Clementonomics

Toronto Star: "Industry Minister Tony Clement says opponents of the Conservatives' decision on the census are just whining because they once had a “good deal” to get information they needed while letting Ottawa force citizens to supply the data."

Let's suppose you owned a bakery and you believed your bread prices were too low for whatever reason (margins are too low or having low priced goods doesn't mesh with your bakery's value proposition, etc.).

Those of us who work in the private sector could think of a variety of solutions. You could raise your prices. You could look for lower cost suppliers of raw ingredients. You could offer the bread only as a bundle with a higher margin item. You could even stop selling the product altogether.

If you're Tony Clement, you go out and buy a 30 million dollar machine that inserts broken glass into the bread. When your customers complain about the broken glass, call them a bunch of freeloaders. After all, they did benefit from years of inexpensive bread. After awhile, you won't have any more annoying customers to deal with.

Maybe that logic makes sense on Parliament Hill. But as one of those tax-paying private sector 'freeloaders', I have to admit I'm scratching my head.

Comments

[Mike Moffatt]

For the record, I don't believe Statscan should be charging more for data - Prof. Gordon has an excellent primer on why:

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/07/the-economics-of-census-data.html

But saying 'we're not charging enough for this - let's charge more' is a coherent argument (if not a particularly good one).

[Phil]

I don't think that's what Clement is arguing. He's arguing, simply, that the customers are disappointed that the product is no longer available. Period. Customers and taxpayers do that all the time.

In fairness to Clement's argument, he's saying that the bakery was run by slave labor. So he's closing down the bakery. And he's mad that opponents are just looking at how cheap the bread used to be, instead of the slavery issue.

I think the argument is a fair one based on Clement's premise that Ottawa shouldn't "force citizens to supply the data."

[Mike Moffatt]

"I don't think that's what Clement is arguing. He's arguing, simply, that the customers are disappointed that the product is no longer available."

The product is still available, though. Just in a much, much worse form.

"In fairness to Clement's argument, he's saying that the bakery was run by slave labor. So he's closing down the bakery."

Again, he's not closing it down.

I understand the slave labor bit. It'd be more compelling if the short form and the ag census weren't mandatory.

[Mike Moffatt]

In other words "We stopped using slave labour for the bread. But the pies and cakes? 100% slave labour!"

[Karen Krisfalusi]

"All these provinces..." got a free ride ride says Clement. That's his mistake. Clement needs to remember that Harper cancelled the childcare agreements as his first order of the day. He's bullied the provinces. I think Clement had better distinguish the Provinces from special interest groups and do it fast. At this time the census issue is not a priorty amongst the Premiers and won't be until momentum builds as MPs start pressing their own and their constituent concerns. There is nothing prevent regional census taking as in days of old. Yet if the provinces are going to take that on it will represent a change in the relationship of the provinces to the feds. I think Clement would do well to remember that there's only one conservative Premier. The other two that had conservative party membership abandoned it in order to win their elections.

[Appalled but not confused]

This Fraser Inst. supplied new line of argument by Harper via his sock puppet Clement is competely specious.

Not only is it a complete falsehood that the private biz’s & nonprofit groups etc. get the data for free (this forum's Stephen Gordon has stated in some debates that StatCan charges users /recovers about $100-M a year, and I’ve not seen that contradicted),

but it’s also false to allege that the fed’s have been conducting a proper mandatory census principally for those other users’ benefit.

(As Clement did when he said, "They got good, quality data and the government of Canada was the heavy. We were the ones who were coercing Canadians on behalf of these private businesses, or other social institutions, or other governments and provinces, for this data." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/census-critics-just-want-easy-ride-clement-says/article1663469/ )

Theirs is a secondary use. The feds collect that data so that the fed. gov’t can discharge its legislated responsibilities.*

It’s just StatCan _also_ sells it, to “make a virtue of necessity”: i.e., to recover / defray some costs, which is part of its mandate to get the best possible data for the lowest poss. cost.

So in no sense are the private & nonprofit groups etc. being freeloaders in taking advantage of the coerced data for free, since (1) they pay for it; (2) it is supposed to be collected anyway for the feds’ own uses; & (3) unlike the gov’t, they _cannot_ legally coerce/compel people to answer surveys, anyway: anymore than they could, say, legally imprison people.

