The Sahm rule is a robust tool that has been very accurate in identifying a downturn in the business cycle and almost always doesn’t trigger outside of a recession. The simplicity of the calculation contributes to its reliability. The Sahm rule signals the early stages (onset) of a recession and generated only two false positive recession alerts since the year 1959 (there have been 11 recessions since 1950); in both instances — in 1959 and 1969 — it was just a little untimely, with the recession warning appearing a few months before a slide in the U.S. economy began.[13] In the case of the false positive warning related to the year 1959 it was followed by an actual recession six months later. The Sahm rule typically signals a recession before GDP data makes it clear.
Huh, interesting tool. Although I have to say
The simplicity of the calculation contributes to its reliability
economist moment
😆
The Sahm rule originates from a chapter in the Brookings Institution’s report on the use of fiscal policy to stabilize the economy during recessions. The chapter, written by Sahm, proposes fiscal policy to automatically send stabilizing payments to citizens to boost economic well-being.
And then they didn’t. (Joe Biden still owes me $2000.)
She seems cool though, for an economist at least:
“I created the Sahm rule to send out stimulus checks automatically. The idea was to act fast to make the recession less severe and help families. The star was always the stimulus check, not the indicator that other people named after me.”
Recession begins. “Folks what have we been saying, the black jobs, the inflation, can you believe it, our country’s going to hell”
Harris: “Bidenomics works”
Vance dropped, replaced with
Hulk HoganVince McMahon (credit @[email protected] )Conflagration in the middle east.
Trump landslide?
VP Vince McMahon feels a lot more distantly possible than Hogan, Hogan’s down in the Mike Pillow level of improbability imo
That’s a good suggestion, fixed
Wow OP, you’re telling me that a rule that, per your Wikipedia article, originated in a 2019 paper, has had a “near” perfect record since 1970? That’s crazy!
The crazy part is, of course, that the record isn’t actually perfect.
You can apply theories retroactively if you have the historical data
I would argue that anyone who tries to dispute this excellent point needs a refresher on everything Marx ever did.
