Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: Transforming Inflation
From
Nick Cox <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: Transforming Inflation
Date
Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:57:57 +0000
Deflating inflation! Can you do it for real too?
Applying that transform is indeed quite absurd for negative values;
note that it is undefined for x = -1. I don't think there is any
singularity at 1% deflation.
A generalisation that makes the transform symmetric about zero is
sign(x) * abs(x)/(1 +abs(x))
By intent, this is monotonic and preserves sign, which seem
economically reasonable too.
I discuss a bundle of related issues in
Cox, N.J. 2011. Stata tip 96: Cube roots.
The Stata Journal 11(1): 149-154.
I make a case for cube roots being the simplest shape-changing
transformation that preserves sign and is applicable to negative, zero
and positive values alike.
Shouldn't the second formula be
transformed_inflation=(inflation/100)/((100 +inflation)/100)
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:40 PM, ajjee <[email protected]> wrote:
> My question is not related to Stata but I have a technical problem in
> computing a variable. In estimation, normally we transform our inflation
> variable to reduce the influence of extreme observations by the formula:
>
> transformed_inflation=(inflation)/(1+inflation) or sometime
> transformed_inflation=(inflation/100)/((1+inflation)/100)
>
> But if the value of the variable is negative, say (-1.0666355), the
> resultant value is (16.00701) by the first formula which is misleading. What
> should be done in this situation?
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/