So, by parity of reasoning, amplifying (3): we private citizens & businesses pretty much all benefit from the gov’t putting actual violent offenders away, and we do not / cannot forcibly confine them ourselves. Is it fair to say, then, that we’re all freeloaders on the justice system? Should the gov’t say: if we freeloaders want good quality justice, we should conduct our own police, justice, & penal system? What Tonyrot.

* “there are over 80 pieces of legislation and acts that require census data for the operationalization and implementation of the act’s related programs, services, etc.”

http://datalibre.ca/2010/07/19/major-federal-legislative-census-requirements/

http://datalibre.ca/2010/07/19/uses-of-census-long-form-data-question-justification/

[David Gendron]

The fact that you're forced to pay taxes does confer you the right to not be considered as a freeloader, but it doesn't confer you the right to force people to give you information.

[Mike Moffatt]

"The fact that you're forced to pay taxes does confer you the right to not be considered as a freeloader, but it doesn't confer you the right to force people to give you information."

Two points:

1. Any user of StatsCan data isn't buying information on specific people, rather they're buying aggregated data.

2. Even ignoring point 1, this isn't an absolute right. If we have a traffic accident, you're required by law to give me your insurance information.

[Mike Moffatt]

"Theirs is a secondary use. The feds collect that data so that the fed. gov’t can discharge its legislated responsibilities.*"

This is a really good point. Business users are, in fact, subsidizing a government program.

[Mike Moffatt]

There's something I missed in all of this, which CalgaryGrit pointed out. Clement's comments:

“Hey, listen, they had a good deal going,” he added. “They got good, quality data and the government of Canada was the heavy.”

Note the use of the past-tense before 'quality data'. Has Clement just admitted to the fact that a voluntary census isn't as useful? I thought it was supposed to be just as good!

[Patrick]

This is a PR stunt by Clement. He's trying to whip up more righteous indignation among the sanctimonious and self righteous. And it's an attempt to re-frame, since the privacy canard didn't get much traction. The gov't is looking to pin this issue to some group they can attack and demonize - probably in the hope of setting loose Baird on them. In the CPC's world people who know stuff and use evidence are anathema, so they're going after academics and researchers now. Don't be surprised if it gets even uglier. Expect them to punish academics by finding ways to cut funding to education and research. This issue and the G20 security fiasco has hurt them, and this animal lashes out when cornered.

My question to the industry minister would be this: is he so incompetent as to be completely unaware of how access to StatsCan data services works, or is he lying in the hope of duping people into supporting a stupid policy? Either way, he ought to resign.

[Mike Moffatt]

"so they're going after academics and researchers now."

It also looks like they're (subtly) attacking the business community which, IMO, doesn't seem like a great target for the Conservatives to go after. I mean, what use are businesspeople who have above average incomes and live disproportionately in swing Lib-Tory suburban ridings?

[Appalled but not confused]

Further to my point above about how inane Clement's new line of argument is.

Tony's not really talking about the economic cost here (but if he is, he's dead wrong, not only cuz the non-gov users have been paying upwards of $100-M for it until now, but also cuz now the govt is going to be paying $30M more for data they'll be less able to sell.)

He's actually making the whiny spouse's complaint here about the unfairness of parenting:

"Why do [we] always have to be the heavy and be the ones to threaten or dole out the punishment? (While you get all the love.)"

Which can make sense in a parenting situation, where both parties have the right to exercise appropriate discipline over their charges, & can share the punitive duties.

But it does _not_ make sense here, because the other users of the data -- the private & nonprofit sectors (and the other levels of govt, at this stage) -- quite simply do _not_ have the right to coerce people into answering their surveys.

So it's completely inappropriate to claim they're freeloading by not running compulsory surveys themselves. Maybe they would, if they could, but they can't!

It's like complaining that your neighbours & schools are freeloading off your punishing your children to stop vandalizing their property etc... that if they wanted well-behaved children in the neighbourhoood, they should discipline them themselves.

Sorry, New Gov't of Canada, they're not: they may be benefitting from it, but they're not unfairly taking advantage of the fact that you're doing your duty. But it would be unfair if you shirked your duty simply on the basis that others derive some benefit from it. In fact, in this case, it is the societal benefits from that information that makes it your duty to collect them.

[Patrick]

"... attacking the business community"

My guess is that they are betting that people business people (like the rest of us) aren't all that rational. I can easily imagine someone in their car listening to talk radio thinking: "Yeah! Let's stick it to those those freeloaders", and then ten minutes later sitting in a meeting commiserating with the marketing people over the loss of the long form: "Yeah! Those gov't morons don't have a clue; they're just in it for the graft."

