in the “dope game.” This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the labor market and a gross misallocation of resources. By advertising that the “dope game” has unlimited earning potential, Jadakiss clearly avoids speaking of the associated costs such as potential prison time and loss of inventory. What can he possibly be thinking? Further, the sale of “dope” is a market based on commission, not salary. Jadakiss clearly does not understand the mechanisms of this market. Further there is no “collective bargaining” on cocaine. He is correct, insofar as there are no set hours, benefits, etc. when selling cocaine. Sellers in that market serve as independent contractors and there earnings are limited to the inventory available at the time. Jadakiss cannot think that there is an unlimited inventory of cocaine available for sale. If that were the case, in a competitive labor market, participants will come into the market until it is no longer lucrative to enter the cocaine market. Clearly, Jadakiss is has not expressed the true costs of selling cocaine. Distortions in the labor market will continue our current pattern of high unemployment. Jadakiss is not doing anyone any favors.

[Drake]
Mind in one place, heart in another
Please pardon my brother
He’s just angry at you niggas who don't have your heart in your rap shit
And got too fuckin comfy, cause we still fuckin hungry
Young Money, got the munchies

Drake explains his take on the labor market. He believes the participants in the “rap” labor force have had decreasing productivity (“don’t have your heart in your rap shit”). They (Young Money) on the other hand are willing to spend more time and resources in order to on order to produce a high quality product. Let’s be clear, this is not a tangible product they are producing. This continues along Darkseid’s deconstruction of Pusha-T’s post-industrial America. He argued in his thesis :

“However, this theory rests on the assumption that each individual that is being added to the business is contributing to the production. It appears from Pusha T's strenuous research that this is no longer the case. He is bravely pointing out a significant market inefficiency.” -

"Economies of Scale?", Darkseid, Nov.19

Clearly Drake agrees – the rappers who have been added to the rap game have not contributed to “good” production. There are too many players in the rap game who are producing a poor product (see the earlier post on Soulja Boy) and thereby wasting precious resources. This is yet another call for the reallocation of labor resources, but unfortunately he does not make it clear that the Jadakiss theorem is wrong on its face.

[Lil Wayne]
Swimmin’ in the money, Imma need some fuckin goggles
Its better to give, but we don't give a fuck about ‘em
I just came home, shit then got real hoe
Lil Weezy-ana, the boot nigga, steal toe
I ain't workin with a full deck but I deal hoe
I just touched down, kick the motherfuckin field goal
Talkin ’bout baby money? I got your baby money
Kidnap your bitch, get that ‘how much you love your lady’ money

Finally, Lil’ Wayne weighs in. He first makes a normative claim that it is “better to give”, but refines his argument saying that “giving a fuck about them” is not something he is willing to do. This can only mean the costs of doing so are too high for Mr. Carter – he would rather spend resources elsewhere. But Mr. Carter exploits the market in the two final lines above – “Talkin ’bout baby money? I got your baby money, Kidnap your bitch, get that ‘how much you love your lady’ money” Mr. Carter is making an amazing claim here – that he can value the price of a human life! He simply needs to kidnap the subject and figure out the markets willingness to pay. What an interesting experiment. Mr. Carter may be on to something. He has proposed a solution to a vexing question – what is the value of a human life? Mr. Carter seems to propose a natural experiment – kidnap said person, then figure what is the market’s willingness to pay is! Everyone must have some value, and Mr. Carter proposes that he will find that value.

The blistering overview, while full of some market fallacies, is interesting in its presentation and presents some important research questions that we believe should be followed up.

Argument Presentation: A-

"Who will save your soul?" Replacing Social Ethics with Trickle Down Policies, But at What Cost? in "Pain" by Fabolous.

2012-11-20T18:08:00.002-05:00

While on the topic of treatises, I would be dilatory in my approach if I did not review an exposition of one of the most vitriolic debates in the recent election: "Trickle Down Economics." To the unitiated, Trickle Down Economics is based on the premise that within an economy, giving money (in the form of tax breaks and other subsidies) to the top earners of the nation will stimulate increased investment by those top earners into the broader economy. According to this rationale, the economy as a whole will grow and job numbers will increase as these top earners are provided with more capital. This concept has created much heated debate in economic circles.

It goes without question that the rap community would have a dramatic departure from the typical discourse on the subject. For one, rap represents a larger percentage of impoverished individuals. Secondly, it also contains a higher percentage of blacks, who have been denied the levels of wealth that could coalesce the community around supporting any policy involving financial incentives to the wealthy.

It is thus no suprise that one of the oldest and most astute philosophers from the rap community, Fabolous, has devised a provocative critique of the very machinations justifying government subsidies for top earners. With that, let us begin.

I’m old enough to know better, young enough to not give a fuck
Rather hold my head high and die than live and duck
If you’re cool being taken down and giving up
Your lifestyle’s a blow job, the way you’re living sucks!
I done felt pain, waited but no help came

My oh My, what an intro! Summoning the spirits of "Occupy Wall Street," Fabolous postulates in very serious terms about the divide between the rich and the poor. The anger in his call to arms almost obscures the true reality: Fabolous has lived for several years trying to survive in a system that promises social mobility, however he has not realized the opportunity of the American dream. The final phrase, "I done felt pain, waited but no help came" is an effortless personification of the American ideal of generational progress. There is an undeniable subtext of pain in this passage; a longing to fit within the traditional confines of economic mobility, but finding oneself outside of the box.

Fabolous is not actually looking for help, but rather simply stating that he was willing to work within the confines of sacrificing immediate reward for the future of himself and his next generation. It appears, from the tone of the language, that Fabolous no longer believes in this ideal. He equates waiting for the social engines to drive generational growth as akin to lying down. Further, in perhaps his first turn to hyperbole Fabolous analogizes living under the previous paradigm of American exceptionalism and social darwinism is equivalent to waiting patiently for the promise of human ejaculate.

You ever been dying of thirst and smelt rain
Ever been told “go to hell” and felt flames
The water’s to your neck and only gets deeper
Its all down hill and it only gets steeper
Gotta get over it, be a hurdle leaper

The feeling of hopelessness in this passage is visceral. The pure poetry of this prose echoes the muted moans of countless proletariat in ways that only Fabolous can deliver. We can see here the true vortex of Fabolous' argument: there is an undeniable negative externality associated with "trickle down" economics.

This is not an externality that one can quantify or display conveniently in graph form. Fabolous challenges us to go the streets and see the "children left behind" by the unfulfilled promise of a new economy for them. Fabolous summons John Maynard Keynes without the academic glamour and glitz; he has seen that increased income for the rich does not translate into equivalent rises in GDP or income equality. He knows it, feels it and can display it in ways that conjure up images of Yeats in his prime.

The main question to this point is will Fabolous' observations and feelings measure up to empirical evidence. Let us first begin by unpacking the basic economic models that will be used in this analysis.

"When businesses are optimistic about the future and invest in building and retooling, the economy booms, all of us make more money and we put some of it in banks, 401(k)s, stocks, and so on. That is, saving grows to match investment. When companies are glum, the process runs in reverse, and savings shrink to equal investment. This leads to the “paradox of thrift”: if people try to save too much, businesses will see less consumer spending, will invest less, and total savings will end up diminishing rather than growing as the economy spirals downward. A number of Keynes’s followers added the next logical step: shifting money from the high-saving rich to the high-spending rest of us, and not the other way around, will spur investment and growth." - Chris Tilly

The above passage competently portrays the fallacy of providing monetary incentives to the rich: there is no guarantee they will not just place that money into savings and stifle the economy instead.

Further, the empirical evidence garnered by the Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") reverberates the angry cries of Fabolous and Mr. Tilly's theories. In fact, the CBO found that the lack of growth in the middle and lower class staggering.

This data is only confirmed when you look at the income disparity in America as compared to the rest of the world. In terms of inequality, America is bedfellows with the unflattering likes of Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda, Uganda and Ecuador.

It appears that Fabolous is on to something. Let us move forward in his masterpiece to determine if his initial vigor is matched throughout. One can only hope that Fabolous remains strong in his ability to transform the complex economic phenomenons of the world into digestible portrayals of human frailty.

It cost to be the boss, and it ain't get no cheaper
But there’s a man above that we all under bro
No bread truck but he work wonders though!
After you wake up, everything is wonderful
You can overcome anything you undergo

In this stanza, Fabolous calls for all of us under the auspices of Trickle Down Economics to "Wake Up!" We are all under a class of top earners in respect to power, education and opportunity, however Fabolous posits that true power is derived from human capital in numbers. He proclaims that once the workers of the world unite and support Keynesian elected officials everything will be wonderful. Fantastic! Fabolous has pivoted, without any reduction in intellectual velocity, from a discussion of the intersection between economics and humanism to a charged examination of the untapped power of voter participation.

Yet, it seems so natural. Alas, the driving force of any economic idea is, of course, the ability for policy makers to institute and sustain it. Fabolous incites the fires of change through a two-tiered polemic of political and economic solidarity for the working class. We can only hope that the remaining verses are as astoundingly illuminating as the previous.

Dreams of splurging riches, pretty but curvy missus
Chef to serve the dishes, driver to swerve the ditches
I’m just another kid on the curb with wishes
And the streets is tough, on the verge of viscious
So I sold weed and crack, merged the business
That white girl helped a nigga, Fergalicious
But getting money bring jealousy and verbal disses
So when you killing shit watch out for the murder witness

Ah, Fabolous takes a moment from educating the masses to portray the pitfalls of failing to come together in solidarity. He cites jealousy, envy and stress as mitigating factors shrinking the natural fervor to improve ones own position. The old phrase "crabs in a barrel dragging each other down" comes to mind. Obviously, Fabolous is aware of the uphill battle he faces in igniting the masses behind his cause, but if you pay close attention to the tone of his passage you can uncover a muted optimism. Let us peruse the phrase "So I sold weed and crack, merged the business, that white girl helped a nigga, Fergalicious."

