Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Log-Ergodic Dynamics in Stochastic Monetary Velocity: Theoretical Insights and Economic Implications

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims the stochastic velocity of money—nominal GDP divided by money supply—is partially ergodic after a log transform, making its long-run path stable and predictable despite short-run noise.

desk verdict A useful application idea undermined by an unsupported central theorem: the math does not close, and the empirical claim overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08657 v1 pith:3F6JQLTI submitted 2024-11-27 q-fin.GN math.PRstat.AP

Kiarash Firouzi , Mohammad Jelodari Mamaghani This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.GNmath.PRstat.AP MSC 37A3037H0560G1091B7091G15
keywords log-ergodicprocessvelocityofmoneypartialergodicitymean-ergodicityergodicmakeroperatorgeometricBrownianmotionmonetarypolicystochasticprocesses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the velocity of money, defined as the ratio of nominal GDP to money supply, is not a static constant but a stochastic process whose logarithm becomes mean-ergodic after a particular transformation. If true, the long-run level of velocity is stable and predictable even while short-run movements look erratic. The authors build a stochastic model in which GDP and money supply follow geometric Brownian motions, apply their ergodic maker operator to the logarithms, and show that the transformed difference is mean-ergodic, mean-reverting, and topologically mixing. They then calibrate the model to U.S. data from 1959 to 2008 and report that it forecasts velocity from 2008 to 2024 with lower error than the quantity theory of money. The practical payoff claimed is a forecasting tool central banks can use to anticipate inflation and design monetary policy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ergodic maker operator (EMO), $\xi_{\delta,W_\delta}^{\beta}$, an operator that acts on a log-transformed stochastic process and is designed to expose mean-ergodic behavior hidden in the original process; the paper imports its definition and properties from earlier work. The argument works because the EMO is linear: applying it to $\log(V(t))=Y_X(t)-Y_M(t)$ gives $Z_\delta^v=\tilde Y_X(\delta)-\tilde Y_M(\delta)$, and if both transformed components are mean-ergodic, their difference is mean-ergodic. The explicit formula for the transformed velocity process is $Z_\delta^v = [(\mu_X-\mu_M)+\tfrac12(\sigma_M^2-\sigma_X^2)]\,\delta W_T/T^\beta + (\sigma_X-\sigma_M)\,W_\delta/T^\beta$, where $\beta$ is the inhibition degree parameter. This formula is what links the estimated drift and volatility parameters of GDP and money supply to the claimed stability of velocity.

What would settle it

Compute the sample time average of $\log V(t)$ over a long U.S. sample and compare its convergence to the ensemble average predicted by the calibrated $Z_\delta^v$ process; if the time-average variance does not decay at the rate $T^{-2\beta}$ implied by equation (4.5), or if the residual autocorrelation over 2008-2024 remains significant, the partial-ergodicity claim would fail. A direct check of Definition 3.2, evaluating whether $\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac1T\int_0^T(1-\tau/T)\operatorname{Cov}_{yy}(\tau)\,d\tau=0$ for the estimated parameters, would also settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 4.1: the stochastic velocity of money process $V(t)=X(t)/M(t)$ is partially ergodic. Partial ergodicity here means that after taking logarithms, $\log V(t)=Y_X(t)-Y_M(t)$, and applying the ergodic maker operator $\xi_{\delta,W_\delta}^{\beta}$, the resulting process $Z_\delta^v=\tilde Y_X(\delta)-\tilde Y_M(\delta)$ is mean-ergodic: its time average converges to its expected value, so long-run behavior is stable and predictable. The same transformed process is claimed to be mean-reverting and topologically mixing. Empirically, the paper reports that Monte Carlo simulations calibrated to U.S. GDP and money supply data from 1959 to 2008 track the actual velocity of money over 2008-2024 with lower root-mean-square error and mean absolute error than the quantity-theory benchmark, supporting the conclusion that the log-ergodic model has stronger predictive power for long-term monetary velocity.

