Oh look, today there's "new numbers" based on unpublished data that no one has seen before showing "ten times more income for the average family compared to Joe Biden".
Interesting read, but there is what seems to me a contradiction. You safe tariffs have been passed to consumers, but inflation has decreased. How does that square?
It is true that things often change. It is also true that it is very easy to predict the score after the game is over. You might be OK with the flawed methodology of the past, but this is a new age. Change is needed.
It's a question of whether you want timeliness, accuracy, or both. If you want it timely, you may get inaccurate numbers. If you want accuracy, it may take longer. If you want both: you put out preliminary numbers and then revise afterward.
Revisions have been getting smaller over time, showing preliminary numbers are getting more accurate over time.
But again: if you want timely information it will not be as accurate. If you want accurate information it will not be as timely. If you want both, you have to deal with preliminary estimates and then revise.
So: do you want a lag of a couple months in numbers, which may prevent timely actions from being taken because accuracy is the priority?
The emperor has no clothes.
Oh look, today there's "new numbers" based on unpublished data that no one has seen before showing "ten times more income for the average family compared to Joe Biden".
Interesting read, but there is what seems to me a contradiction. You safe tariffs have been passed to consumers, but inflation has decreased. How does that square?
It is true that things often change. It is also true that it is very easy to predict the score after the game is over. You might be OK with the flawed methodology of the past, but this is a new age. Change is needed.
It's a question of whether you want timeliness, accuracy, or both. If you want it timely, you may get inaccurate numbers. If you want accuracy, it may take longer. If you want both: you put out preliminary numbers and then revise afterward.
I do not believe immediate inaccurate information is valuable. Changes are needed.
Trump is not making changes to improve accuracy. He does not want improved accuracy if the accurate numbers are not flattering.
And how do you know that?
'cause he also trumpeted the good numbers within the same report
What does that prove? So far there is nothing to show that David's comment wasn't merely slander.
Revisions have been getting smaller over time, showing preliminary numbers are getting more accurate over time.
But again: if you want timely information it will not be as accurate. If you want accurate information it will not be as timely. If you want both, you have to deal with preliminary estimates and then revise.
So: do you want a lag of a couple months in numbers, which may prevent timely actions from being taken because accuracy is the priority?