I like his analysis, but particularly liked this interesting bit:
'Consider a 2011 survey by a British insurance company in which 11 percent of respondents claimed to have seen an incident but chose not to report it, worried that higher crime statistics for their neighborhood would significantly reduce the value of their properties. In this case, the quality of future data is intricately dependent on how much of the current data is disclosed; unconditional “openness” is the wrong move here—precisely because of feedback loops.'
This is basically David Simon's journalism in a nutshell as formulated by Campbell:
The more any quantitative social indicator is use for
social decision-making, the more subject it will be to
corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to
distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended
to monitor.
Michelle Rhee's tenure is a cautionary tale that people insist to not learn anything from.
Yes, only here the "corruption pressure" is applied by the "free market", not by a bureaucracy. This vital detail pulls the rug from under those who claim that less government would decrease these distortions.
I like his analysis, but particularly liked this interesting bit:
'Consider a 2011 survey by a British insurance company in which 11 percent of respondents claimed to have seen an incident but chose not to report it, worried that higher crime statistics for their neighborhood would significantly reduce the value of their properties. In this case, the quality of future data is intricately dependent on how much of the current data is disclosed; unconditional “openness” is the wrong move here—precisely because of feedback loops.'