Knowing Fabolous' depth and complexity, it goes without saying that he is not literally referring to giving up on the traditional economy and selling drugs. No, no, no, he is merely calling for the great economic thinkers of the Marxist tradition to eschew notions of neo-liberal capitalist success and uncover a new course, nary a new zeitgeist for a united proletariat to cheerfully follow. His dedication to double-entendre warms my soul!

Cause soon as a nigga could the sooner a nigga will
And I don’t owe these niggas nothing
Put that in a nigga will

Alas, we are not disappointed in the outro. He contends that the sooner we get together, the sooner the economic utopia becomes reality. I sit here in peace thinking that one day my children might live in this beautiful picture that Faboulous has painted for our academic senses. Furthermore, his devotion walks up to and even embraces potential death, as Fabolous is willing to devote everything in his capacity to fight for those currently experiencing the disparities in income and opportunity. Even if they do not think they are willing to fight themselves. Bravo, Fabulous your grace in literature can only be matched by the purity of your heart.

In the great words of Mr. Schumpeter, "[w]e fight for and against not men and things as they are, but
for and against the caricatures we make of them."

Nobody understands this more than Fabolous.

Argument Presentation: A++

Economies of Scale? A critique on Assessing Labor Equilibrium in Today's post-industrial American Economy in "Exodus 23:1" by Pusha T.

2012-11-19T12:30:00.004-05:00

Pusha T - "Exodus 23:1"

Welcome back Raponomics! To piggyback on Keynes previous post, I would like to touch on a very important economic idea in our current times. I am of course talking about the dramatic decrease in the production of real goods in today's economy. America has lost its comparative advantage in the manufacturing of goods: other economies, such as China, Malaysia and Brazil, have lower reservation wages, lower production costs and a large pool of employees who are willing to do low-skilled manufacturing work.

Long gone are the days of American factories producing real goods that could be purchased in a market and provide a discernible value to the consumer. Today we find that most of what we produce in today's economy is academic: speculation, providing training, advice and non-essential goods. The success of an average business in today's economy relies more on marketing than functionality, salesmanship than substance and spits in the face of traditional economic models of efficiency.

So, in today's world does the old addage: "more workers equal more efficiency" still ring true? Does adding to the labor increase the quality of our goods and decrease its cost in the market like it did during the auto boom of the 1930's? Many intellectuals, including Richard Posner, are continuously questioning this idea, painting a dismal future for the American economy and their ability to compete against the Tiger Economies and survive in the 21st century.

Other economists are not so pessimistic. Most notably, the great orator and economist, Pusha T, has recently published a treatise that provides a new idea; namely that there is no cause for alarm because the returns to economies of scale have been severely overstated in foreign economies due to changing economic realities.

Let us unearth the arguments that Pusha T presents in his oeuvre "Exodus 23:1."

Beef is best served like steak well done
Get a gun in your face, bitch nigga
Beef will have you praying to God
Move your kids, have you hiding your mom
Beef is when you hide behind them other niggas
But they ain't killers they ain't pullin them triggers, fuck niggas
Beef will have you keying our cars
Heartbroke, yours don't look like ours

Pusha T, in Alligherian fashion, begins his discussion by outlining what the stakes are in this modern economic struggle. The way in which he paints our future appears to be grisly and pessimistic. He follows a prevalent paradigm: it has been long held that there is a direct correlation between poverty and crime, thus it should also follow that increased poverty will in turn increase misery and suffering. Pusha T seeks to demonstrate the long term effects of an unsustainable economy in his Dickensian portrayal of the decline of moral conduct in an economy with low employment numbers.

I admire this humanistic approach. To draw his readers in, Pusha T seeks to create a tangible picture of the raw data and projections in narrative form. Let us see how he follows this literary technique.

Contract all fucked up
I guess that means you all fucked up
You signed to one nigga that signed to another nigga
That's signed to three niggas, now that's bad luck
Damn that shit even the odds now

Here Pusha T unleashes a scathing critique on employment practices. He scoffs at the fact that many businesses are merely there to own other companies and do not produce any actual wealth themselves. From this we are given a pointed question: "if your wealth producing capacity is being used to support other companies, then are you actually becoming more efficient by the expansion of your business?" This is a very poignant assessment when one considers the old understandings of business expansion.

Traditionally, when one expands a business by employing more individuals you see a measurable increase in production and efficiency. It acts as the driving force for moving towards full employment. Increased production and efficiency is the incentive structure that causes owners to employ more individuals and thus grow the economy.

However, this theory rests on the assumption that each individual that is being added to the business is contributing to the production. It appears from Pusha T's strenuous research that this is no longer the case. He is bravely pointing out a significant market inefficiency. As Pusha aptly states "now thats bad luck." What has driven the original nigga to be associated with so many companies? Why is he increasing the wealth of others with no seeming contribution on the part of these beneficiaries?

Could it be that because our economy produces less real goods but continues to maintain similar population numbers that there are not enough real jobs out there? That in order to reach full employment we must accept inherent inefficiencies and free riders? Perhaps this is why Pusha T is not as concerned as other economists regarding the recent rise of smaller economies in the manufacturing market. Pusha insinuates that the increased employment numbers are not indicators of actual growth, but instead the Chinas, Malaysias and Brazils of the world are merely artificially increasing their growth at an unsustainable rate.

Conversely, Pusha T praises America for not falling into this same trap. While the American economy appears to be failing to compete in today's global market, Pusha is unfazed. He believes that our current fall is laying the foundation for a new economic model that will provide truly sustainable growth in the future.

It shows in the homes I done tried that
That's why you'll never be my neighbors
Smile as you waving but we know you niggas hate us
Fuck you playing games for?
Don't be scared get everything you came for
They got you talking that big shit
Little do you know we don't miss shit
Them niggas using you as a pawn
You see they never loaded they guns
Now you out here all by yourself
Ask Steve Jobs' wealth don't buy health

This is where Pusha T really brings it home! He issues a challenge and a referendum to the artificial growth of the Tiger economies. One phrase deserves reiterating:

It shows in the homes I done tried thatThat's why you'll never be my neighborsSmile as you waving but we know you niggas hate usFuck you playing games for?

Pusha T analogizes sustainable economic growth with purchasing a home. To illustrate, in order to purchase a home you must either have: (1) all the capital up front; or (2) a down payment and enough future income to support your mortgage payments. If an individual is artificially inflating his income, then he may be able to make the down payment on the home, but he will not be able keep up with his mortgage payments down the road. We have seen this phenomenon play out very clearly in the most recent housing crisis. He rebukes China's standing in the global economy as a mere "Emperor's New Clothes" cautionary tale. While China believes their new found growth is sustainable, it is merely an invisible cloak that cannot disguise the real truth: the Tiger model will ultimately collapse.

Pusha T then engages in a very aggressive undressing of the idea of the modern economy fallacy. He seems to offer a Nostradamus like prediction, we will see a precipitous fall of the rising economies in the future. The phrase "them niggas using you as a pawn" harkens back to the idea that artificial growth is really a government tactic designed to legitimize regimes and appease the people. Pusha indicates that the people are being bamboozled by the false promise of future growth. They are pawns in this game and their national sacrifice is not being rewarded with sound economic policy.

In his last two phrases Pusha all but comes out and warns the foreign economic engines that death is certain. One cannot help but to be optimistic given Pusha T's diagnosis of current economic trends. I give Kudos to his argument style as well as his deviation from the current fear-mongering in economic scholarship. I believe Pusha T has hit on an important issue here that demands more research. Let us hope that Pusha is not done addressing the fallacies of the current booms and busts in the modern economy, and that this is merely an introduction in a long line of treatises on the subject.

Argument Presentation: B+

Kanye West (Sort of) Defends Tax Policy -

2012-11-18T20:35:00.005-05:00

Welcome back. We've taken quite the hiatus. What would bring us back to the lab to analyze the economics of rap music? Well, with all the talk in Washington of taxing the rich and spending cuts, Kanye West weighed into the argument with his latest collaboration with Jay-Z and Big Sean. Along the way, we'll examine some other claims made in the song.

But to begin, let's examine Kanye West's claims in his verse:

Break records of LouieAte breakfast at Gucci
My girl a superstar all from a home movie
Bow on our arrival the unamerican idols
What niggas did in Paris got em hanging off the Eiffel
Yeah I’m talking business
We talking CIA
I’m talking George Tenet
I seen him the other day
He asked me about my Maybach
Think he had the same
Except mine tinted and his might have been rented
You know white people get money don’t spend it
Or maybe they get money, buy a business
I rather buy 80 gold chains and go ig’nant
I know Spike Lee gon kill me but let me finish
Blame it on the pigment, we living no limits
Them gold master p ceilings was just a figment
Of our imagination, MTV cribs

Kanye West steps into the crossfire of the debate in Washington making the claim that when white people are given more money, there are 2 options a) they save, rather than spend or b) they invest in businesses. On the other hand, when he is given more money, he decides to spend it on "consumer" goods, namely 80 gold chains. Further, he goes "ig'nant" with the additional money he is given. He attributes his consumerism to his pigment and lastly, he has no limits to what he will spend. This is a strong argument - let's unpack it.

Consumer spending makes up 70% of spending in the US economy. If Kanye is right, personal consumer spending should not increase as net worth increases. As we can see from above, that is not what has happened. But, Kanye can still be right if we are to believe the increase in consumer spending is attributed to people of Kanye's pigmentation and predilections - especially his love for gold chains.

A Kanye effect? Who knows. But Kanye claims that giving folks like him more money will increase consumer spending, and by extension, lower unemployment. This is the Kanye stimulus plan. We can only assume he supports the expiration of Bush era tax levels for the rich. Rather, the government should concentrate on tax cuts for the "ig'nant", which will stimulate the economy. Spike Lee disagrees (but can not unpack Mr. Lee's arguments here - we do not have his theories spelled out). Kanye makes a convincing argument in some respects. He has already "[broken] records at Louie Vuitton". Over the past year, LVMH has been up almost 14%. His approach seems to have worked internationally. The question is should we import his stimulus plan? Washington policy makers have much to think about.