[David Gendron]

I didn't talk about buying informations in my last comment.

" If we have a traffic accident, you're required by law to give me your insurance information."

Oh, that's very different, it's normal to other road users to have access to your insurance informations, to help them to assess their own damages.

[Andrew F]

David: it's compelling you to divulge personal information, regardless of whether that is the cultural norm, or you actually want to. There is evidence everywhere of government compulsion to act in certain ways that you may or may not be willing to do otherwise. So the pure privacy argument is hogwash ('government has no right to compel the divulging of information'), but can be argued on the grounds of whether it is reasonable. And all of the long form questions are reasonable, and if they are not, we can address the questions individually through the census consultation process.

[David Gendron]

I can undertsand your argument with the statist-capitalist premise.

"And all of the long form questions are reasonable, and if they are not, we can address the questions individually through the census consultation process."

You should not underestimate the fact that if this census continues to be mandatory, poeple will tend to lie in their answers.

[Stephen Gordon]

David, when you follow up absolutist statements with previously-unmotivated exceptions, you sort of give the impression that you haven't thought your position through.

[crf]

the people: tony, the census is useful.
tony: lol, wut?
the people: the government has programs which use census data to help make decisions
tony: lol, wut?
the people: you're in the government, shouldn't you be concerned about how your changes will affect those programs?
tony: lol, wut?
the pople: if you think the penalties are too strict for not filling out the form, why not change the penalties?
tony: lol, wut?

...

[Pedro]

I can't believe how these posts on the census have degenerated into horrible arguments and attacks on bloody politicians (what the hell does a politician's comments have to do with whether the census should be mandatory or not).

I still come here for Nick's posts, but Jesus, I can't stand seeing this other crap.

[Mike Moffatt]

Hi Pedro,

Even though I was the one who posted this blog entry, I share your frustration. I really wish this stupid issue would go away (by way of a policy reversal announcement).

RE: Analyzing a politician's comments. Have you ever read any of Stephen Landsburg's books from the 1990s, particularly Fair Play? In parts Landsburg examines states made by politicians and often uses analogies to examine policy proposals. I got to know Stephen a little when I was at Rochester and he certainly influenced how I see the world and the role of economists.

Now you might disapprove of Landsburgian pop-economics (you wouldn't be the first) or you might just disapprove of second-rate Steve Landsburg imitators (you wouldn't be the first), but there is a fairly rich history of this kind of thing.

Each of us had our own reasons for studying economics. Mine was (in part) to help apply the 'campsite rule' - that is, leaving this place in a better state than you found it. If I can, in a small way, reduce the number of bad arguments made by politicians and reverse a bad policy, then I'll have considered my choice of profession a success.

Cheers,

Mike

[Appalled but not confused]

@Pedro's "what the hell does a politician's comments have to do with whether the census should be mandatory or not":

a lot, obviously, when that pol. is the Minister is the one in charge of implementing and justifying the decision (even if they're really just doing the bidding of the PM who's hiding behind them).

What, we're supposed to pretend that these are rational decisions being computed by some machine or something? And they obviously haven't been recommended by the professional civil service after careful analysis.

If you don't like politics, too bad, but know this: politicians' stupid, venal, & self-interested decisions can sure mess up a lot of people's personal & professional lives w. decisions like this, even if you'd prefer to ignore all that & remain above the fray.

But here's a tip in the spirit of the efficiency you seem to desire: if a topic doesn't interest you, just don't read it, and certainly don't take the time to comment on it that it's not interesting -- that seems particularly inefficient!

[Appalled but not confused]

p.s., in defense of 'crf's otherwise silly seeming post, you should know the context: in a pathetic attempt to defend their seemingly capricious (but probably just partisan-driven) decision allegedly for privacy concerns, Tony Clement, the Minister responsible for StatCan, actually went on national TV (on CBC's Power & Politics) talking about how several(!) people in his "Tweeterverse" had tweeted him in support of this decision

[rp]

This is Harper's policy, pure and simple. There's no way such an obviously stupid policy would have survived without the support of the Prime Minister. He's throwing sand in the gears.

[20th century workforce]

CPC never goes after the real bad guys:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/weird/2010/08/11/14989041.html