ClaimsEliezer Yudkowsky

“The Fed stays delusional about increasing NGDP flow not being the real cause of all the inflation, up until a Republican wins in 2024, after which the Fed mysteriously snaps out of it and decides interest rates need to go way up after all.”

Eliezer Yudkowsky, posting on X 6 November 2021 Post by @ESYudkowsky on X, 2021-11-06 (X)

Prediction Economics and markets Political

As a worst-case ('pessimal') prediction, Yudkowsky said the Fed would stay wrong about rising NGDP flow being the real cause of inflation until a Republican won the 2024 presidential election, after which it would decide interest rates needed to go way up.

Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.

Prediction: Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?

The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.

What would count as true or false

The claim has three linked parts. (a) Up to the November 2024 US presidential election, the Fed keeps declining to treat excess nominal demand (NGDP growth) as the main cause of inflation and does not move rates up sharply. (b) A Republican wins the 2024 presidential election. (c) After that win, the Fed decides rates need to go 'way up', meaning a clear shift to substantial rate increases, judged by FOMC decisions and statements from the election to the end of 2025. True: all three hold. Mostly true: all three hold in substance, with a small slip in a detail, such as the shift being modest rather than 'way up' while still clearly a pivot to raising rates after the election. Mixed: (b) holds and one of (a) or (c) holds. Mostly false: only (b) holds, for example because the Fed tightened sharply well before the election (which breaks the 'up until' timing) and did not pivot to sharp hikes after it. False: the Fed tightened sharply before the election and cut or held rates after a Republican win, or a Republican did not win. FOMC statements, the federal funds rate history and Fed officials' stated explanations of inflation are the decisive evidence.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System · 7 November 2024

    “In support of its goals, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/4 percentage point to 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 percent.”
  2. E2 Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System · 18 September 2024

    “In light of the progress on inflation and the balance of risks, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/2 percentage point to 4-3/4 to 5 percent.”
  3. E3 Fed Funds Rate History: Every Fed Decision Since 2008, Chart interestratedecision.com (third-party rate-history site; data read from FXStreet economic calendar) · 16 September 2026

    “| ▼ Cutting | Sep 18, 2024 | Dec 10, 2025 | 6 | −175 bp | 5.25%–5.50% → 3.50%–3.75% |”
  4. E4 Official 2024 Presidential General Election Results Federal Election Commission · 16 January 2025

    “Donald J. Trump (R, C)”

Reasoning

The evidence shows the Fed cut rates from September 2024 through December 2025, including after the November 2024 election (E1, E2, E3), so part (c) did not hold. The evidence does not show who won the 2024 election (E4 only lists Trump as a candidate). It also does not show any sharp tightening before the election or how the Fed explained inflation. Without these, the criteria cannot separate 'false' from 'mixed'.

Cite this claim

Eliezer Yudkowsky, “As a worst-case ('pessimal') prediction, Yudkowsky said the Fed would stay wrong about rising NGDP flow being the real cause of inflation until a Republican won the 2024 presidential election, after which it would decide interest rates needed to go way up.” (said 6 November 2021). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_9beff9cd71ae, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_9beff9cd71ae

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Eliezer Yudkowsky, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More prediction claims by Eliezer Yudkowsky

  1. Mixed Prediction 5 March 2024
    “Beating GPT-4 on GI just forces OpenAI to release 4.5.”

    If a rival AI developer beats GPT-4 on general intelligence, OpenAI will be forced to release GPT-4.5.

  2. Resolved false Prediction 6 April 2023
    “The current crop of people will not try it.”

    The current AI developers will not try the alignment approach he described (filtering training data to nice examples and training on it).

  3. Mostly false Prediction 6 April 2023
    “So probably Paul’s going to win, but slight moral victory.”

    Paul Christiano will probably win his forecast disagreement with Yudkowsky on an AI getting IMO gold by 2025, with prediction-market odds then running around 30%.

  4. Resolved true Prediction 6 April 2023
    “Alignment will not be solved in a few years.”

    AI alignment will not be solved within a few years.

  5. Resolved true Prediction 6 April 2023
    “even if GPT-5 doesn’t end the world, which I agree is like more than 50% of where my probability mass lies”

    GPT-5 will not end the world, with more than 50% of Yudkowsky's probability on that outcome.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.