There has been something that has bothered me about the temperature function in the partition function approach last used here [1]: f(ℓ)=logℓ<0 for ℓ<1 (or in the original application [2] in terms of money supply m). Typically the labor supply ℓ is large (millions of people employed), so this isn't a big deal. However it is possible for the "temperature" to go negative, which is a theoretical problem for small ℓ. In thermodynamics, the analogous function is f(T)=1/T, which is always positive.
Therefore I tried a different function f(ℓ)=log(ℓ+1) (solid) which stays positive and approaches the original function (dashed) for ℓ≫1:
The impact was fairly small on the results of [1] -- the largest difference comes in the ensemble average productivity ⟨p⟩ (right/second is from [1], left/first is new calculation):
There was negligible impact on the other results -- the unemployment rate even showed a slight improvement (first is new calculation, second is from [1]):
Overall, a minor impact empirically, but fairly important theoretically.
...
Update 22 September 2016
I should note that if A⇄L with IT index p, we have
A=Aref(LLref)p
If L≡Lref+ℓ, then we can rewrite the previous statement as
A∼exp(plog(ℓ+1))
so that the original motivation for the partition function (in [2] above) would tell us that f(ℓ)=log(ℓ+1).
...
Update 22 September 2016
I should note that if A⇄L with IT index p, we have
A=Aref(LLref)p
If L≡Lref+ℓ, then we can rewrite the previous statement as
A∼exp(plog(ℓ+1))
so that the original motivation for the partition function (in [2] above) would tell us that f(ℓ)=log(ℓ+1).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome. Please see the Moderation and comment policy.
Also, try to avoid the use of dollar signs as they interfere with my setup of mathjax. I left it set up that way because I think this is funny for an economics blog. You can use € or £ instead.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.