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-