Load-bearing premise

The proof takes as given, from the authors' earlier paper, that applying the ergodic maker operator to the logarithms of GDP and money supply makes both transformed processes mean-ergodic; the operator's own symbols $D_\delta$ and $R_\delta$ are never defined here, so the mechanism that produces this mean-ergodicity is not visible in this paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Velocity of money has a stable long-run mean that can be estimated from historical data, so forecasts over horizons like five years are possible even when quarter-to-quarter movements are noisy.
  • Central banks can use the calibrated $Z_\delta^v$ process as an indicator of the intensity of contractionary or expansionary policy, and can anticipate inflation trends from predicted velocity.
  • Because the transformed process is mean-reverting, policy interventions have temporary effects and velocity tends to return to its long-run average, which matters for interest-rate and quantitative-easing decisions.
  • The topological mixing property implies that the system is highly sensitive to initial conditions, so policymakers should expect complex interactions and prefer adaptive frameworks over rigid rules.
  • On U.S. data, the log-ergodic model beats the quantity theory of money on out-of-sample RMSE and MAE for 2008-2024, so the approach is a practical alternative for forecasting monetary velocity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The derivation suggests the result is largely structural: any two log-normal processes sharing the same time-scaling $T^{-\beta}$ will produce a partially ergodic difference, so the same framework would apply to other ratios of positive economic variables, such as price-dividend ratios or output-per-capita measures.
  • A natural testable extension is to replace geometric Brownian motion with jump-diffusion processes, which the authors cite as already proved partially ergodic; one could check whether the jump terms degrade or improve the out-of-sample forecasts during financial crises.
  • The paper's own limitation statement acknowledges vulnerability to structural breaks; an applied extension would be to re-estimate the model on subsamples around known regime changes and see whether the mean-reversion parameter itself shifts.
  • Cross-country replication would clarify whether partial ergodicity of velocity is a property of the U.S. monetary regime or a general property of the ratio process.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a log-ergodic stochastic model for the velocity of money, defined as V(t)=X(t)/M(t) with X(t) nominal GDP and M(t) money supply. The model applies an 'ergodic maker operator' (EMO) to the logarithms of geometric Brownian motions for GDP and money supply, and claims that the resulting process is partially ergodic, mean-reverting, and topologically mixing. The authors calibrate drift and volatility parameters to U.S. data (1959-2024), run Monte Carlo simulations, and compare the log-ergodic model with the Quantity Theory of Money, claiming superior predictive power. The manuscript includes theoretical definitions, a theorem, a proposition, an empirical section, and a MATLAB appendix.

Significance. If the central claim were rigorously established, a log-ergodic framework for monetary velocity could offer a useful addition to stochastic monetary economics and policy modeling. The paper has some strengths: it uses publicly available data, provides simulation code, and explicitly acknowledges limitations such as vulnerability to structural breaks and the need for more complex jump-diffusion models. However, the theoretical foundation is not self-contained and the key theorem is not proved from the given definitions. The empirical comparison does not support the headline claim of superior predictive power. These are load-bearing issues, not presentational ones, so the manuscript cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Definition 3.1, Eq. (3.1)] The ergodic maker operator is not well-defined: the quantities Dδ and Rδ appearing in Eq. (3.1) are never defined anywhere in the manuscript, and the operator is therefore not a function on the stated processes. The proof of Theorem 4.1 also assumes without derivation that ξβ is linear, ξβ[YX−YM]=ξβ[YX]−ξβ[YM]. Until these objects and properties are specified, the central derivation cannot be checked.
  2. [Theorem 4.1 and Section 4.1.1] The key step "Since the processes Y~X(δ) and Y~M(δ) are mean-ergodic" is imported from [Firouzi and Mamaghani(2023)] and is not proved here. Even if that import is allowed, mean-ergodicity is not generally closed under subtraction: Definition 3.2 controls the autocovariance of individual processes, not the cross-covariance of the difference, so the conclusion that Zvδ is mean-ergodic does not follow.
  3. [Eq. (4.5)] For β>3/2 and δ≤T, both terms in Eq. (4.5) converge to zero almost surely as T→∞ (W_T=O(√T) and W_δ=O(√δ)). The process Zvδ is therefore asymptotically degenerate; it satisfies Definition 3.2 only because the operator annihilates the signal. The theorem's claim of stable, predictable long-term velocity is vacuous under this construction.
  4. [Theorem 4.3] The topological mixing proof is invalid: δ is an interval length, not a time-evolution parameter, and Zvδ is a family of random variables indexed by δ rather than a dynamical system on an event space Ω. No topology or measure on Ω is specified, and the Poincaré recurrence argument cannot be applied to this process. The claimed mixing property is therefore unsupported.
  5. [Section 5.3, Table 2] The empirical claim of "superior predictive power" is not supported by the reported statistics: the log-ergodic model has lower R² (0.1576 vs 0.4001) and larger SSE (0.2531 vs 0.045) than QTM on the training sample, and the validation comparison reports only point estimates without uncertainty or significance tests. Additionally, the Monte Carlo prediction is generated from parameters fitted to the same data used to define the model, so it cannot independently validate the theoretical claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix] The MATLAB code is not reproducible as written: variables such as "No. of DATA", "Type Beta", and "Type here" are placeholders, and the estimated parameters are computed from raw GDP levels while the diffusion uses log-differences, creating a mismatch between calibration and simulation.
  2. [Definition 3.2, Eq. (3.2)] The formulas contain corrupted symbols (e.g., "\inte∅ral" in Eq. (3.2)) and should be typeset correctly before any further review.
  3. [Section 4.1.1] The sentence "To ensure mean-ergodicity of the original processes in 4.3" is misleading: the EMO is applied to the log processes, not to the original GDP and money supply processes.
  4. [Sections 4.1.1 and 5.2] The paper claims both "stable and predictable" long-term behavior and, via Theorem 4.3, topological mixing with sensitivity to initial conditions; these implications conflict and should be reconciled.
  5. [Figures 1-3] The figures do not report units or axis definitions for the "returns" transformation, and the comparison plots do not include confidence bands, so the visual agreement between simulated and actual velocity cannot be assessed quantitatively.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Theorem 4.1 reduces to the authors' own EMO construction: partial ergodicity is defined as EMO-output mean-ergodicity, and that mean-ergodicity is imported from the same authors' prior work rather than proven.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, after Definition 3.3]
    "Some stochastic processes are not log-ergodic. In such instances, we use the ergodic maker operator (EMO) on the process to observe the mean-ergodic behavior hidden in the original dataset and we refer to such a process as partially ergodic."

