Need a math help for the Cagan's model in macroeconomics












2












$begingroup$


From the appendix after the chapter 4 in Macroeconomics 7th edition by Gregory Mankiw.




To keep the math as simple as possible, we posit a money demand function that is linear in the natural logarithms of all the variables. The money demand function is



$m_t − p_t = −gamma( p_{t+1} − p_t)$,



where $m_t$ is the log of the quantity of money at time t, $p_t$ is the log of the price level at time t, and $gamma$ is a parameter that governs the sensitivity of money demand to the rate of inflation. By the property of logarithms, $m_t − p_t$ is the log of real money balances, and $p_{t+1} − p_t$ is the inflation rate between period t and period t+1. This equation states that if inflation goes up by 1 percentage point, real money balances fall by $gamma$ percent.





  1. Shouldn't $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ be the log of inflation rate? Why it says just "the inflation rate"?




  2. This equation states that if inflation goes up by 1 percentage point, real money balances fall by $gamma$ percent.




    My math level is like that of a high school. Would anyone be so nice and explain this for me? To me, it doesn't make sense at all.



    $ln frac{M}{P} = ln (frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t})^{-gamma} rightarrow frac{M}{P} = (frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t})^{-gamma}$



    So, if the $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ is just the log of inflation rate, then $frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}$ is the inflation rate and,




    inflation goes up by 1 percentage point




    would mean $frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}$ is going to get +1, right? But I couldn't possibly think it would result the fall of $frac{M}{P}$ by the $gamma$ point. What am I missing?



    And secondly, if the $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ is just the inflation rate,(not the log of any) then it bugs me more than the former. So, +1 change to the inflation rate is like nothing but that we would get "$−gamma(1 + p_{t+1} − p_t)$" at the right side, right? How could this be the case?












share|improve this question









New contributor




dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    From the appendix after the chapter 4 in Macroeconomics 7th edition by Gregory Mankiw.




    To keep the math as simple as possible, we posit a money demand function that is linear in the natural logarithms of all the variables. The money demand function is



    $m_t − p_t = −gamma( p_{t+1} − p_t)$,



    where $m_t$ is the log of the quantity of money at time t, $p_t$ is the log of the price level at time t, and $gamma$ is a parameter that governs the sensitivity of money demand to the rate of inflation. By the property of logarithms, $m_t − p_t$ is the log of real money balances, and $p_{t+1} − p_t$ is the inflation rate between period t and period t+1. This equation states that if inflation goes up by 1 percentage point, real money balances fall by $gamma$ percent.





    1. Shouldn't $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ be the log of inflation rate? Why it says just "the inflation rate"?




    2. This equation states that if inflation goes up by 1 percentage point, real money balances fall by $gamma$ percent.




      My math level is like that of a high school. Would anyone be so nice and explain this for me? To me, it doesn't make sense at all.



      $ln frac{M}{P} = ln (frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t})^{-gamma} rightarrow frac{M}{P} = (frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t})^{-gamma}$



      So, if the $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ is just the log of inflation rate, then $frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}$ is the inflation rate and,




      inflation goes up by 1 percentage point




      would mean $frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}$ is going to get +1, right? But I couldn't possibly think it would result the fall of $frac{M}{P}$ by the $gamma$ point. What am I missing?



      And secondly, if the $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ is just the inflation rate,(not the log of any) then it bugs me more than the former. So, +1 change to the inflation rate is like nothing but that we would get "$−gamma(1 + p_{t+1} − p_t)$" at the right side, right? How could this be the case?












    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.







    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      From the appendix after the chapter 4 in Macroeconomics 7th edition by Gregory Mankiw.




      To keep the math as simple as possible, we posit a money demand function that is linear in the natural logarithms of all the variables. The money demand function is



      $m_t − p_t = −gamma( p_{t+1} − p_t)$,



      where $m_t$ is the log of the quantity of money at time t, $p_t$ is the log of the price level at time t, and $gamma$ is a parameter that governs the sensitivity of money demand to the rate of inflation. By the property of logarithms, $m_t − p_t$ is the log of real money balances, and $p_{t+1} − p_t$ is the inflation rate between period t and period t+1. This equation states that if inflation goes up by 1 percentage point, real money balances fall by $gamma$ percent.





      1. Shouldn't $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ be the log of inflation rate? Why it says just "the inflation rate"?




      2. This equation states that if inflation goes up by 1 percentage point, real money balances fall by $gamma$ percent.




        My math level is like that of a high school. Would anyone be so nice and explain this for me? To me, it doesn't make sense at all.



        $ln frac{M}{P} = ln (frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t})^{-gamma} rightarrow frac{M}{P} = (frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t})^{-gamma}$



        So, if the $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ is just the log of inflation rate, then $frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}$ is the inflation rate and,




        inflation goes up by 1 percentage point




        would mean $frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}$ is going to get +1, right? But I couldn't possibly think it would result the fall of $frac{M}{P}$ by the $gamma$ point. What am I missing?



