Trump also has proposals to switch some data to be reported every 3 months. If the economy is a patient that at times might need treatment, timely and as accurate data as possible is helpful, not a hindrance.
I can see merit to both approaches (more rapid data, and quarterly reporting)
There's pros and cons to both.
The con to reporting only every 3 months would be, as you referenced, if something is REALLY wrong, it won't be fixed and course corrected as soon as it should be.
The con to reporting at too aggressive of a cadence, is that (and anyone who's ever worked in an office environment can attest to this) executive types often have propensity for rushing to hit the panic button and coming up with all kinds of wild ideas at the faintest whiff of a metric dip, in ways that don't allow new approaches to ever come to fruition as it takes time to make some tweaks and do refining.
While I don't work in finance, I've seen quite a bit of that in the IT world.
When getting clients/companies off of "legacy systems" and on to more modern, more well-supported systems, you'd be surprised at how many rush for the panic button.
"According to our hourly flash reporting, our contact engagement is down 3% compared to yesterday, and our engagement time per contact is 56 seconds higher than was, !high importance!"
- Us: Well, like we explained, there's obviously going to be a brief learning curve as your employees get familiarized with the new app suite
"This seems problematic, how quickly can we roll back to our old software??? (with more people cc'd on the email)"
...which then proceeds to the "time to talk them off the ledge" portion of the correspondence.
Whereas, if they just waited about 3-4 weeks to do a results comparison, they see noticeable improvements... but executive types tend to want to race back into the security blanket that is "the comfort zone, the way we did things before".
We've literally had COOs of other companies demand to be reverted back to old clunky VB6 and CLI based systems because Day 1 results were down by a trivial amount while they're employees were getting familiarized by it.
I would imagine the finance world would have some of that reactionary thinking in it as well, where if an administration wanted to try something different, if there's the slightest little hiccup week 1, they'll immediately want rush back into the welcoming arms of the status quo rather than allow time for adjustments to be made.
