tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970611666708740586.post2260092564490779983..comments2023-08-28T11:48:39.554-07:00Comments on Reserved Place: The Greenspan PutRebelEconomisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13241098878248190971noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970611666708740586.post-60373911542863980542008-10-10T10:30:00.000-07:002008-10-10T10:30:00.000-07:00www.cnn.com<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/" REL="nofollow"> www.cnn.com </A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970611666708740586.post-70707820711926457992008-07-22T13:08:00.000-07:002008-07-22T13:08:00.000-07:00Many thanks for responding.Many thanks for responding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970611666708740586.post-50522030376520638542008-07-19T01:20:00.000-07:002008-07-19T01:20:00.000-07:00Anonymous, you raise a good question. Even this l...Anonymous, you raise a good question. Even this level of correlation is highly statistically significantly different from zero because of the huge number of daily observations. There are 2026 points in my Volker era and 5266 in my Greenspan/Bernanke era, so the correlations of -0.283 and 0.065 have z-scores of -12.7 and 4.7 respectively. These are both statistically significant from zero even at even the most stringent level like 0.1% (two-tailed), although it is arguably the difference between then that matters, which is of course even more significant since the two correlations have opposite sign.RebelEconomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13241098878248190971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970611666708740586.post-80539835675714260502008-07-17T11:34:00.000-07:002008-07-17T11:34:00.000-07:00Not clear that a correlation of 0.065 is statistic...Not clear that a correlation of 0.065 is statistically different from 0.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com