Oh how foolish I was. For upon finding the pinnacle source of economic data, I find out you have to pay for the "honor" to have what should with no exception be PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND FREE DATA!
Is it possible, is it just freaking possible, to have governments in the western world, please act like you actually serve the people and not the other way around? Is it possible to have you little power hungry, impotent bureaucrats not act like a totalitarian dictatorship, and instead of this petty extortion for data that should be made available to the public for free, please at least FEIGN like you're here to serve the people.
I know this may sound like a minor grievance, but for Christ's sake, are you joking me? You're going to charge for data that not only should every Canadian citizen have the right to know for free, but can easily be found on the OECD for free?
To Statcan (and I mean this sincerely);
Go f#ck yourselves!
12 comments:
To paraphrase the captain with the eloquence of Patton: "What the fuck is this bullshit?"
What's the problem?
It's called a "user fee", and the alternative is socialized system where taxpayers are compelled to pay the bills for those who seek such data.
If you want the data, then pay for it! Don't go looking for a free ride. And, as a side benefit, your total tax bill would be much lower if everything operated on this principle.
Funny, how Canadians who do not want to pay your way are called "cheap" and are targeted with vile expletives.
Do you pay a fee when you want a passport? Do you pay a fee when you want to use public transport? When a kid signs up for a peewee hockey league, do they pay a fee? Or do you expect 100% of these fees to be covered by your taxes?
A bit off topic from the post itself, but has anyone seen this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/weekinreview/19schwartz.html?pagewanted=1
It's glorifying Europe for their investing money directly to the banks while saying America is "behind" them by worrying about bad loans and mortgages.
They have a few challenges when it comes to accessibility of housing data and real estate listings as well.
Of course, the US has its share of challenges when it comes to disclosure. We still don't know who advised Dick Cheney when he was shaping our country's energy bill.
I agree that Statistics Canada's policy makes little sense. Basic economic data is the perfect example of a public good. It makes little sense to charge for it. However, users of more specialized data which is costly to collect should pay for it.
That said, a lot of Statistics Canada data is available for free in table form if you look for it.
What data are you attempting to pull? One of us may have access.
Send them a copy of your book in exchange for the data.
Usage fees make sense when there are additional costs for additional users of a service. It discourages overconsumption and avoids other parties having to pay for it.
Now ask yourself how much it costs for a person to visit the Canadian government's website and pull up the data.
It costs damn near nothing for another person to visit the site. Marginal costs are literally miniscule; pennies, likely. The vast majority of the costs involved are sunk costs. Gathering the data is probably most of it, buying and maintaining the servers probably accounts for most of the rest. All they really have to pay for is bandwidth, and for a few jpegs or even text data, it's not exactly a big hit compared to the costs of compiling national statistics anyway.
Sure, usage fees are a great system in cases where the marginal costs actually amount to something, but when the marginal cost of another user getting access to the data is almost nothing, usage fees are bullshit.
What angers me is the database aspect of it. It took no labor nor any incremental expense on the part of CanStat to pull those figures from the database. The infrastructure was indeed laid out and to have the temerity to charge for such things is insulting.
"User fee" my sweet little salsa-dancing-tightened-yet-Irish-in-genetics ass.
The fee for data concept must have started long ago. In the 70’s & 80’s I would go to the library and get a look at “free” copies for my school research. If I wanted more, hard copies for a fee were available at certain government sanctioned bookstores. Yes I paid as it was more expedient.
Certain basic data is still available for free from Stats Can. Deeper raw and analytical data is what costs. Assuming that Stats Can is a pure for profit enterprise and thus doesn’t take anything from the taxpayer and the buying enterprises pass it on to the consumers they in the end seek to sell to; in the end the tax / user fee argument is for all intents and purposes a zero sum game. So what are we left with? Principle.
The base part that burns CC’s butt has a finer point: all data must be provided by the citizens.
This point which really burns my libertarian butt is that unlike a passport or hockey team fee which is a service/activity we have the option of obtaining/participating in, we must pay for data that we are compelled by law in this socialist land to provide or otherwise risk a court date.
So while user fees I agree with to the nth degree, Stats Can approach is morally wrong. But how else to get the data? How else to cover the cost? Like democracy, their way might stink but it’s the best of the lot.
And as a note for the record; hockey fees, public transport, recycling and many other fees provided by municipalities like these examples are often not at a full cost recovery rate. In my city they recover 50% in each category.
Sorry Cap. I haven't dropped by in a while. Seems I've missed a bunch (I'm almost up to date... only a few more posts...)
As for your problems with the Cdn Govt website. Have you ever thought it might be due to the fact we are intentionally keeping YOU out? ;)
-Brad
Post a Comment