Again - welcome back! We'll probably come back and analyze some sets laid out by Big Sean in his thesis.

Short term Benefits vs. Long term Costs: A progressive look into the utility of the early adopter theorem in “Games” by Big L

2009-10-16T18:10:00.012-04:00

This masterpiece is Mr. L’s first foray into the game theory of romantic relationships. With that introduction we shall begin.

Check it, a year ago I did a show for some dough
Puffed a bag of hydro then broke out on the low
And on my way out, it was a female on my trail
who followed me from the stage to the Benz SL
I asked honey her name, she replied, "Monique"
Soft and sweet, from her head to feet, hotter than heat

Mr. L begins by detailing with a vivid description of the woman whom he is addressing in the initial scenario. We know from this stanza three defining characteristics right off the bat; the woman is named Monique, she is very effeminate and approachable and she is undeniably aesthetically appealing. Let us pause for one second to state for the purposes of clarity that judging from the tone of the piece thus far, these are all positive qualities in the mind of the author. Mr. L is intrigued by his initial interaction with this woman and in satiating his natural curiosity he will most undoubtedly seek to learn more about this mysterious enigma.
Mr. L also illuminates the fact that to this point he has put little to no effort in gaining the affection of this mysterious woman. As a point of presentation he tells us that he was in a relaxed state of mind after consuming a measurable amount of THC, he attempted to leave the facility inconspicuously, but nonetheless Monique followed him zealously and persistently. It is important to note that at this stage in the game, Mr. L has incurred no costs to obtain the hypothetical benefit of this mysterious women’s affection (we can assume benefit based upon the positive description and enjoyment of interaction described in the stanza). While, at this particular point he has not seen any “tangible” fruits to this benefit, we have only just began our journey.
From a business perspective, Mr. L has begun to create wealth without actually investing any of his own capital into the enterprise.

Jump in the passenger seat, let's go get somethin to eat
She said I was that Roc-a-Fella she'd been dyin to meet

Here we see that Mr. L begins to incur some costs to maintain the benefit he is receiving from Monique’s affections. To continue receiving this benefit Mr. L agrees to drive the woman (incurring costs of gas and wear and tear to his automobile decreasing it’s market value) and take her out to dinner (incurring the costs of the bill, tip and opportunity costs of potentially using that time to create wealth of some form). We have dramatically departed from what was initially a low cost high benefit venture to what is now moving closer towards equilibrium or possibly disequilibrium.
To make an intelligent determination of where Mr. L currently stands, in regards to the profit making venture he is undertaking with Monique, we must begin to interpret the relative value of the potential benefits and the likelihood that these benefits will be realized.
First, the benefit that Mr. L is currently receiving can most aptly be broken down into social company and the emotional benefits as a result of his amorous sentiment. To place a value on these two services, we must look to see if there is a comparable service in the free market and then determine what the value of that service is naturally in that market. Upon research it was found that there is a comparable market service for social companionship. Elite Miami Escorts (http://www.rates.elitemiamiescorts.com/) charges between $600-$800 dollars per hour for the service of social companionship. This means that, absent Monique, Mr. L would have to pay, on average, $700 an hour for the service he is now receiving. We also found a comparable market service for creating and enhancing amorous sentiment. Cynthia’s One Girl Phone Sex Service (http://www.cum4phone.com/payments.htm) charges $2.25 a minute or $135 an hour for a similar service. This means that, absent Monique, Mr. L would have to pay $135 an hour for the service he is receiving right now. At this point in the analysis, Mr. L is receiving the equivalent of $835 an hour worth of benefits, yet he has only incurred the costs of about $110 an hour (this is assuming he drives an H3 and is eating at a moderately-high priced dining establishment). The current profitability of Mr. L’s venture at this point is staggering. He is receiving immediate short term benefits for his enterprise and as a rational actor will mostly likely continue to pursue it and maximize his profits.

I tried to hit it first night, she said she wasn't a freak
Yeah right - it's all good, so I waited a week

Now that Mr. L has established his venture and created a profit maximizing opportunity for himself, he is wondering: how can I expand this venture to create new economic opportunities? The next most logical step for Mr. L is to try to “hit it.” For the uninitiated, the phrase “hit it” is a common cultural usage to describe having sexual intercourse. With vigor, but perhaps in haste, Mr. L attempts to expand his enterprise on the first night, by attempting to have sexual intercourse with Monique. She respectfully declines, letting Mr. L know that he will have to continue his enterprise at its current operating capacity until the market is ripe for expansion.
Mr. L shows his willingness to continue the operation at this rate of return, however he provides a limitation. He only finds the venture, as it currently stands, worth undertaking for one more week and if he does not begin to see greater profit margins, he threatens to close down operations altogether and seek new wealth making opportunities. This is quite peculiar, as it stands Mr. L is benefiting to the equivalent of $725 an hour in his current situation, but demands more. It is clear that while Mr. L is content in the current situation, in a week his reservation wage will rise to a level higher than what he is currently receiving.

Then one night to my crib she decided to creep
Knocked on a nigga door and woke me outta my sleep
I let her in before you know it we was doin our thang
I drove her home, and said tomorrow give me a ring
It was about a month later when she gave me a call
with some bogus ass story that was off the wall
Claimin she's pregnant with my child, I think that's quite foul
How is that? I wore a Lifestyle

It becomes clear that before the week deadline, Monique acquiesces to Mr. L’s proposition. At this point Mr. L has earned a new benefit in his venture; sexual intercourse (see hittin’ it). The value of this service is much harder to detect, as it is illegal to purchase in the United States. However, when we look abroad, we find that a comparable service to the one Mr. L is receiving would cost him $600 an hour, absent the willingness of Monique. We have just seen the profits to Mr. L’s enterprise skyrocket! He is now earning the equivalent of $1,325 an hour and will most assuredly remain an actor in this market. If we are to assume a typical 2hr session plus another 6hrs of platonic co-mingling; Mr. L is earning the equivalent of $2,650 a day or a staggering $689,000 a year! Let us pause and just contemplate the future earning potential of this enterprise considering the amount of growth it has made in just one week!
However, an unforeseen cost rears its ugly head. It appears while blindly seeking short term earnings; Mr. L has overlooked the long term costs of his enterprise. While his enterprise will have 9 more months of earnings at this rate of return, he will eventually become a father and incur significant costs. It is important to note that had Mr. L never undertook this venture there is no way he would have incurred these measurable expenses.
This begs the question: in pursuit of attractive short term benefits, did Mr. L miscalculate the earning potential and enter the market without contemplating all the relevant factors?
To come to a conclusion on this matter we must determine what the true value of his long term costs will actually be. According to NuWire Investor, by the time a child graduates, the parents will have spent a total of $432,885. This money could buy 28 pounds of gold bullion, and would have accumulated into $964,236.93 before tax in a traditional IRA. Taking the true costs of the child, $964,236.93 (rounded to a million for simplicity), we find that Mr. L, during an equivalent period, will have earned around $11.7 million dollars worth of utility in his profit making venture. When you subtract the costs of the child we find that Mr. L has now earned $10.7 million or $629,000 a year.
This new figure is conspicuously lower than what Mr. L was previously earning without the child, but more than what he was receiving before sexual intercourse. Is the figure as it stands now, worth having undertaken the venture in the first place? Let us move further through his fields of logic to make this determination.

A lot of broads is fraud, they'll set you up Baby Pah
Some'll try to get you stuck up, some'll fake pregnancy
Most are after the dough, and the fame basically
Yo you can't make a hoe a housewife kid
Pick the wrong chick - could be a lifetime bid

It appears from this negative reflection on his choice that he is not satisfied with having entered the market to begin with. Mr. L is now left to nostalgically look at his position at time 0 (before entering the market) with fondness, and work within the current confines of his predicament to attempt to make the most of his all-too-quickly undertaken journey into the business world. While, Mr. L's cognizance of his mistake does him no service, his anecdote provides invaluable market information to future comers and shows the inherent costs associated with becoming an early adopter.

Argument Presentation: A+

Weighing Diverse Disutilities: The value of various negative subgroups and conduct in "99 Problems" by Jay-Z

2009-10-12T21:46:00.020-04:00

Mr. Carter has been referred to as the “king of the rap game,” as the “greatest that ever did it” or more speculatively the “best rapper dead or alive.” In order to truly speak to this greatness, we find it imperative to critique one of Mr. Carter’s most famous economic analyses, “99 Problems.”

If you're havin' girl problems i feel bad for you son
I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one

Mr. Carter begins the journey by creating a comparative analysis. He states that he feels bad for those who have girl problems, despite the fact that he has 99 different problems of his own. Logic would dictate that a man that has 99 problems of any sort would not compare himself favorably to someone who has one girl problem; however Mr. Carter seems to find so much disutility in girl problems that he operates in a world where the marginal rate of substitution of girl problems relative to all other problems is strangely high. This means for every introduction of 1 unit of girl problems there are an exponentially larger amount of units of negative externalities not normally associated with the larger subset known as “general” problems. In essence, these girl problems are a unique animal that operate under different rules than the normal "general" problem, where a large number of normal problems are more desirable to Mr. Carter than a smaller set of girl problems, even though both provide quantifiable disutilities. We know this because Mr. Carter seems to be speaking to the entire universe (there are no qualifiers in the description of those he is addressing), which undoubtedly includes those who only have one female problem. The listener can draw TWO conclusions from this analysis:

(1) Mr. Carter finds greater relative utility in having 99 problems (none of which are related to women), than having one girl problem. It is clear, under this interpretation of his treatise, in regards to overall utility; where A = (problems of every sort, except those relating to girls) and N = (problems of many sorts, but all relating to girls) that (A)×(∞) < (N)×(1). [∞ being the symbol for infinity and × being the symbol for multiplication] Now even under this interpretation we may find that Mr. Carter only intended for 99 A-related problems to be the threshold equivalent for 1 N-related problem. To avoid the potential for exaggeration, and to proceed with the assumption that Mr. Carter will not throw out excessively large numbers to no practical value, we will assume that Mr. Carter truly meant; {(99)×(A) ‹ (1)×(N), but (100)×(A) ≥ (1)×(N).} -------------------------------------------------------------- OR ---------------------------------------------- (2) Despite his vagueness, Mr. Carter did not intend to speak to those who only have one girl problem at all (as is evidenced by the use of the plural, “girl problems”), but instead merely is seeking to speak to those who have an unidentified threshold number of female problems. In this scenario, Mr. Carter finds greater relative utility in having 99 problems (none of which are related to women or bitches), than having ⁿ girl problems. [ⁿ being the unidentified number of female problems required to create equilibrium in the problems market] Yet, under either scenario, the listener must infer that 1 female problem is not equal to 1 general problem. One truism is clear; there is greater disutility created per unit of female problems than is created per unit of general problems. We will proceed with this more general assertion, a consolidation of the prior two conclusions as to simplify our critique from here on out. Let us delve deeper into the piece to determine whether Mr. Carter better explains the rationale behind his alleged disutility analysis.
I got the rap patrol on the gat patrol
Foes that wanna make sure my casket's closed
Rap critics they say he's "Money Cash Hoes"
I'm from the hood stupid, what type of facts are those

Mr. Carter begins by illustrating for us 2 of his 99 problems. In this first stanza, Mr. Carter details with great clarity that there is an unidentified unit of people collectively referred to by the colloquialism “rap patrol,” and that this group actually covets his death. This group is not given any defining characteristics, nor do they need have them. In fact, Mr. Carter is merely impressing upon us the different types of problems that constitute what we previously defined as (A) problems of the non-bitch nature. It is from this categorization we must assume that the group labeled “rap patrol” is a gender specific group closed to women.
In the second part to this stanza we are told that he is criticized for the extent that he brings up the topics of money and women in his rhymes, but Mr. Carter fires back questioning the journalistic integrity of those who condemn his subject matter. We are not given any evidence that these criticisms have actually occurred, nor are we told who has been giving these critiques. However, these questions are irrelevant to his analysis, for Mr. Carter is merely trying to illustrate the vastly diverse types of conduct and scenarios that are to be classified as an (A) problem. His committment to laying the foundation to his later argument is admirable. However, this is assuming that this foundation eventually leads to an explanation of his calculation of the various disutilities present in his two groups of problems.

If you don't like my lyrics you can press fast forward
I got beef with radio if i don't play they show
They don't play my hits i don't give a shit SO
Rap mags try and use my black ass
So advertisers can give 'em more cash for ads, fuckers

Furthermore, Mr. Carter goes on to show that his critics do in fact create some unidentified amount of measurable disutility. Utilizing the bravado that he most definitely gained from the streets, he makes such statements as “I don’t give a shit” and “you can press fast forward” to create the implication that he is unaffected by their onslaughts, however a disciplined listener can read underneath actual meaning of these words to uncover their true meaning. Mr. Carter is not stating that these acts have a neglible effect on his happiness or personal utility; he is saying that he is a resilient actor and that these attacks on his character will be conquered by his strength of self-assurance. It is here again, that Mr. Carter gives us a glimpse of the real value that (A) problems have in relation to creating disutility.

Now once upon a time not too long ago
A nigga like myself had to strong arm a hoe
This is not a hoe in the sense of havin a pussy
But a pussy havin no God Damn sense, try and push me

Here, Mr. Carter gives us our first glimpse of why he places so much marginal disutility in (N) bitch-related problems. We are given from the text that in the past, Mr. Carter did himself have bitch-related problems, as is evidenced by his need to “strong arm” hoes in an apparent to attempt to offset the costs associated with dealing with these bitches.
In the next line we are thrown a monkey wrench, however. We are told that the definition we have been using all along for girl, bitch and hoe is inaccurate for his analysis. He tells us that by hoe, he is not referring to the definition meaning female member of the species, but instead he is referring to a much larger bi-gender group characterized by their hoe nature and tendency for lack of mental awareness.
We must make a dramatic halt to our critique and return to his original thesis statement to incorporate this unforeseen nuance.

If you're havin' girl problems i feel bad for you son
I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one

It has become clear from our deeper analysis that Mr. Carter is not concerned with the female species at all in his analysis. This means that we must refine several assertions that were overzealously adopted prior to our true understanding:
(1) the “rap patrol” previously determined to be consisted exclusively of men, now may be assumed to be a coed organization.
(2) “girl problems,” which were previously assumed to fall under the traditional definition of problems relating to: “a female child from birth to adulthood” (source Merriam Webster) must be refined to mean problems relating to any individual exhibiting female characteristics and lacking basic comprehension (see “havin no goddamn sense”).
(3) marginal disutility is found with problems associated with this newly defined subgroup and not, as was previously assumed, with the female race.
Now that we have made these essential clarifications, we may resume our analysis and venture deeper into his intellectual cavern to find more about this group that he cryptically refers to as girls, bitches and hoes.

You know the type loud as a motor bike
But wouldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight
The only thing that's gonna happen is I'ma get to clappin
He and his boys gon be yappin to the captain

Ahhhh! Mr. Carter has made us wait until the near end for clarity, but gives it to us in very concise and descriptive terms. We may now revise our analysis to read that (N) related problems are problems associated with individuals that exhibit the faux pas characteristics of acting like a bitch, not having common sense, talking loudly while being incapable of turning those words into action and being prone to snitching.
At this point in the opus we have identified three important features that deserve reiterating;

(1) problems associated with group (N) create marginal disutility for Mr. Carter.
(2) Mr. Carter at one time did, but no longer has (N) related problems.
(3) The absolute value of (N) related problems is some exponential degree greater than (A) related problems.

We are left with two unanswered questions: specifically, what is Mr. Carter doing now that allows him to avoid (N) related problems that had escaped him prior and why do (N) related problems create such distinctively larger disutility than (A) related problems. Unfortunately for the listener, these questions go unanswered. We are left to ponder the reasons for his personal aversion to (N) related problems and wonder why our own utility structures do not share such an unqualified distortion. We are left puzzled to say the least, wandering aimlessly in the donjons of Mr. Carter’s unqualified conundrum.

This author finds himself more confused now than before he opened up Mr. Carter’s work. I find his self-appointed title as “best rapper” is not supported by the evidence, as his argument lacks several important features, most significantly a qualifying rationale for his entire assertion. Let’s hope analysis of his future songs will not leave us so unfulfilled.

Argument Presentation: D+

Top 5 Best Rap Arguments

2009-10-12T08:38:00.000-04:00

5. Cam'ron on 60 Minutes on Snitching

4. Old Dirty Bastard on Keeping it Real

3. Joe Budden on Not Being about Small Talk

2. Jim Jones on the Definition of Beef

1. Jay-Z on Why He Couldn't Have Shot Cam'ron

Saying Too Much - When Incentive Structures Break Down: "Turn My Swag On" - Soulja Boy

2009-10-02T14:08:00.013-04:00

In a tribute to arguably the worst "rapper" in the market, we would would be remissed if we did not take the opportunity to exam his most popular jingle "Turn My Swag On" that seems to have taken off in the market.

Hopped up off tha bed
Turn ma swag on
Took a look in tha mirror said wassup (wassup)
Yeeeeea I'm gettin money (ohh)

DeAndre Ramone Way, better known to his followers as "Soulja Boy" (an abriged version of his full stage name "Soulja Boy Tell 'Em") opens up this "song" by telling us that he has just "hopped" off of his bed. This implies a sense of excitement. Rather than just rising from bed, DeAndre "hops" out of his bed. Unless DeAndre posses some unknown physical abilities, it is physically impossible to hop (jump lightly) while laying down. This must imply that DeAndre is in a standing position on his bed. DeAndre is excited and standing on his bed, prepared to hop. The scene is now set for our analysis. DeAndre then, "turns his swag on", then proceeds to look in the mirror to speak to himself - in fact, he says "wassup" to himself as if seeing himself for the first time. The event that occurs in between him hopping out of bed and speaking to himself in the mirror, "turn my swag on", is the event we need to analyze for it is the thesis to his song.
It is not immediately clear what DeAndre means by "swag", and what exactly he is turning on. There is no known machine that is referred to as the "swag", so he must be referring to a figuritive element which he has the power turn on or off. He leaves it to us to find the answer to these nagging questions. Merriam-Webster defines "swag" as a noun meaning :
1. a. An ornamental drapery or curtain draped in a curve between two points.
b. An ornamental festoon of flowers or fruit.
c. A carving or plaster molding of such an ornament.
2. Promotional items, especially when given for free, considered as a group.
3. Slang Stolen property; loot.
4. Australian The pack or bundle containing the personal belongings of a swagman.
5. Slang Herbal tea in a plastic sandwich bag sold as marijuana to an unsuspecting customer

One could argue definition 2 or 3 may imply that he has either stolen a radio or an electric razor or has been given it as part of a promotion, and is now in use of such stolen or free property. It is not immediately clear that he is speaking of an actual physical item though. Maybe if he claimed "I'm about to shave, turn my swag on", then one could argue that he is about to use a physical object. His definition seems to reside in the realm of the intagibles. To get at the true definition, we must use non-traditional sources to understand what he speaks of. I believe most sociologists would not disagree with the use of the Urban Dictionary so we can extract the relevant meanings in this cultural piece. According to the Urban Dictionary, "swag" is defined as:
1. the way one carries their self
2. The thing that makes everyone in a room stop what they are doing and pay attention to you. Everyone has a swag, the
only problem is finding it. Swag can also be refered to as "Pimp Juice".

Of the 123 definitions I found, I believe these two carry much weight. Definition 2 especially ties the entire first verse together. Once DeAndre turns his swag on, even he cannot resist it, and must look in the mirror and say "wassup" to himself. Extraordinary! DeAndre carries such a "swag", that not even his own "swag" can resist to but acknowledge itself. Philosophically, I do not immediately know what this means, that the "swag" can exist outside of the carrier, but that analysis is far beyond the scope of this analysis.
Let us continue to see if we can extract any further information to understand his motive behind making this piece. We will attempt to answer whether or not DeAndre has some economic rationale in this song. What is he attempting to say?

