Bibliographic record
Abstract
The irrelevance of inflation is a proposition, inherited from corporate finance, which states that inflation is irrelevant for the valuation of nominal and real stock prices. In other terms, Net Present Values (NPVs) and stock returns are independent of the inflation rate. The issue at stake is both theoretical and empirical, although the first came much before the latter. In the empirical realm, stock returns are found to be statistically negatively related to inflation. However, and theoretically, the classical school predicted that they should be related positively one-to-one. Moreover long run analysis, that came later, found that stock prices are positively related to price indexes. This stems from the fact that stocks are claims upon real assets, and, therefore, should be a hedge against inflation with the same one-to-one relation. This paper differs by subjecting all these hypotheses to the individual stocks included in the Dow Jones Industrial Index, and not to returns calculated from stock indexes, which is the usage. The empirical results in this paper support strongly the irrelevance of inflation. This is true whatever the price index, whatever the econometric procedure, whatever the industry to which the stock belongs, and whatever the specification of the model. Hence inflation is neither negatively nor positively related to stock returns, whether nominal or real.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".