The Fraser Institute Weighs In on the Census

I was wondering where our fellow researchers and analysts stood on this topic. They were unusually silent, even though I had invited them to participate in a group process requesting a meeting with the Minister and PM, a group which, by the way, seemed to cross all boundaries and divides. I stand corrected.

http://www.canada.com/Fraser+Institute+dismisses+need+mandatory+long+form+census/3287248/story.html

Quite by accident on my way to this post I hit the wrong button and ended up with this article from the UK guardian, entitled “The Lunatics are back in charge of the economy and they want cuts, cuts, cuts“. Ah so….

Can almost hear the sound of snipping from here.

7 comments

  • I believe Kakhuis is a confirmed memeber of the Bastiat Society.

    “This is what should be worrying average Canadians — this information is used by central planners to plan how to tinker with the lives of Canadians,” he said of the ways in which census data is used.”

  • A couple more quotes from the Frasor institute penned bu Kakhuis

    “I certainly understand that social scientists, and I’m one of them, like to play with data”

    I am glad this man finds his job in life as playing with data.”

    Sadly, pulling reliable data from the inner workings of failed policy on child poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and other such key components of building a nation are hardly playing. What a moron this guy is! It is precisely this arrogance that is the most despicable.

    I wonder what many of the constitutes that pay the Fraser bills will be saying about this sheer disregard for some of their much publicized reports about supporting the mandatory long form.

    It is almost like this is all some kind of joke. To think that someone can take census short form data and somehow marry it up with auxiliary data and do the same job, or ” a close” estimate, truly does warrant a huge discussion of the methods being used by these people. If that is not proof that bias is rampant through such approaches to methods, then I don’t know what is.

    I also am a bit mystified at how a voluntary survey with advertising can somehow be n acceptable replacement to the mandatory census long form. I am really am puzzled on that one. Having Clement now say this is endorsed by Statcan, when he held a gun to their head.

    This sure is one big bone that he is throwing to the chosen few, and yet the cost for such inaccuracy, is so huge. Nation building is about at it’s core, ensuring we have inclusion, and participation, and that means knowing you have everybody mapped out in an accurate fashion. Imputing through some kind of biased sample will ensure you have exclusion, and bad decisions and when you are talking about neighbourhoods, as diverse as Canadian neighbourhoods, (after all we are no fortress USA and teh segregation that exists down south), then the solutions are actually in the details.

    What about language, how will small communities in other parts of Canada who speak french be counted? Will they be imputed or even sent a questionnaire in the right language? this issue crosses so many lines that it is no wonder we have the backlash, so many people use the data and rely on its reliability, that we are all coming out wondering whose interests are really at stake here.

    Apparently it is only us profit seeking lefties and our vested interests. I sure must say given the list of endorses for the census long form, surely the Fraser idiots have bitten the hand that feeds them.

    Oh well.

  • Perhaps the Fraser Institute is setting themselves up for their next fund-raising pitch – a campaign to raise professional development funds to send their Economists to a first-year statistical analysis course. I, for one, am ready to open my wallet for this worthy cause.

  • Makes sense. Our degenerate PM and his blasted hordes are not interested in Canadian public having an authoritative source of facts. They prefer to force-feed us their fiction (Clement’s specialty – he did it first in Dark Ages Ontario). Can it get any less Machiavellian?

  • This is the flip side of the “shock doctrine”. Their policies are basically armed robbery on our society. Measures like this are to help hide the evidence.

  • Accidental Deliberations has a good take: the Fraser Institute is celebrating Fact Freedom Day.

  • Why is the Fraser Institute, an extreme right wing media lobbying group, have it’s tax exempt status?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.