Talk:Fisher effect

This Fisher-hypothesis page may use notation which is understandable to an economist, but it misses the rest of us! E.g.: pi raised to the power e is about 7.39; here it seems to mean an expected value of inflation. Then E is apparently used the next time an expected value is described.

What I hoped for from this page is a standard, unarguable way of correcting the nominal interest paid by my bank, to a real (inflation-adjusted) rate for the previous year, for income-tax purposes. The government may taxx me, and it may finance itself by inflation, but I object when it is bankerly and underhanded when they do *both* to my savings! So I estimate the mean-annual-capital C by dividing the reported interest by the estimated nominal-bank-interest, then I apply the real interest value to C. This has worked for many years with never a complaint from IRS, but I keep hoping to find it clearly explained on a Wiki page so I can write a URL on the tax form instead of trying to fit the equations on the page.

Writing:

I = interest paid by bank b = bank-interest rate C = mean-annual capital, i = inflation rate r = real interest rate, we estimate b = I/C (necessary because the bank reports only I. Then, taking i from Shadowstats, to avoid the governments lying

Next, we apply Fisher:

r = [(1+b)/(1+i) - 1] for the real interest rate. We multiply this by C to get the annual return (which will generally be negative). Adding the bank's contribution back in, we end ' up with a corrected interest income I' of

I' = {[(1+b)/(1+i) -1]/b + 1}*I

Example: I = $526 at a nominal b = 3% and i = 9% for 2010. Then r = (1+b)/(1+i)-1 = -0.055, the real interest rate, and applying this to the effective capital C = I/b = $17,500, we find a loss for the year of $962 in purchasing power. Adding back the $526 leaves a net 'income' of -$436.

Strictly speaking, this is purchasing power which the government has extracted from me by inflation, since newly printed dollars have the purchasing power of real dollars the first time they are spent: it is only as the additional money spreads through the economy that *all* dollars depreciate fractionally. Retired, on a dwindling pension, this $436 is twice what I pay in income tax, so it is a not unappreciable source of government income. There are those who point out that financing-by-inflation has the advantage of hitting the rich as hard as it does the poor (except for those close to the Federal Reserve where new money still has its nominal value).

Is this 'original research'? I hardly think so! Fisher wrote in 1907 (but I'm not going to shell out @27 for what should be a free ebook to see if he happened to have writen his equation in this form). I think this page--or at least *some* page--should make this information easily accessible.

What's the group concensus? Ferren (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the above was about, but I know that the notation on the main page is not consistent, or clearly explained. There's a good plain english explanation below, but the second equation departs dramatically from the notation used above it. I think we should either remove it, or someone who knows this stuff better than I should annotate it. Odoketa (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening paragraphs, variables i and rho should be defined and they are not. Rjpetti (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– The concept described on the page is much better known as the "Fisher effect". Source: I'm an academic economist. Also, a quick search on google, google scholar, and google news, will confirm this. Currently, the page "Fisher effect" is a disambiguation that points also to the "International Fisher effect" page. However, the International Fisher effect is an extension of the Fisher effect, and one would always refer to that concept as the International Fischer effect, never as Fisher effect alone, as that would be confusing. A hatnote on the top of the page would adequately address this. LK (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Interstellarity (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fisher effect titles a page with content and so it must also be dispositioned. If this request is granted, then Fisher effect may be deleted or moved to Fisher effect (disambiguation) and tagged with {{One other topic}} in accordance with WP:ONEOTHER. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 19:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this move should be discussed prior to it being performed. Interstellarity (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI, I didn't add a hatnote link to International Fisher effect from Fisher effect since, from what User:Lawrencekhoo said in their nom, it sounds like the former is only a WP:PARTIAL match. And it's linked to in the body in the "Related concepts" section. But if anyone disagrees, feel free to add the hatnote. Colin M (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a "Not to be confused with.." hatnote, because the two effects have similar enough names that it seems possible they may get confused. – Uanfala (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]