        And secondly, if the $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ is just the inflation rate,(not the log of any) then it bugs me more than the former. So, +1 change to the inflation rate is like nothing but that we would get "$−gamma(1 + p_{t+1} − p_t)$" at the right side, right? How could this be the case?












      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      $endgroup$




      From the appendix after the chapter 4 in Macroeconomics 7th edition by Gregory Mankiw.




      To keep the math as simple as possible, we posit a money demand function that is linear in the natural logarithms of all the variables. The money demand function is



      $m_t − p_t = −gamma( p_{t+1} − p_t)$,



      where $m_t$ is the log of the quantity of money at time t, $p_t$ is the log of the price level at time t, and $gamma$ is a parameter that governs the sensitivity of money demand to the rate of inflation. By the property of logarithms, $m_t − p_t$ is the log of real money balances, and $p_{t+1} − p_t$ is the inflation rate between period t and period t+1. This equation states that if inflation goes up by 1 percentage point, real money balances fall by $gamma$ percent.





      1. Shouldn't $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ be the log of inflation rate? Why it says just "the inflation rate"?




      2. This equation states that if inflation goes up by 1 percentage point, real money balances fall by $gamma$ percent.




        My math level is like that of a high school. Would anyone be so nice and explain this for me? To me, it doesn't make sense at all.



        $ln frac{M}{P} = ln (frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t})^{-gamma} rightarrow frac{M}{P} = (frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t})^{-gamma}$



        So, if the $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ is just the log of inflation rate, then $frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}$ is the inflation rate and,




        inflation goes up by 1 percentage point




        would mean $frac{p_{t+1}}{p_t}$ is going to get +1, right? But I couldn't possibly think it would result the fall of $frac{M}{P}$ by the $gamma$ point. What am I missing?



        And secondly, if the $(p_{t+1} - p_t)$ is just the inflation rate,(not the log of any) then it bugs me more than the former. So, +1 change to the inflation rate is like nothing but that we would get "$−gamma(1 + p_{t+1} − p_t)$" at the right side, right? How could this be the case?









      mathematical-economics






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Giskard

      13.3k32248




      13.3k32248






      New contributor




      dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked yesterday









      dolcodolco

      1183




      1183




      New contributor




      dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      dolco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          The answer to both your questions is that for small $x$ values
          $$
          ln(1+x) approx x,
          $$

          the difference being less than $x^2/2$. (Proof by Taylor-approximation.)



          So if inflation is around 10%, then the absolute error from this type of approximation is less then 0.5%, which is pretty good.



          This should also answer your second question, as the approximation
          $$
          gamma x approx ln(1+ gamma x),
          $$

          works as well.



          It may also be worthwhile to look into elasticity.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "591"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            dolco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27434%2fneed-a-math-help-for-the-cagans-model-in-macroeconomics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3












            $begingroup$

            The answer to both your questions is that for small $x$ values
            $$
            ln(1+x) approx x,
            $$

            the difference being less than $x^2/2$. (Proof by Taylor-approximation.)



            So if inflation is around 10%, then the absolute error from this type of approximation is less then 0.5%, which is pretty good.



            This should also answer your second question, as the approximation
            $$
            gamma x approx ln(1+ gamma x),
            $$

            works as well.



            It may also be worthwhile to look into elasticity.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              3












              $begingroup$

              The answer to both your questions is that for small $x$ values
              $$
              ln(1+x) approx x,
              $$

              the difference being less than $x^2/2$. (Proof by Taylor-approximation.)



              So if inflation is around 10%, then the absolute error from this type of approximation is less then 0.5%, which is pretty good.



              This should also answer your second question, as the approximation
              $$
              gamma x approx ln(1+ gamma x),
              $$

              works as well.



              It may also be worthwhile to look into elasticity.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                3












                3








                3





                $begingroup$

                The answer to both your questions is that for small $x$ values
                $$
                ln(1+x) approx x,
                $$

                the difference being less than $x^2/2$. (Proof by Taylor-approximation.)



                So if inflation is around 10%, then the absolute error from this type of approximation is less then 0.5%, which is pretty good.



                This should also answer your second question, as the approximation
                $$
                gamma x approx ln(1+ gamma x),
                $$

                works as well.



                It may also be worthwhile to look into elasticity.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                The answer to both your questions is that for small $x$ values
                $$
                ln(1+x) approx x,
                $$

                the difference being less than $x^2/2$. (Proof by Taylor-approximation.)



                So if inflation is around 10%, then the absolute error from this type of approximation is less then 0.5%, which is pretty good.



                This should also answer your second question, as the approximation
                $$
                gamma x approx ln(1+ gamma x),
                $$

                works as well.



                It may also be worthwhile to look into elasticity.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                GiskardGiskard

                13.3k32248




                13.3k32248






















                    dolco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    dolco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    dolco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    dolco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Economics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27434%2fneed-a-math-help-for-the-cagans-model-in-macroeconomics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Masuk log Menu navigasi

                    Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

                    Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области