Turn ma swag on,
It's ma turn now turn it up
Yeeeeea, yeeeeea
I put my team on, and ma theme song
Now it's time to turn it up
Yeeeeea, yeeeea soulja boy tell em

This verse fails to clarify the where he got this "swag" from, what the nature of his specific "swag" is, and how it effects those around him, namely, the externalities associated with having such a strong "swag". Public policy officials clearly need to know how much of a threat DeAndre's "swag" presents. Clearly, it is so powerful, that he cannot resist it himself. If it presents an externality, should it be subject to regulation by the proper authorities (we concede that we do not even know what authorities could regulate this "swag"). But clearly, DeAndre has the ability to turn his "swag" up. Some questions arise after this statement. How high can this "swag" go? Should his "swag" be turned to a point where it affects the public? These are normative questions of economics; namely what is the correct amount of "swag" a person should have. Free-marketers would be against such regulation, but it seems that "swag" is not an ordinary good like a widget.
Clearly his "swag" gives him the ability to "put his team on." DeAndre's "swag" allows him to employ others, but it is not immediately clear what role his team serves. Does DeAndre put his team on simply so they are employed and share in the riches that his "swag" creates? This seems to be the case! DeAndre is following a Communist form of resource allocation. His team does not contribute to any production. If they did, we would see his team attempting to create value with their own skills. But these laborers in the service of DeAndre add no value, yet he continues to keep them on.

I got a question why they hattin on me,
I got a question why they hattin on me
I aint did nuthin to em, but count this money
And put my team on, now my whole clic stunnin for watz up
Boy wassup, yeeeea
Boy wassup, yeeeea

DeAndre asks a simple question. Given his "swag", people are hating on him, but why? Clearly, DeAndre needs to understand a phenomenon taking place here. "Swag" is inversely proportional to "hat(ing)". So as the amount of "swag" increases, its marginal value at some point actually decreases utility. There is a backward-bending supply curve of "swag." I am sure there is a reasonable amount of "swag" that allows people to gain prominence, but past that, the utility associated with "swag" decreases for others (and for himself). There is an externality associated with "swag." So DeAndre is using too much of this "swag" that he has, and the case can be made for regulation. So when he says that he hasn't done anything but "count his money", he ignores the amount of "swag" that he is expending. The line, "And put my team on, now my whole clic stunnin for watz up" makes no sense. We shall move on to the next session.

When I was 9 years old, I put it in ma head
Ima die for this gold
Soulja boy tellem
Boy wassup, yeeeea

DeAndre's priorities, 10 years ago (in 1999) was to die for "this" gold. This means DeAndre values his life in terms of gold, but it is unclear how much gold. This is important because if we find how much he values his life in gold, we can extrapolate the value of this "swag", and create a market for it (theoretically of course, there would be some logistical issues with selling "swag"), so the person who values "swag" the most could get it. We must find out how much gold (or expected amount of gold to be had over his lifetime) he has, then place a value on his life. Some may find this heartless and cold, calculating a man's life through gold, but remember, it is DeAndre who opened the door, we just happened to peek through it. The last line is also strange. Is DeAndre still speaking to himself?

I'm back again,
I know a lot of yall thought I was coming back
Yeeeeea, yeeeea
I had to prove them wrong,
Got back in the studio and came up with another hit
Yeeeeea, yeeeea
I told the world my story, the world where I'm from
SouljaboyXL.com, boy wassup
Yeeeeea, yeeeea

DeAndre says that he has returned. He doesn't say where he went, nor was it apparent to anyone that he actually left. DeAndre has contradicted his orginal statement! If it wasn't apparent to anyone that he left, then his "swag" must not be as powerful as we once thought. What did DeAndre do to be able to control his swag. Again, his absence (if he was absent in the first place) is puzzling. Maybe this is his rationale for turning up his "swag." At low levels of exposure, "swag" is hard to detect, but at high levels, we can see the "swag" has effects, even on the origin of the "swag."
DeAndre says he must prove "them" wrong. This is an apparent strawman argument because he doesn't name who he has to prove wrong, nor the arguments that they made. He implies that their argument is that he could not make another hit. Again, that is not clear. It is only implied. DeAndre would be wise to state the arguments of the "them" he speaks of, and exactly who they are. DeAndre is then satisfied that he has told the world "his story." Sadly, he is unsuccessful in adding anymore relevant facts about his origins. All we know at this verse is 1. in the morning, he stands on his bed and jumps lighlty, 2. he is supplying too much "swag" that cause disutilities and externalities and 3. at 9 years old, the valuation of his life was in some unspecified amount of gold. If this is all he wants us to know, then this is quite an uninteresting story indeed. He then lists a reference where we can find more information. I politely will decline his request. Is he still talking to himself?

Now everytime you see me spit
Every time you hear me rhyme
Everytime you see me in your state of town
Say wassup
Yeeeeea, yeeeea

His last appeal is that whenever you see him rhyme or "spit" (which in the vernacular of the hood, his statement is quite redundant), or if we see him in our "state of town", to say hello. What is a "state of town"? (We understand this may be a transcription error) Clearly he means "state or town." He doesn't provide the means to contact him. So if we are watching tv in Philadelphia, and we see him in Pittsburgh, he would like us to say hello. A rational person would not say hello to a television. So he must mean, we must incur some cost to travel and say hello, send a text, or make a call. Let's say the cost of a text message is $0.10 and the likely method of communication. DeAndre believes that his presence, for those not in his vicinity, to be worth at least 10 cents for each viewing, just to say hello. I believe he has mispriced the equilibrium of the market to say hello to Soulja Boy. I would pay nothing to say hello to him. I actually do not want to speak to him at all. If we aggregate over the entire population, I think we would find the price to be closer to zero than DeAndre thinks.
DeAndre makes no direct threats, but makes an indirect one. He will turn up his "swag" to provide disincentives to both himself and his "haters." DeAndre does not care what effect turning the "swag" up is on himself. He is not acting rationally. He values his life with unknown amounts of gold. He is a madman. But this should have been apparent, because he acts as a central planner employing his "team" which adds no value to his production. DeAndre's incentives would have been an A+, due to his disregard for his own life and irrational behavior, but he undercuts his own argument because no one noticed he left, so his "swag" wasn't powerful to begin with.
Incentive Grade: F

"We Be Clubbin'" by Ice Cube

2009-09-30T13:31:00.003-04:00

It's packed niggas don't know how to act
we the macks V.I.P's in the back
with a stack of numbers
my niggas like 'em dumber
we oughta get 'em smarter

To provide some background information, the hip-hop mogul “Ice Cube” -named after a block of Hydrogen2 Oxygen stored below 32 degrees farenhite (0 celcius)- is in a night club with some companions. Some of his urban peers seem oblivious to standard nightclub etiquette. Mr. Cube alleges that his companions (despite their lack of decorum) are powerful alpha-males, usually surrounded by sightly females. Mr. Cube and Co can be located in the rear of the nightclub. There is a pile of numerals (assumedly banknotes) owned by Mr. Cube, and/or his companions. Much to Mr. Cube’s chagrin, his peers seem to prefer those with a low grade of intellect and cognitive ability, and Cube interjects that it would be preferable that they pursue those of superior intellect.

Baby take my order
The only shark that swim in Henn no water
got ya daughter doin' shit you don't think she oughta
Gave the order to slaughter any ass like that
you know how the loni act off the cognac
Brainiac with maniac Mack 10 (my nigga)
down ta get this mothafuckin' party crackin'
Nigga back in so we can smoke a dub
down ta bump all these bitches at the club (Yaeeyaae)
show me love

Mr. Cube then instructs the cocktail server to listen to his beverage request.
He analogizes himself to a large saltwater fish with a predatory nature. However, unlike most of these saltwater creatures, Mr. Cube alleges to swim in a popular Cognac called Hennessey. He then boasts that the audience’s daughter(s) are engaging in inappropriate (assumedly adult) activities with Mr. Cube. He claims to have a higher command to execute a pexterial extremity (colloquially referred to as a behind or rump), so long as the rump appears similar to that in subject.
Mr. Cube then informs us, that we had previous knowledge of the acts of the “loni”, while intoxicated off of Cognac (likely the “Henn”, in which he swims). The intellect is with his companion Mack-10 (named after a popular and deadly semi-automatic weapon). The two (possibly among others) plan to get the social gathering in full swing. Following the increase in the mood at energy at the social gathering, Mr. Cube desires to inhale some marijuana.
Finally, Mr. Cube expresses a desire to “bump” numerous females at the nightclub. It is not apparent precisely what is meant by “bump”, but by the context, it can be assumed that he is referring to a. high-contact dancing, or b. coitus. After discussing these possibilities, Ice Cube (despite risk of admissibility under the Hearsay exception F.R.E. 803(2)) bellows an excited utterance. He then demands that the audience show him passion and affection inside the nightclub.

We be clubbin'
everybody likes when the girl
shakes something
Nigga don't pull nothing (That's right)
We ain't dumping
We just bumpin' and bangin'
like it ain't nothing wrong
Get ya club on (We be clubbin')
Ah, we be clubbin'(we be clubbin')
Yaeeyaae (we be clubbin' we be clubbin')

Ice Cube reiterates that him and his companions are attending nightclubs. He asserts that all of mankind appreciates when a female shifts her body in a way that is generally considered to be erotic. His urban companions refrain from pulling anything, they are not disposing of anything undesirable, just dancing and fornicating, as if there were no negative occurrences or repercussions. He then invites the audience to join him in his nightclub activities, and exerts another excited utterence.

