[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: mfx - conditional and unconditional elasticities

From   Even Bergseng <[email protected]>
To   "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject   RE: st: mfx - conditional and unconditional elasticities
Date   Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:16:19 +0100

Thanks, Austin.

That's valuable input. I'll keep away from selecting at Y's then.

But my interpretation of the -mfx- options is correct?


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:owner-
>[email protected]] On Behalf Of Austin Nichols
>Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:41 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: st: mfx - conditional and unconditional elasticities
>Even Bergseng <[email protected]>:
>I think not.  Predicting at some X=x is a way of
>characterizing/interpreting the model's estimated coefficients;
>selecting on the explanatory variables X in creating a subsample to
>predict over (or to compute means of X at which to predict) is
>unproblematic, and relatively easy to interpret for a simple selection
>rule, e.g. X=(female, college).  Selecting on y seems like a bad idea
>for all kinds of reasons.
>On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 AM, Even Bergseng <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I want to use -mfx- to compute elasiticities after -tobit/xttobit-. My
>interpretation is that the commands
>> . mfx compute, eyex predict(ystar(0,.))
>> . mfx compute, eyex predict(e(0,.))
>> should produce respectively unconditional (all observations) and
>conditional (non-limit observations) elasticities. Am I correct?
>> If so: Both elasticities are interpreted at the mean of all
>observations. Would it be logical to use mean values for the non-limit
>sample to produce the conditional elasticities? (i.e. add the option
>at(avg) to mfx where avg is means for the non-limit sample).
>*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index