3 ms·

The whole paragraph explains it: > Private companies are in the business of making a profit, and to do that they need to attract customers. Some customers are

The whole paragraph explains it: > Private companies are in the business of making a profit, and to do that they need to attract customers. Some customers are more profitable than others. As a result, a company’s data will tend to reflect the needs of its clients — it won’t capture the economy as whole. Honestly, it is a very, very good paragraph. There is a slavish devotion to the idea that markets are efficient and that is the most desirable outcome in all situations. If you are in the business of being a government and running a country for all of your citizens, you need all the data, not just select aspects of it, and not just those that tell a particular story.

charcircuit 1y ago
>you need all the data There is an infinite amount of data. And most of it is useless. Governments do not need to know how many fry cooks read exactly 3 novels from authors who names end with a letter in the first half of the alphabet in the last year.
- altcognito 1y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum, sure. So that is why it is important to understand that the government needs data for it's purposes (and not more than that). Restricting data to the narrow purposes of whichever company is willing to pay to produce select economic statistics will leave everyone worse off.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >Restricting data to the narrow purposes of whichever company This isn't what the article said. It essentially said the data would be based off what people who use the data need. If the government needs some data it would still be able to get it.
    - altcognito 1y ago
      There is so much missing in what you're responding with, and I'm not even sure you're contradicting what's being said. Lets just start with something simple: Are you assuming that the government only needs what people are willing to pay for?
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        Yes, because if the government needed something they would be willing to pay, so there would at least be 1 entity willing to pay.
        altcognito 1y ago
        So, add a profit layer on top of the process of collection, as well as open the process to all sorts of gaming by other companies (early access for large companies as an advantage over smaller companies). Additionally, with likely only one company as provider, a lack of competition means the government will be paying monopolistic prices. That's how it was with the space program, the military, and many utility companies that were privatized, yet it seems we just continue to hammer the idea that "private companies will do everything better".

charcircuit 1y ago

>you need all the data There is an infinite amount of data. And most of it is useless. Governments do not need to know how many fry cooks read exactly 3 novels from authors who names end with a letter in the first half of the alphabet in the last year.

altcognito 1y ago
Reductio ad absurdum, sure. So that is why it is important to understand that the government needs data for it's purposes (and not more than that). Restricting data to the narrow purposes of whichever company is willing to pay to produce select economic statistics will leave everyone worse off.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >Restricting data to the narrow purposes of whichever company This isn't what the article said. It essentially said the data would be based off what people who use the data need. If the government needs some data it would still be able to get it.
  - altcognito 1y ago
    There is so much missing in what you're responding with, and I'm not even sure you're contradicting what's being said. Lets just start with something simple: Are you assuming that the government only needs what people are willing to pay for?
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      Yes, because if the government needed something they would be willing to pay, so there would at least be 1 entity willing to pay.
      - altcognito 1y ago
        So, add a profit layer on top of the process of collection, as well as open the process to all sorts of gaming by other companies (early access for large companies as an advantage over smaller companies). Additionally, with likely only one company as provider, a lack of competition means the government will be paying monopolistic prices. That's how it was with the space program, the military, and many utility companies that were privatized, yet it seems we just continue to hammer the idea that "private companies will do everything better".