    Partial ergodicity is defined in Definition 3.3 as the EMO-transformed process Zδ = ξβ[Yt] satisfying the mean-ergodicity condition (3.2). The paper itself states that the EMO is used to 'observe the mean-ergodic behavior hidden' in a process. Therefore Theorem 4.1's conclusion that V is partially ergodic is a restatement of applying this operator to log V, not an independently derived property of monetary velocity. The theorem inherits its content from the definition of the EMO and from the prior paper that introduced it.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1.1, Proof of Theorem 4.1]
    "Since the processes ˜YX(δ) and ˜YM(δ) are mean-ergodic, the process Zvδ is mean-ergodic. Therefore, the process 3.3 is partially ergodic."

    The key premise that ˜YX(δ) and ˜YM(δ) are mean-ergodic is not proved in this manuscript; it is imported from the authors' prior work [Firouzi and Mamaghani(2023)]. The proof also assumes without derivation that the EMO is linear and that the difference of two mean-ergodic processes is mean-ergodic, which does not follow from Definition 3.2 because that definition controls only individual autocovariances, not the cross-covariance of the difference. Thus the central theorem rests on an unproved self-citation and an unjustified closure property.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1.1, Proposition 4.2]
    "Proposition 4.2 The mean-ergodic process Zvδ is mean-reverting. Proof For the proof and more details we refer the reader to [Firouzi and Mamaghani(2023)]."

