Do you ever see a yield sign? What does it really mean? It’s all about taking risk and, reading the signs, about making it for yourself.
“The risk” is not a subjective value. It is an objective, measurable (empirically valued) quantity that exists on demand. Not that determination of the risk is not subjective. On the road, if you fail to yield to the sign and slam into a Mac truck, you “yielded to” the risk, discovering its quantum value (its existence in priority) on impact. Subjectively, discovering the risk on impact (by yielding to its detrimental effect as an act of self-determination) is pretty stupid, especially if you ignore the signs.
In a free market there is alpha risk. People that are in business to make money want to avoid alpha risk–risk in the first order.
To avoid alpha risk is to avoid behavior modification on demand from the bottom up. (Anything that can modify your behavior at will definitely rules.) Since a free market empowers a non-elite identity, for “market makers” (people that make markets to make money, like brokering deals to merge Burger King and Tim Hortons), the free market is “the risk” to be avoided. According to monopolists (people that merge and acquire everything to reduce marginal costs), a free market yields TO mob rule, which conservatives, going back to Alexander Hamilton, consider to be contrary to our natural identity.
(Keep in mind, Larry Summers, one of the chief, Goldman-Sachs, Ivy-League economists who advocated for the “market-making” mechanics that engineered the Great Recession, says solving the problems of a declining, marginal-cost society is legal monopolies.)
As soon as we trade free-market mechanics for market-making mechanisms (CDOs, CDSs, SDOs, SFRSs, MBSs…, along with good-ole-fashion M&A) we have the problems of a declining, marginal-cost society caused by legal consolidation of industry and markets (exactly what Adam Smith said NOT to do). Guided by the rule of law (to wit, the Commodities and Futures Trade Modernization Act that the Clinton administration signed into law), we have “crowd control” that trickles down to the local level, getting “use” out of excess surplus “value” (the declining, marginal cost that rules the mob by adding to the “supply side”).
Since there is not much left to lose, the citizens of Ferguson, for example, can simply adjust to the risk of near-zero marginal cost by opening their own, proprietary burger/donut shops, not to mention all the other things a community needs, employee-owned, yielding to the free market at zero-marginal cost.
It just can’t be.
It’s a free market after all!
For the capitalist, when it comes to controlling for the risk (crowd control on demand)…it’s the picture of The Scream!