Is there an online resource that anyone knows of that would allow me to download Austrian Money Supply numbers?
I am a college student majoring in economics. I am currently in an econometrics class for which I need to do a multiple regression analysis.
For my paper that I have to write, I have chosen to analyze the Austrian Business Cycle. AMS numbers would greatly help my effort. Thanks!
- Gary
I'm not sure where you might find that, but perhaps these will help:
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae9_2_4.pdf
Thanks for the reply.
I had come across both of these papers when I was doing my initial research and they have been helpful sofar.
I keep these numbers each month. If you would like, I can post them if that is allowed. I have found them to be very useful to my analysis of the economy.
That sure would be helpful for my college paper regression analysis.
In order to cite my source, you are associated with D.H.Lingerfelt Technical Advisors I assume?
Lastly, what definitions of money do you include in your calculation of AMS?
I appreciate any help you can provide! Thanks!
- Gary Danelishen
A monthly download would be very helpful for me for price-charts.
I have never understood why adjustments are made to stock-prices when new shares are created, but no adjustment is made to currencies when new money is created.
The Dow Jones industrial index measured in nominal US dollars does not tell me much. The same index measured in oz of gold tells me more. But I would also like to see the index measured in AMS-adjusted US dollars.
Yes I am as a matter of fact, that's my site. I haven't updated it for some time now but plan to in the near future.
I use a variation on Frank Shostak's formula which he basically got from Rothbard. I use data from the Fed site http://research.stouisfed.org/fred/data/monetary.html for monetary aggregates, the symbols are currns, dddfcbns, dddfoins, usgdcb, and demdepns. I chose these because they all represent current available funds without double counting, but differ from Rothbard's definition by excluding Insurence company accounts which I think are double counting. There is no standard set of components that I can point to as definitive but I think that this set is good. All these are added each month and I also have a trandline in my chart to tell me whether or not it's rate of increase is maintaining. The data goes back to the 50"s and I start with Jan '59. I chart this also to tell me how the rate or increase compares to the trend. Just by looking at the chart, I can see if the economy is in trouble or not based on Hayack's theory. I also have various indicators which I intend to predict the S&P based on writings of Dr. Shostak, which are not bad, though there are no perfect predictions possible. It gives me a good idea of what should happen. The recent infusion of currency by the Fed shows that they can wreck any good prediction (at least temporarily). We also know what is going to happen now that thay intervened anyway. If this is insufficient, let me know and I will attempt to upload a file.
Thanks for the FED series names you use (currns, dddfcbns, dddfoins, usgdcb, and demdepns.) I was not, however, able to find the AMS numbers off of http://www.dhlingerfelt.com.Under which link should I look? Thanks!
Thanks for the FED series names you use (currns, dddfcbns, dddfoins, usgdcb, and demdepns.)
I was not, however, able to find the AMS numbers off of http://www.dhlingerfelt.com.
Thanks!
Within the Austrian School there is a methodological aversion to the empirical testing of economic theory favoring instead for "a priori" reasoning.
Mathematical models are also eschewed.
Would it further the cause of the Mises Institute, however, to publish some data such as Austrian Money Supply Numbers?
I haven't published any numbers on my site. Like I said, I haven't updated the site in some time, though I plan to soon. In any case by using a spreadsheet and the data on the Fed site, you can easily reconstruct the entire series. Merely add the monthly numbers. As for the idea concerning the avoidance of charts and numbers, I think that it is not unAustrian to do this. If the theory is correct in the first place, we should be able to verify it through the charts. In this case, the theory states that an inordinate increase in the AMS should create a bubble and a decelaration in the rate of inflation should cause the bust. If the theory is true then we will see the bust in advance by watching the monetary base. Granted, not all the numbers are available nor can we totally trust the numbers we are given, but never the less they will give us clues. I have discovered the truth of the theory by analysing past blips in the chart and even though the Fed can inturrupt the bust in the short term, forstalling the inevitable, we should still see what's coming. If, on the other hand, the numbers do not predict the bust according to the theory, the theory must be false or at best flawed. So far the theory survives.
I must admit that I am a technician, having been studying technical analysis of the markets for many years now. In my opinion, the chart is by far better at illuminating and understanding the market and individual securities than "fundamental" analysis. I am, by profession a design engineer, and am prone to charts and numbers anyway. I find that they give me a practical method of applying the theory. That being said, I am a dedicated Austrian in the economic sense, and my studies have led me in this direction because I find the Austrian models to be far more accurate than any of the others. The fact that I use charts only means that I put the theory to practical use.
Phillidor, within the realm of theory (e.g. law of demand), yes. Austrians have no aversion to statistical data per se, though, or demonstrations of theory via empirical data. As for mathematical models I don't think they inherently require an empirical methodology, but it is true that Austrians do not like them for the pure theory.
Donald Lingerfelt:In any case by using a spreadsheet and the data on the Fed site, you can easily reconstruct the entire series. Merely add the monthly numbers.
So I've been playing around with this and seem to having it working but have a question about how to calculate the yearly rate of growth.
The formula I found from google is; yearly growth = (1st year - 2nd year)/2nd year.
I was just wondering if there is a better formula for this since this causes some noticeable problems like 10-2002 having a major dip due to the economic effects of 9-11 the year before. I've been trying to get it to approximate the Shostak chart published here a while back:
Anonymous,
The formula is correct, but I use one a little simpler: (Today / 1 year ago) -1 These are called a "Rate of Change" or ROC, which is also a function in Excel. This gives the same result and is a little easier to manage.
The difference between the graphs might be a difference in how the numbers are calculated, though I haven't gone into it at any length. For his adjusted AMS I think he subtracts the GDP, though I am not sure as he hasn't told us ( I looked for it a few times without success).
I also did a study using the square of the 6 month ROC but while this gives a more volatile and recently weighted line, it didn't help that much for my purposes. I also take the data and compare it to the trend line ( a constantly increasing line through the data) to get a feel for the acceleration/deceleration. This is important as a baseline showing how it differs from where it is "supposed to be", indicating the rate of contraction/expansion by the Fed.
A third way to look at the data is to actually graph the difference between the AMS inflation to the trend line on another chart. Just subtract the trend line from the AMS. This will give a line vibrating across a "0" line making it easier to visualize as the swings are more radical. The trend line can be gotten by visually adjusting it until it looks right. I believe I am using a 4.5% line through the center of the data but it's been a while so I may be wrong. For comparison, I do the same with the M2. Complete accuracy is not necessary as you are trying to get a 'feel' for it, not an exact difference. At this point, small variations do not make much difference, but the trend of the line does (change in the rate of acceleration and general level). You might also try a Log chart to see how that looks. I hope this helps. If not let me know and I will try to clarify further. I am happy to help any way I can.