    The proposition that Zvδ is mean-reverting is used later to assert that the velocity of money reverts to its long-run average and to justify policy conclusions. The proof is entirely delegated to the same authors' preprint, with no mathematical argument in this paper. This is a load-bearing self-citation: the economic interpretation depends on a property that is not demonstrated here and is not externally verified.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the paper's headline claim is circular in its central step. Definition 3.3 defines partial ergodicity as the EMO-transformed log process satisfying Eq. (3.2), and Section 3.2 explicitly says the EMO is used to reveal mean-ergodic behavior hidden in the original process. Theorem 4.1 then concludes that the velocity-of-money process is partially ergodic because EMO[log V] is mean-ergodic. But the mean-ergodicity of the component transformed processes is not proved here; it is cited to [Firouzi and Mamaghani(2023)], the authors' own prior preprint. The EMO itself, including the undefined symbols Dδ and Rδ, is also imported from that preprint. Moreover, the inference that a difference of two mean-ergodic processes is mean-ergodic does not follow from Definition 3.2, which only constrains each process's own autocovariance. Proposition 4.2, which supplies the mean-reversion interpretation, is deferred entirely to the same self-citation. The empirical section does estimate parameters and compare out-of-sample, so the paper contains some independent data work, but the theoretical foundation of the 'long-term stable and predictable' claim reduces to a definitional construction plus a self-citation chain rather than a self-contained derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim depends on several fitted parameters (drift and volatility of GDP and money supply, the inhibition parameter β, and manually chosen T and δ), on the authors' prior definition of the EMO and its mean-ergodicity property, and on the assumption that GDP and money supply follow geometric Brownian motion. The framework introduces new conceptual entities (EMO, log-ergodicity, partial ergodicity) that have no independent evidence outside the authors' papers.

free parameters (6)
  • µ_X (drift of GDP) = Ranges from -0.0228 to 0.0163 across β values in Table 1
    Estimated by MLE from 1959-2008 U.S. GDP data; the value changes with the inhibition parameter β, and the β used in final validation is not reported.
  • σ_X (volatility of GDP) = Ranges from 0.0861 to 0.1698 across β values in Table 1
    Estimated by MLE from the same data; directly determines the scale of the simulated Z_v^δ process.
  • µ_M (drift of money supply) = Ranges from -0.0318 to 0.03 across β values in Table 1
    Estimated by MLE from U.S. money supply data; enters the formula for the velocity process.
  • σ_M (volatility of money supply) = Ranges from 0.0007 to 0.2046 across β values in Table 1
    Estimated by MLE; affects the noise term in the Z_v^δ formula.
  • β (inhibition degree parameter) = Scanned over 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 with step 0.1
    Chosen by the authors as a grid; no model selection criterion is given, and the specific β used for the validation results in Table 2 is not stated.
  • T (time horizon) and δ (interval length) = "Type here" in appendix code
    Set manually by the user; the scale of Z_v^δ depends on T^β and δ, so the reported results depend on arbitrary choices not fixed in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The ergodic maker operator (EMO), when applied to the logarithms of geometric Brownian motions for GDP and money supply, produces mean-ergodic processes.
    Invoked in Theorem 4.1 proof, Section 4.1.1, but this property is not proved in the manuscript; it is taken from the authors' prior work [Firouzi and Mamaghani(2023)].
  • domain assumption Nominal GDP and the money supply follow geometric Brownian motion.
    Stated in Section 4.1, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.2), without empirical justification such as unit root tests or structural break tests; the paper's own literature review mentions chaotic and trend-breaking behavior in velocity.
  • standard math The time average of the transformed processes converges to the expected value (Birkhoff-type ergodic theorem applies).
    Underlying ergodic theorem cited to [Viana and Oliveira(2016)]; used throughout Section 3.2 to define log-ergodicity.
  • standard math Poincaré Recurrence Theorem applies to the process Z_v^δ.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.3 to assert that almost every point visits every open set infinitely often.
  • domain assumption The Wiener processes W_X, W_M, W_T and W_δ are independent.
    Implicit in Eq. (4.5) and the appendix code, where independent normal random variables are used; not stated or justified in the paper.
invented entities (3)
  • Ergodic maker operator (EMO), ξ^β
    purpose: Transforms a stochastic process into a mean-ergodic process so that long-term behavior is stable.
    Introduced in Definition 3.1 with symbols D_δ and R_δ that are undefined; the operator is constructed by the authors and has no external validation.
  • Partial ergodicity
    purpose: Describes a process that becomes mean-ergodic only after applying the EMO.
    Defined in Definition 3.3 as a property of the EMO-transformed process; the concept is coined by the authors and used to label the velocity process.
  • Log-ergodic process
    purpose: A positive stochastic process whose logarithm is mean-ergodic, used as the modeling foundation.
    Defined in Definition 3.2; the definition uses covariance of the log process, and the framework is developed in the authors' prior paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Log-Ergodic Dynamics in Stochastic Monetary Velocity: Theoretical Insights and Economic Implications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3F6JQLTI