We gettin' in free so what the fuck now
WSCG just touched down
show a nigga 'round
least take a nigga to the sto'
(Y'all in fo the night?)
Hell no
Security bail slow up in the club
remember when they push & shove
it's only love

Mr. Cube seems excited to inform the audience that his entry into the latest nightclub was complimentary. His circle of peers known as the “Westside Connection Gang” just entered the vicinity. When questioned if his attendance would be prolonged, he scoffed at the idea, and informed the inquiring individual that his attendance would not last the duration of the evening. Cube then tells the law enforcement officers to react without all deliberate speed in quashing altercations. He asks them to recollect that when these individuals commence to rough-house, it is all done in good nature, and with sincere affection.
Dubs for everybody waitin' on us
and fuck everybody hatin' on us
debatin' on us but we only visitin'
ain't tryin' ta fuck with niggas in lizard skins
There are banknotes for all individuals longing for Mr. Cube. However, mere profanity is all those who dislike, and hold contempt for Mr. Cube. Those who are discussing Mr. Cube should be aware that he is only a temporary guest. He informs the audience that he is not trying to associate with individuals dressed in the skins of coastal reptiles.

I see you watching me, you should watch her
'cause if she sick of yo' shit I'm the doctor watch her
Show her to the car
& see how bad she wanna meet these stars
They know who we are (Where we going?) WESTSIDE
Nigga meet me by the bar

If the audience is glaring at Mr. Cube, their stares are misdirected. They ought to be on the female at subject. If the female at subject has become wary of the audience’s demeanor, Ice Cube claims to have an MD and considerable medical expertise (note: Mr. Cube is using a medical anology to implicate that he will “take care” of the female subject, assumedly in a sexual manner). He will show her to his vehicle, to inquire as to the degree of her desire to congregate with celebrities. The females are aware of Mr. Cube’s persona. When inquired as to their ultimate destination, Mr. Cube responds with a resounding statement that the group is destined to the Western portion of said location. Cube then tells the audience to congregate with him at the local pub.

(Jake)

"The Hit" by Shyne

2009-09-29T17:04:00.006-04:00

Look at this nigga,

It would appear from the opening statement that Mr. Leviy is addressing some individual privately referred to as “this nigga.” We can assume from the singular form of the noun (nigga, rather than niggas) that Mr. Leviy is directing his charter towards one individual, a person so widely known that he is recognized by just the article (this) combined with the noun (nigga). However, a deeper analysis allows for an alternative finding, specifically that the noun “nigga” is not meant to describe an individual at all, but rather a subset group of individuals yet to be illustrated.
We must break down the text to find merit in the proposition that the term “nigga,” in this instance, is actually a metaphor for the subgroup for which he is directing his disincentive. Under this rationale, “this nigga” is actually a group of individuals that all share common traits. To further illustrate this hypothesis we must first dissect the noun “nigga,” paying close attention to its usage and origin.

“Nigga,” while facially in singular form, (meaning person or friend) has a unique and schizophrenic etymological history. Perusing the historical record, the term “nigga” has often been used to describe an amorphous group of individuals. In the traditional use of the term, which has been adopted by urban culture, it is expressed as a term of endearment and a symbol of belonging. In the instant case, when you combine the article (this) and the noun (nigga) with the verb (look) and the preposition (at), I will argue that one will excavate the reality that the phrase “look at this nigga” is an expression of contempt to not one person, but a group of individuals similarly situated.
Mr. Leviy is not instructing us to literally see an individual by utilizing our ocular abilities, he is asking us, quite succinctly, “can you believe what this subset group of people are doing?” What remains to be seen is who comprises this subgroup, Mr. Leviy? What are the characteristics of the members of this subgroup? These answers will clearly delineate the important features of membership vs. non-membership; apropos the conduct undertaken on daily basis, what is quintessential to membership in the subgroup?

stuntin in front of Justin's, actin silly
If it wasn't cops all over, I'd smack him with this milli
You hoe niggaz move a brick and think they rich
Get a few guns and a click and wanna take over shit

Mr. Leviy immediately delves into conduct that is idiosyncratic of the subgroup referred to as “this nigga.” We are immediately acquainted with the fact that this subgroup engages in conduct such as stuntin, actin silly, abrasive false perceptions of wealth, and procuring conspicuously insufficient amounts of ammunition for attempted takeovers. This behavior does not seem to affect the author directly, however, he is proposing to us that this behavior disgusts him and that we should also be disgusted since we are now aware such behavior exists.
It seems that in this stanza, the author is laying the foundation for his disincentive structure by giving the audience a dark and distasteful view of the actors in question, possibly to rationalize the existence of his structure to begin with. By garnering support of a majority of the consumers, Mr. Leviy defines the actors in question as the “other” in a crafty manner. He has, in this sense, diluted the empathy that may currently exist for the subset group “this nigga,” in order to create camaraderie behind a common goal of disincentivizing their behavior. In effect, the author has created a consumer fad in the consumption practice of inhibiting the behavior of his undesired conduct and the members that perpetuate that conduct. This ingenious move not only is a declaration of contempt, but it also the call to arms of all non-members of the subgroup. This, in essence, acts as an artificial stigma that will attach a societal cost for those who conduct themselves similarly to those situated in the subgroup. He is playing the pied piper to the macro-economy, craftily manipulating the consumer market at his will.
At this point in his thesis, Mr. Leviy has identified the actors in question, the conduct that they typically engage in and his distaste for that conduct. He has also manipulated the consumer market to aid in his ultimate goal of restricting the supply market of those conducting themselves like the subgroup. If he can detail his consequences in a manner that optimally disincentivizes the undesired conduct, we may have stumbled upon the Bach Concerto in D Minor of incentive structures.

I ain't comin up offa, no cheddar, no bricks, no nothin
I'll kick that motherfucker, FUCK HIM, yeah I'll pay him somethin
Pay his ass a visit, blow his brains on the sidewalk

Wow! His preliminary description of his prescribed deterrence is clear, concise and offered with a dose of clever double entendre. Mr. Leviy begins by describing that he is not a man born or reared in opulence. However, despite his relatively humble upbringing and way of life, he is very proficient in the time honored art of homo sapien destruction. He provides clear consequences to the conduct undertaken by the subgroup “this nigga;” namely he will exact bipedal assault on their person (as a side note his exclamation “FUCK HIM” was not inferred by this writer to mean a threat of rape, but merely an expression of the aggression present in his state of mind at the time he wrote his analysis). He also ends, most cleverly, with a play on words, (pay being both currency and the providing of a service) detailing that the carnage will not end just with a strike by his foot, but he is willing to go to the extreme of discharging a weapon aimed at the offenders head if the subgroup does not cease and desist with the aforementioned conduct.
I am pleasantly surprised with the clarity to which the author expresses his proposition. We are currently only missing one small piece to puzzle; how effective will these consequences be in deterring the conduct of the specific individuals in question; in essence will they effectuate the outcome which the author has purported to accomplish from the outset.

Went back to the spot to grab the guns
Semi-auto check, AK-40 check, shotgun check, revolver - that's perfect

Ahhh! It appears that Mr. Leviy, possibly worried that the consequences were not dire enough, attempts to illuminate the extent of detractors potential carnage by cataloging the vast array of weapons he will deploy in order to get his point across. While I applaud his diligence in providing notice to all potential offenders, I am still uncertain as to how effective his punitive actions will have on this specific set of actors.
What unique trait about your deterrent structure speaks to your specific subset? Are they particularly risk averse when they are threatened with gunshot wounds to the head? Do they have some psychological predilection towards a fear of kicking? The answers to these questions are not clear. Let us hope that he will provide us with the link between actor and consequence that can convince this writer that the optimal strategy has been undertaken.

Ski-masks and stockings, seen him down the ave. boppin
Him and a friend, just hopped in a Benz
Twenty inches on the rims, let's follow 'em slow, keep 'em in sight
Wait til he stop at a red light, then roll the window down
and kiss them bitches goodnight

Here the author moves to a fictional first person narrative to provide a hypothetical scenario resulting directly from deviation from his proposed structure. He assumes defection, and gets very clear and specific in what will occur to said defector. One may assume that the author believed the practical description of consequences he lays out may have hit home with the listener. While such a scenario may be plausible, this author disputes such an optimistic assumption. While one could argue that the persuasive power of his depiction of his consequences takes a particularly delightful turn in narrative form, overall such literary techniques fail to resolve the question of why his deterrents are specifically odious to his explicit subgroup.
Mr. Leviy rests on his laurels here; he believes his consequences are so objectively onerous that he need not fine tune them to appeal to the unique fears and desires of the rational actors he seeks to deter. Such an overconfident belief is unnecessarily dangerous. Would it make his proposition more difficult to finish if he provided specific disincentives? This writer cannot endorse such a proposition. It appears that Mr. Leviy has taken an uncharacteristic turn towards laziness in an otherwise near perfect economic proposition. His structure is so near flawless that I would recommend that Mr. Leviy make a remix, adding the missing features that I have detailed. There is no excuse for not fixing such a small problem considering the obvious natural talent that the author has in reforming the actions of others to complement his mental tranquility. Please make these revisions Mr. Leviy, so that your listeners may basque in the masterpiece of rational theory.

Incentive Structure Grade: A

"Damn!" by Youngbloodz ft. Lil Jon

2009-09-16T00:04:00.006-04:00

You already know how we do it homeboy
It's A-Town (105 Road for dem hoes)
It's A-Town (east side for dem hoes), Attic Crew you already know

It appears from the boisterous beginning to their crescendo of claims that even before Mr. P and Mr. Bo (hereinafter to be referred to as "the brothers Bloodz") lay down their economic propositions, that the consumer market "already knows" how they do it. Does this claim hold muster? We think not. I for one was unaware of the brothers Bloodz’ accolades before listening to their novella; however I reserved my initial skepticism and did further research.

After an extensive internet search, I retrieved only one article about an arrest (their first and only) for firearms possession. These charges were eventually dismissed. It was unclear from the article whether the brothers Bloodz foray into the world of illegality was a sign of "how they do it" or merely an unconventional attempt to display their fervor for second amendment rights. Either way, this author is left without a concrete idea of what the brothers Bloodz "do". Let us hope that this initial faulty assumption does not detract from their persuasive power here on out.

