Definitely do not look at GDP. If you look at the historical revisions from the first print to the finally revised one years later you are looking at a 95% confidence band of nearly 500bps. That is one reason not to endorse Nominal GDP targeting as an alternative way to run monetary policy. So stick with ISM, but one final thought, I have never seen so much push back against surveys as we have had this cycle. Admittedly, this is more about political bias charge leveled at UofM survey, but to lesser extent all surveys seem to have been kicked to the turf more than usual. For me old habits die hard, I am sticking with the surveys as a good timely indicator.
Definitely do not look at GDP. If you look at the historical revisions from the first print to the finally revised one years later you are looking at a 95% confidence band of nearly 500bps. That is one reason not to endorse Nominal GDP targeting as an alternative way to run monetary policy. So stick with ISM, but one final thought, I have never seen so much push back against surveys as we have had this cycle. Admittedly, this is more about political bias charge leveled at UofM survey, but to lesser extent all surveys seem to have been kicked to the turf more than usual. For me old habits die hard, I am sticking with the surveys as a good timely indicator.
Maybe we need a Li Keqiang Index for the US - bank lending, rail freight and electricity consumption!