@misc{pith2026241208657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Log-Ergodic Dynamics in Stochastic Monetary Velocity: Theoretical Insights and Economic Implications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3F6JQLTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08657}
}
read the original abstract

We suggest employing log-ergodic processes to simulate the velocity of money in an ergodic manner. Our approach sheds light on economic behavior, policy implications, and financial dynamics by maintaining long-term stability. By bridging theory and practice, the partially ergodic model helps analysts and policymakers comprehend and forecast velocity of money. The empirical analysis, using historical U.S. GDP and money supply data, demonstrates the model's effectiveness in capturing the long-term stability of the velocity of money. Key findings indicate that the log-ergodic model offers superior predictive power compared to traditional models, making it a valuable tool for policymakers to control economic factors in vital situations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Welfare and world money: the domestic foundations of currency internationalisation

    ger authors Randall Germain . Welfare and world money: the domestic foundations of currency internationalisation. Journal of I nternational R elations and D evelopment , 24 0 (3): 0 574--598, ger timeline 2021 . doi:10.1057/s41268-020-00203-x

    work page doi:10.1057/s41268-020-00203-x 2021

  2. [2]

    Foundations of ergodic theory

    1 authors Marcelo Viana and Krerley Oliveira . Foundations of ergodic theory. Cambridge U niversity P ress, 1 timeline 2016 . doi:10.1017/CBO9781316422601

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781316422601 2016

  3. [3]

    The ergodicity problem in economics

    15 authors Ole Peters . The ergodicity problem in economics. Nature P hysics , 15 0 (12): 0 1216--1221, 15 timeline 2019 . doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0732-0

    doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0732-0 2019

  4. [4]

    Complex systems approach to economic dynamics, volume 592

    chi authors Abraham C-L Chian . Complex systems approach to economic dynamics, volume 592. Springer S cience & B usiness M edia, chi timeline 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Transaction costs, mistakes, and performance: A ssessing the importance of governance

    mast authors Scott E Masten . Transaction costs, mistakes, and performance: A ssessing the importance of governance. Managerial and decision economics, pages 119--129, mast timeline 1993 . doi:10.1002/mde.4090140205

    work page doi:10.1002/mde.4090140205 1993

  6. [6]

    Monetary P olicy R ules B ased on R eal- T ime D ata

    orp authors Athanasios Orphanides . Monetary P olicy R ules B ased on R eal- T ime D ata. American E conomic R eview , 91 0 (4): 0 964–985, orp timeline September 2001 . doi:10.1257/aer.91.4.964

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.91.4.964 2001

  7. [7]

    Alexander del mar, irving fisher, and monetary economics

    tav authors George S Tavlas and Joseph Aschheim . Alexander del mar, irving fisher, and monetary economics. Canadian Journal of Economics, 18: 0 294--313, tav timeline 1985 . URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:153959954

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    Arbitrage theory in continuous time, volume 4th ed

    2 authors Tomas Bj \"o rk . Arbitrage theory in continuous time, volume 4th ed. Oxford U niversity P ress, 2 timeline 2020 . doi:10.1093/oso/9780198851615.001.0001

    arXiv 2020

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Samuelson

    sam authors Paul A. Samuelson . Mathematics of S peculative P rice. S IAM R eview , 15 0 (1): 0 1--42, sam timeline 1973 . doi:10.1137/1015001

    1973 doi

  2. [10]

    A short history of stochastic integration and mathematical finance the early years 1880-1970

    jar authors Robert Jarrow and Philip Protter . A short history of stochastic integration and mathematical finance the early years 1880-1970. L ecture N otes- M onograph S eries , 45: 0 75--91, jar timeline 2004 . URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/4356300

    1970

  3. [11]

    Velocity of money and inflation dynamics

    17 authors Hwagyun Kim and Chetan Subramanian . Velocity of money and inflation dynamics. Applied Economics Letters, 16 0 (18): 0 1777--1781, 17 timeline 2009 . doi:10.1080/13504850701719652

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Money velocity and the natural rate of interest

    18 authors Luca Benati . Money velocity and the natural rate of interest. Journal of M onetary E conomics , 116: 0 117--134, 18 timeline 2020 . ISSN 0304-3932. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2019.09.012

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Ardakani

    19 authors Omid M. Ardakani . The dynamics of money velocity. Applied E conomics L etters , 30 0 (13): 0 1814--1822, 19 timeline 2023 . doi:10.1080/13504851.2022.2083062