OK then put a sissy nigga on display then
Kick in ya door and have my folk dem bring dem K's in
I'm still Attic A-double T-I-C

Here we are given a clear disincentive. The brothers Bloodz provide a strong deterrence with limited costs to themselves. As evidenced by the prose “kick in ya door...have my folk bring dem K’s in (in this instance the K’s are a colloquial term for the Russian Kalashnikov)”, the consequences implied here are dramatic. One would be amiss to find anyone who would find a profit making opportunity that would outweigh the costs of being abruptly awoken by “folk” brandishing AK-47’s with hostile intent. Clearly, a rational consumer would seek to avoid this conclusion.
Yet, what can said consumer undertake to shed the burgeoning fear of assault by automatic weapons? Will the brothers clear up this confusion? Let us journey further into the depths of the brother’s economic scheme to see if salvation is found.

Bitch I'm fo sho wit it don't make me pop that trunk to the 'Lac
Bitch I will go get it and I ain't selfish I will let you and your hoe feel it

As if the threat of dismemberment by automatic weapons was not enough, the brother’s Bloodz exacerbate the physical aggression by guaranteeing that they are “fo sho wit it”. In addition, awaiting you behind the trunk of every Cadillac in the world is heinous butchery. By increasing the certainty of future costs, by being “fo sho wit it” the consumer is now faced with a dire proposition: they are subject to automatic gunfire anywhere a Cadillac can be driven and parked, and this gunfire will be amassed by individuals who are very serious about their craft. Unfortunately, for the fecal stained consumer, there is still an apparent uncertainty as to what they can do to circumvent exposure to such a dastardly demise. While the brothers Bloodz have driven the consumer market into a bearish-like conservatism, they still have not unraveled what renegade conduct they are seeking to disincentive here. I, for one, am anxiously awaiting illumination of the aforementioned crisis.

It's Youngbloodz A-Town malt liquor sippin', comin' straight from the gutter
Toe-tag a motherfucker, leave 'em under a cover

At this point in the piece, the listener is beginning to doubt that the authors have any desire to disincentivize any conduct at all. We have reached a full 3 minutes into their overture and we are still completely muddled to find out what it is that the brother’s Bloodz do not like. We have been beat over the head with the proposal that they are “fo sho wit it” and that they are “comin straight from the gutter”. We are also well aware, at this point, that disastrous results such as “K’s” being brought out, “hoes feelin it” and “motherfuckers being toe-tagged”, are at the least very likely. Nonetheless, the rational consumer is still unaware of why such apocalyptic conditions are being brought about. A lesser critic might abandon this piece out of a sense of hopelessness, however, as is true of many great artists the redemption often comes triumphantly in the outro.

If you don't give a damn, we don't give a fuck
If you don't give a damn, we don't give a fuck
Don't start no shit, it won't be no shit
Don't start no shit, it won't be no shit

The chorus provides further confusion. The vagueness of the article (shit) creeps on the borders of contempt. I am beginning to doubt that the brother’s Bloodz intended an incentive structure at all, and that instead these performers are merely sociopaths masking purposeless bloodshed as economic decision-making opportunities.

Out of town hard heads get swiss cheesed up
And you gon' need more than stitches to patch that leak up

Again, these unnamed “hardheads” are given no defining characteristics, attached to no undesirable conduct and placed in no identifiable subgroup. The lack of any structure to this point is grievous error at best and criminal at worst. They are violating the basic structures of economic theory with reckless abandon. We are taken aback by the sheer disregard for candor and rationality.

We buckin' blowin' chillin' and sippin' on something good
I'm peepin' out the scenery and wishin' a nigga would
In case it just might pop I'm 'bout ready to lock and load
To take you thru the South to show you how we throw dem bows

The song ends as soulless and as vacant of any rational economic theory as it began. The brother’s Bloodz have bamboozled us; we have been hoodwinked, tricked into entertaining an analysis so absent of any purpose and structure that we wonder if rap as a culture can rebound from such an affront. If this were our first parlay into the music, we would have to write off the genre as a whole. Fortunately for us it is not. Let us give this song its proper eulogy: it came, it saw and it failed according to every single rubric invented by man for every single identifiable category imaginable. Please leave the game brothers; and if there is a god above, you will encounter the same massacring that you catalog in your mindless gambit.

Incentive Structure Grade: F-

"We Don't Give a Fuck" by Tony Yayo

2009-09-08T15:53:00.002-04:00

Y'all lil' motherfuckers ain't gang-ster, save your,
crew, before I put a hit out on you
Before I let my niggaz come through
Y'all lil' motherfuckers ain't gang-ster, gang-ster
Mr. Yayo begins his treatise with an observation and a generalized assertion. First he identifies a simple syllogism; there are lil motherfuckers (a subset group he seems to be targeting) out there, they are part of [your] crew, and they are incapable of obtaining the state of being gangster. It seems after this initial argument; all “big motherfuckers” need no longer listen to the song, for it is not meant for their consumption. Next Mr. Yayo details a conclusive result that will accompany an unnamed prior action; in this case he will put a hit out on “lil motherfuckers” if they do X. He also identifies an unidentified group of “niggas” who will come through and exact the damage of the hit, should X be pursued by “lil motherfuckers”. It is clear that his delegation of duties here is a form of alleviating the costs associated with “putting a hit out”. Since he himself is not putting out the hit, he limits both his exposure to legal sanctions as well whatever costs are associated with obtaining the input and production costs for the completion of the hit (one may need to purchase a gun, and periodically restock this gun with bullets).
However, there is a glaring flaw in Mr. Yayo’s proposal: he fails to identify the conduct that he is attempting to disincentivize with his threats. The economic consumer (lil motherfuckers) have no notice as to what type of behavior they can partake in that will allow them to avoid the consequences that Mr. Yayo has put in place. At this point, we have identified the economic actors and the consequences for conduct X, we must delve deeper into Mr. Yayo’s persuasive argument to thresh out what undesirable behavior he is attempting to stop.
Nigga cross the line, and my wolves'll jump on you
The beef escalate, they'll be back to dump on you
They follow orders, I tell 'em to let off that pump at you
Before you snitch, yeah see I know what you chumps'll do
In this stanza, Mr. Yayo identifies “crossing the line” as the undesired conduct. From his bravado, we can tell that Mr. Yayo is passionate in his desire to dissuade “crossing the line”. This is evidenced by the extent to which he attempts to detail the amount of carnage his “niggas” will exact even before the victim has a chance to snitch.
Mr. Yayo does not define the conduct he labels “crossing the line”, however. In a truly efficient model, Mr. Yayo would attempt to restrict the supply market for “crossing the line” by narrowing the source of demand and clearly detailing to that section of the overall consumer market what he detests about such conduct. In absence of such behavior, a consumer in the demand market for “crossing the line” may not even be able to identify himself as such, and will not even know he is being asked to change his consumption practices. At this point, Mr. Yayo’s proposition is unsatisfactory, but he may redeem himself with more clarity as we delve further into his essay.
In the hood when I pop up, minked up and rocked up
Niggaz ice grill cause these O.G.'s is washed up
Mr. Yayo somewhat redeems himself here by creating a partial definition for “cross the line” as conduct such as ice grilling the author. We have not been provided with a spectrum for us to determine what the mathematical limits of being inside the definition of this conduct or in the converse, outside of this definition. However, Mr. Yayo has provided us with a threshold; if you ice grill him you have entered the category of a rational actor who has “crossed the line”. Let us venture further to see if Mr. Yayo will provide us with a more comprehensive definition so that we can thresh out the spectrum that constitutes “crossing the line”.
Try me, and your man i'll be right in the lobby
And they'll be feedin you Jello, like you're Bill Cosby
Yeah everybody yellin yeah, so the beef cook
Then somebody gets hit in the melon, then they tellin
Don't go tongue lashin we pull it
Here we are given, one more piece to the puzzle in determing what, in fact, “crossing the line” is. We are provided that any type of confrontational action, be it verbal (tongue lashin) or physical (ice grill) is considered "crossing the line".

Now we may truly critique Mr. Yayo’s analysis with a grander understanding of what it is that he is trying to deter. His economic proposition is that you must not be confrontational in his presence, be it verbal or physical or he will hire “niggas” to “put a hit on you”. Here the rational actor must choose how much value there is in avoiding having a hit put out on him. Should this value be greater than the cost of forbearing from giving ice grills or tongue lashin, then Mr. Yayo has a achieved his desired result.
Unfortunately, we have a logical problem here with the vagueness of the actual consequences of being confrontational. Mr. Yayo what are the statistical probabilities of your hit actually coming to fruition? Will these hits always result in death? He is silent on this issue, which may not aid in the listener’s understanding and decision-making capabilities.
In economic theory, asymmetry of information almost always results in rational actors making irrational decisions as a result of their not possessing all the pieces to the puzzle. What if I am an individual in Mr. Yayo’s subset and I believe that his hit will merely result in my arm being broken? That listener may misevaluate the costs of his confrontational approach and possibly decide to make, what would otherwise be an irrational choice, because of lack of information.
We suggest that Mr. Yayo merely provide his audience with more clarity; his proposition is straightforward enough, it’s just that he does not carry through and inform his subset group of the true and punitive nature of his proposition. Should he edit these features, he’ll be sure to see a significantly smaller amount of confrontational consumers in the market.
Incentive Structure Grade: A-

"Compton" by Guerilla Black (ft. Beanie Man)

2009-09-08T11:52:00.002-04:00

Is you stupid nigga, get your shit together
While his message is clear for change, Mr. Black waits until the end of his opening verse to propose his economic premise undoubtedly rooted in labor theory of value. Calling for a much stronger, centralized economic model, Mr. Black cleverly begins his argument in a simple Question/Answer format: Question – are you comfortable in a system purposefully designed to exploit cheap labor and limit progression, my friend? Response to Answer – Hmm, as I anticipated. I suggest we consolidate our labor value to act as a bargaining chip against capital.

