I thought risk was defined as probability times cost (or at least that is what you are trying to minimize in risk management) -- so if the probability of costs goes up, would not also risk? You don't have to enumerate each specific risk to believe that risks are growing.

▲

9rx an hour ago | parent [-]

I'd say more commonly we say consequence, but I think you can fairly use cost and consequence interchangeably here. They have similar meaning. However, consequence/cost too are subjective. Thus risk is also subjective. Something cannot be objective if its variables are subjective.

▲

infinite_spin 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

Costs are tangible, making them objective, even if they have underlying subjectivities. The cost of milk is objective, even if your purchasing habits are subjective.

▲

9rx 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

You are correct that "cost" has more than one definition, but, as already discussed, the one we are talking about equates to consequence, not an amount of money. Your milk analogy doesn't fit. Whether or not a so-called consequence is seen as a consequence is in the eye of the beholder.

	▲	infinite_spin 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm well aware of the narrowing you imposed. Consequence in these terms still equates to an objective reality, even if the underlying source of it can be described as subjective. The consequences of rising milk prices is an objective reality, even if your purchasing habits are subjective.