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

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

"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)

"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+