It’s worth noting the CPI numbers being shared now come from a weakened BLS. Since Trump’s return, his administration has quietly slashed staff, halted data collection in key cities, and pushed out oversight committees. The result? Less real-world price sampling, more estimation. The CPI isn’t fake—but it’s increasingly based on modeling, not measurement. We’re watching the slow erosion of statistical truth.
You are correct. Economic data is critical for decision-making. The weakening of data will make it more difficult for us to navigate this economic and for capitalism. A critical requirement for capitalism is that information is accessible.
OK. So: the real question is "By how much will tariff revenue offset the budgetary hole caused by the 'Big Beautiful Bill'?" We calculate the BBB will cause $3.4 trillion in added debt, plus another, say, $.6 trill for added interest payments, for a cool $4 trillion in increased national debt, but this will of course be reduced by tariff income. I know tariffs go up and down on a whim; nevertheless, has anyone bothered to try to figure out a likely level of offset?
So I looked it up. ChatGPT found an article by the Yale Budget Lab (not obviously a MAGA organization), which said the revenue effects to government would be rather close to a wash ("Tariffs are expected to generate roughly $2.4–3.0 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade—nearly matching the $2.4 trillion in deficit increase attributed to OBBBA’s tax cuts"), but the income effects to individuals would be "The bottom ten percent of households would see an average reduction of more than 6.5 percent in incomes, while those at the top would see an increase of nearly 1.5 percent." There is of course a LOT of uncertainty in the tariff revenues. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/combined-distributional-effects-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-and-tariffs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The Cato Institute (not obviously a left-wing organization) published a list of the problems associated with depending on Trump's tariffs to fill the hole. But I have to say that the hole is so damned big, and the political cost of going back to higher taxes so high, and the problems associated with continued major deficits so huge, that it may be hard to go back... https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-count-tariff-revenue-cover-one-big-beautiful-bill?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Im glad the fed kept a steady hand and kept rates where they were. Like you said it is one month of data but this can be a sign that retailers are running out of their safety stocks.
It’s worth noting the CPI numbers being shared now come from a weakened BLS. Since Trump’s return, his administration has quietly slashed staff, halted data collection in key cities, and pushed out oversight committees. The result? Less real-world price sampling, more estimation. The CPI isn’t fake—but it’s increasingly based on modeling, not measurement. We’re watching the slow erosion of statistical truth.
You are correct. Economic data is critical for decision-making. The weakening of data will make it more difficult for us to navigate this economic and for capitalism. A critical requirement for capitalism is that information is accessible.
What's the solution to fill the gap?
very timely post, thanks!
I haven't looked at the budget data myself just yet (working on a different post), but is there anything interesting to note about spending?
OK. So: the real question is "By how much will tariff revenue offset the budgetary hole caused by the 'Big Beautiful Bill'?" We calculate the BBB will cause $3.4 trillion in added debt, plus another, say, $.6 trill for added interest payments, for a cool $4 trillion in increased national debt, but this will of course be reduced by tariff income. I know tariffs go up and down on a whim; nevertheless, has anyone bothered to try to figure out a likely level of offset?
Not even close, atleast thats my thought.
So I looked it up. ChatGPT found an article by the Yale Budget Lab (not obviously a MAGA organization), which said the revenue effects to government would be rather close to a wash ("Tariffs are expected to generate roughly $2.4–3.0 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade—nearly matching the $2.4 trillion in deficit increase attributed to OBBBA’s tax cuts"), but the income effects to individuals would be "The bottom ten percent of households would see an average reduction of more than 6.5 percent in incomes, while those at the top would see an increase of nearly 1.5 percent." There is of course a LOT of uncertainty in the tariff revenues. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/combined-distributional-effects-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-and-tariffs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The Cato Institute (not obviously a left-wing organization) published a list of the problems associated with depending on Trump's tariffs to fill the hole. But I have to say that the hole is so damned big, and the political cost of going back to higher taxes so high, and the problems associated with continued major deficits so huge, that it may be hard to go back... https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-count-tariff-revenue-cover-one-big-beautiful-bill?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Im glad the fed kept a steady hand and kept rates where they were. Like you said it is one month of data but this can be a sign that retailers are running out of their safety stocks.