The results for the second of the regression equations I reported in a post
yesterday was incorrect. Please disregard that section of my post and
substitute the following:
************
I also tested whether the sectoral price-value ratios are random, by means of
a similar equation:
ln(P/V) = m + n*(ln[C/L])
Again, the Cockshott ("null") hypothesis is n = 0, and almost everyone else
predicts n > 0.
The results were:
ln(P/V) = -0.0469 + 0.3990*(ln[C/L])
(0.068) (4.528)
Figures in parentheses are Student's t's.
r-squared = 0.745. F = 20.5.
n has the positive sign almost everyone expects, and it is significant at the
.0015 level (1-tailed test). The null hypothesis can again be rejected with
great confidence. The value composition accounts for 3/4ths of the variation
in the price-value ratios.
****************
Andrew Kliman