    2023

  6. [14]

    Random W alks, B reaking T rend F unctions, and the C haotic S tructure of the V elocity of M oney

    20 authors Apostolos Serletis . Random W alks, B reaking T rend F unctions, and the C haotic S tructure of the V elocity of M oney. Journal of B usiness & E conomic S tatistics , 13 0 (4): 0 453--465, 20 timeline 1995 . doi:10.1080/07350015.1995.10524619

    1995

  7. [15]

    Money-flow computations

    leo authors Wassily Leontief and Andras Brody . Money-flow computations. Economic S ystems R esearch , 5 0 (3): 0 225--233, leo timeline 1993 . doi:10.1080/09535319300000019

    1993 doi

  8. [16]

    Seeking ergodicity in dynamic economies

    kami authors Takashi Kamihigashi and John Stachurski . Seeking ergodicity in dynamic economies. Journal of E conomic T heory , 163: 0 900--924, kami timeline 2016 . doi:10.1016/j.jet.2016.03.006

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    From the ergodic hypothesis in physics to the ergodic axiom in economics

    16 authors Mark Kirstein . From the ergodic hypothesis in physics to the ergodic axiom in economics. Conference I n: L inz, A ustria. , 16 timeline 2015 . URL https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Apr-Kirstein_From-the-Ergodic-Hypothesis-in-Physics-to-the-Ergodic-Axiom-...

    2015

  10. [18]

    Day and Wayne Shafer

    21 authors Richard H. Day and Wayne Shafer . Ergodic fluctuations in deterministic economic models. Journal of E conomic B ehavior & O rganization , 8 0 (3): 0 339--361, 21 timeline 1987 . ISSN 0167-2681. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(87)90049-7

    1987 doi

  11. [19]

    Chaotic analysis of us money and velocity measures

    ser authors Apostolos S erletis and Ioannis A ndreadis . Chaotic analysis of us money and velocity measures. International J ournal of S ystems S cience , 31 0 (2): 0 161--169, ser timeline 2000 . doi:10.1080/002077200291271

    doi

  12. [20]

    The mean ergodic theorem

    cou authors Yves Coud \`e ne . The mean ergodic theorem. Ergodic T heory and D ynamical S ystems , pages 3--14, cou timeline 2016 . 10.1007/978-1-4471-7287-1 \_ 1

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Log-ergodicity: A new concept for modeling financial markets, fir timeline 2023

    fir authors Kiarash Firouzi and Mohammad Jelodari Mamaghani . Log-ergodicity: A new concept for modeling financial markets, fir timeline 2023 . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15637

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Stochastic specification and the international GDP series

    22 authors Alok Bhargava . Stochastic specification and the international GDP series. The E conometrics J ournal , 4 0 (2): 0 273--286, 22 timeline 2001 . doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00067

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    The japanese banking crisis: Where did it come from and how will it end? N BER macroeconomics annual , 14: 0 129--201, hosh timeline 1999

    hosh authors Takeo Hoshi and Anil Kashyap . The japanese banking crisis: Where did it come from and how will it end? N BER macroeconomics annual , 14: 0 129--201, hosh timeline 1999 . doi:10.3386/w7250

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    Exploring I nterest R ate M odels: I mplications on B ond V alue M easures in a D ynamic F inancial L andscape

    4 authors I Suharto and Siti H Yuningsih . Exploring I nterest R ate M odels: I mplications on B ond V alue M easures in a D ynamic F inancial L andscape. International J ournal of G lobal O perations R esearch , 4 timeline 2024 . URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:270076184

    2024

  17. [25]

    Money G rowth, M oney V elocity and I nflation in the US , 1948--2021

    3 authors Juan E Casta \ n eda and Jos \'e Luis Cendejas . Money G rowth, M oney V elocity and I nflation in the US , 1948--2021. Open E conomies R eview , pages 1--16, 3 timeline 2023 . doi:10.1007/s11079-023-09739-0

    1948 doi

  18. [26]

    The quantity theory of money, 1870-2020

    23 authors Alexander Jung . The quantity theory of money, 1870-2020. ECB W orking P aper , No. 2024/2940, 23 timeline May 2024 . doi:10.2139/ssrn.4828359

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.