Yes I’m the thriller, whether I pop Crystal or drink Miller
Here Mr. Black attempts address the obvious weak points of his model by directing the reader’s attention to the personal sacrifices he will make with the common man. He, unlike most of his stature, is willing to forfeit his sparkling white wine in exchange for second-rate beer and a complete overhaul of our economic system. It can be argued that this proposed exchange reveals Mr. Black’s attempts to create a causal link between his infectious personality and his call for Marxian economics. We are of the opinion that this “gracious” gesture comes off as pompous sales pitch which leaves the audience slighted and in search of clarity. Most actors in this system do not possess Mr. Black’s charitable qualities. Herein lays the most basic counter to his economic theory: are you willing to forgo delicious alcoholic beverage in exchange for those which taste like fermented urinal cakes. We here at Raponomics are not.

Niggaz get fucked up when the mini sprays
It is here in which Mr. Black decides sticks to his guns and recaptures the audience’s attention. To do this, he paints a doomsday view of our current path. Translation: if our multipolar economic sphere remains constant, actors of every level will suffer. This of course ties in nicely with Mr. Black’s call for a unified working class and a strong central agency designed to promote the common good (as an alternative to unchecked competition and individual pursuits). Although morose, we are of the opinion that this stanza presents an excellent portrayal of the effect of “mini sprays” (e.g. competing actors, classes, and systems). In sum, Mr. Black not only salvages his argument but forms a solid case for a Marxian society premised on labor value principles.

Argument Presentation: B- (Abiye)

"Pain and Torture" by Jadakiss

2009-09-05T11:30:00.002-04:00

"Yeeeee niggas (He he he he he haaaaa)
So this is what it all boils down to, huh? Huh?
This is what it's come to, huh? Huh?"

His introduction (which is quite vague) lays out his intention to provide disincentives to "niggas." A natural question arises as to whom he is directing his economic disincentive. This is important for our analysis to consider 1) who the economic actor is and 2) whether that actor will act in such a way that Mr. Phillips would like them to act. Is it the entire set of "niggas" or is it a unique subset of "niggas"? This vagueness leaves us with no direction as to the size of the group to which he proposes these disincentives. Without loss of generality, let us assume he is speaking to all those who considers themselves as such. (Even in the absence of this forthcoming disincentive, we can safely assume there would exist a subset of "niggas" who are already acting the way Mr. Phillips would like without providing any further disincentives).
Now that we have laid out who the economic actors are, we can safely proceed.

"I ain't asked you to fear it
Mandatory you think about it after you hear it
And it's the evils that's gonna make you have to compare it
You know me, I swing back through and see who got hit after I air it"

Clearly Mr. Phillips provides an initial disincentive, not limited by costs. "You know me, I swing back through and see who got hit after I air it." Is Mr. Phillips acting rationally? Clearly not. He seems to not consider the costs of his "airing." A rational actor would consider these costs before "airing it out", figure out an optimal strategy, to maximize utility (thereby minimizing costs) then proceed to "air it out." But the important question here is does it provide the proper disincentive for the subset he refers to in his introduction. Let's call person X a member of the (closed) set of "niggas" who Mr. Phillips lays out. (It is important our set be closed) Let's assume that a random person X from the set is preparing for Mr. Phillips to air it out. He can see two outcomes. Either 1) he is hit or 2) he is not hit. Under Mr. Phillips' description of the situation, he is not limited in his costs of "airing it out" (which include, but are not limited to, the cost of bullets, guns, gas, cost of potential prosecution, etc...). Person X clearly knows that Mr. Phillips is somewhat limited. Practically, there are but so much bullets that can be aired out at a given time. Person X would act rationally and know that there is a chance he will not be caught in the airing out process and aid in the prosecution Mr. Phillips. If you do not think this could happen, we can clearly choose from the set, until we have chosen a survivor (I'm sure a probability distribution will allow us to choose randomly until we found a survivor). Mr. Phillips prosecution would likely take him out of the game. This disincentive, from Person X's standpoint, clearly will not happen, so he will likely call Mr. Phillips' bluff.
Let's see if Mr. Phillips can redeem himself. He has clearly lost some credibility.

"Then blow you out the water, I'm out of your order
Me verse any rapper is slaughter"

Mr. Phillips now says any rapper that would battle against him would be slaughtered. Clearly, there is evidence to back this up. A quick Google search of "Jadakiss battle" brings up such terms like "Jada murdered 50" and "Jada slaughtered Beenie." I believe his credibility is somewhat restored by dealing in rational statistically relevant facts rather than the irrational behavior that was described above.

"Something like a poet and an author
The only difference is that I mix slick talk with pain and torture"

The United Nations describes torture as "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

We need not go into his mixing of "pain" and "torture". Torture (as defined by the UN) clearly has pain as an element of torture. Mr. Phillips is clearly attempting coerce a third party by mixing his talk with torture. In this sense, it can be accepted that he means psychological toture in which "is directed at the psyche with calculated violations of psychological needs, along with deep damage to psychological structures and the breakage of beliefs underpinning normal sanity." But when listening to this song, Mr. Phillips never attempts to damage anyone psychologically. It is false after hearing this song that this specific song has been mixed with pain and torture. Again, if Mr. Phillips will not make credible threats, his disincentive structure will be weak.

"One false move will cost ya

These lames will cross ya
Don't let the game extort ya
Try to learn from what the game has taught ya
I'm the author of slick talk, pain, and torture"

Again, Mr. Phillips is vague with the cost of the false move. Exactly how much will it cost? His answer seems to be extortion and "lames cross[ing] y[ou]" It seems this statement is vague and not well thought out. He seems to ask us to go on faith on his assessment of the false move. Maybe if there is a profit making opportunity, the false move will be worth it, because the benefits of the false move may outweigh its costs. Mr. Phillips seems to think the market in "false moves" is at an equilibrium point, without telling us exactly why.

"They rappin' with hostility, meanin' they whack"

He describes a direct increasing relationship between hostility and "whackness", namely as hostility increases, "whackness" also follows. He fails do describe whether this relationship is linear or non-linear and whether it is continuous function. Further, are their other elements related to "whackness." He seems to isolate one area of "whackness" but a cursory glance of the concept "whackness" could include other elements (ie. the ability to not rap, etc...). Let's assume there are diminishing returns to "whackness" as a rapper becomes more hostile. Clearly, there must be some hostility to the rap (I mean, Mr. Phillip's song is quite hostile... Is he undermining his own argument?), but there must be the correct amount of hostility, namely when the marginal benefit to hostility equals the marginal cost of hostility. Mr. Phillips' statement is too general. Again, he is not credible.

"Knowin' that they up against a nigga just like myself that'll kill 'em"

He lays out further disincentives to the economic agents who wish to go up "against" him. Clearly, he's provided evidence that in a "rap" sense, he will kill any rapper. But how about those rappers who have no interest in going up against him, how does he propose we (or he) change their behavior? He is silent on this point.

While Mr. Phillips provides a disincentive structure, and while his career gives him some credibilty, his argument here is not credible. He wants "niggas" to act in a specific way but he provides little to no amount of credibilty to alter his behavior. His "torture" is weak and ineffective and changes no ones behavior. It is unclear what he is attempting to do here. Mr. Phillips, try again. You're grade is solely based on your career.

Incentive Structure Grade: B-

Jae Hood Freestyle ("Destroy & Rebuild" by Nas beat)

2009-09-03T11:22:00.002-04:00

"Aiyyo, I'm on these faggots like white on rice, You getting mangled two ways either strangled or sliced"

Here Mr. Hood is first establishing that he is an omnipresent being. However, his being there like "white on rice" is limited to the subset population of "faggots". Now we are not given in this statement whether or not the term faggots is being used as a pejoritive term for people in general or if his omnipresence is limited solely to the subset of homosexuals. Irregardless, we are told that either the subset of faggots or the entire population of the world has two options: either being mangled by form of strangulation or mangled by form of slicing. (It is not entirely clear how one becomes mangled as a result of strangulation, but we must take Mr. Hood at his word in this instance) This is the least economically rational portion of Mr. Hoods freestyle. If he is providing two options here, both with the end result of a state of being mangled, it is unclear what choice is more desirable to the economic consumer. Is there more utility in being mangled by strangulation rather than slicing? Assuming arguendo, as we will here, that there is not; Mr. Hood is providing options that will neither act as an incentive nor disincentive to the actor involved. What is Mr. Hood trying to accomplish with his proposition? We will have to venture further into the song to answer these questions.

"Nigga my respect is due, show it or get stripped of your fans in front of you before you know it"

A couple of stanzas down, Mr. Hood elaborates. It appears that his irrational choice proposition, which we previously discussed, is attempting to create incentives for others to show him respect. It makes sense, in this context, that Mr. Hood would provide a Machiavellian like choice structure since he would like all others to fear him, as a vessel that will give him the status of being respected.

"Shorty I don't care if you ain't feeling me I ain't feeling you cause see the bitches get thrown in the swimming pool"

Furthermore, Mr. Hood provides a safety net for those who, after being mangled, still do not show Mr. Hood the respect he desires. If being mangled does not persuade the consumer to show respect, he details a further disincentive to contrary actions. The idea here is that the disincentives do not end with being mangled, but may culminate in the consumer being thrown in the pool and possibly drowning due to their prior status as being mangled. Here we see the opus that makes a formally irrational choice structure, a rational economic choice proposition. Mr. Hood is stating that being mangled is just a fact of life; no action can deter him from mangling you. However, if you do not show respect after the mangling, he will throw you in the pool. Here it is clear that once we reach point 1 (being the consumer's position after being mangled), a position where everyone in the world is equally mangled, a rational consumer must choose to either 1) not show respect and be thrown in the pool, or 2) show respect and remain outside the pool. Mr. Hood is preaching to the rational actor's desire not to be in the pool to achieve his desired status of being respected by all. There are obvious problems with his choice proposition; namely that during the summer his disincentives will most likely be less effective than say during the winter months.

We suggest that Mr. Hood fine-tune his incentive structure to incorporate the many seasons of the year, assuming that his desire for respect is not limited to a smaller portion of time.

Incentive Structure Grade: C+