I'd be careful believing any data the EIA is pushing out now, since they changed their "methodology" for gas and diesel price collection in June. I'll save you the rest of my government data rant, which can pretty much be summed up as "Old Man Yells at Sky".
I'd be careful believing any data the EIA is pushing out now, since they changed their "methodology" for gas and diesel price collection in June. I'll save you the rest of my government data rant, which can pretty much be summed up as "Old Man Yells at Sky".
As a rule, one should never "believe" economic metrics, as the measurements are in all cases of dubious accuracy. Even inflation metrics are open to challenge as to their magnitude.
However, when "official" government data contradicts the assertions of a government official, that is still a relevant criticism, especially when two nominally independent data sets challenge a claim based on timing and overall trend.
The reason for using the government's data is simple: the government's data is what the government will use to determine its next steps. One hardly needs to read a Substack article to know the practical impacts of food price inflation or energy price inflation in their own lives--people have the best data in the world for that already: their own spending patterns. However, to have a sense of what is likely to happen next it is important to have some thought on what the government is going to do next. That the Fed's actions are likely to be counterproductive does not change the reality that they are also likely to be highly impactful.
I'd be careful believing any data the EIA is pushing out now, since they changed their "methodology" for gas and diesel price collection in June. I'll save you the rest of my government data rant, which can pretty much be summed up as "Old Man Yells at Sky".
As a rule, one should never "believe" economic metrics, as the measurements are in all cases of dubious accuracy. Even inflation metrics are open to challenge as to their magnitude.
However, when "official" government data contradicts the assertions of a government official, that is still a relevant criticism, especially when two nominally independent data sets challenge a claim based on timing and overall trend.
The reason for using the government's data is simple: the government's data is what the government will use to determine its next steps. One hardly needs to read a Substack article to know the practical impacts of food price inflation or energy price inflation in their own lives--people have the best data in the world for that already: their own spending patterns. However, to have a sense of what is likely to happen next it is important to have some thought on what the government is going to do next. That the Fed's actions are likely to be counterproductive does not change the reality that they are also likely to be highly impactful.