be reduced in weight 1%. The influence of this adjustment will now be 1% upward, counteracted, however, by the 1% tendency to fall, still assumed to exist. That is, the next index number will be 99 plus the 1% influence less the 1% tendency, or 99 + 1 - 1 = 99; and it will, thereafter, remain 99 as long as the tendency to fall continues.
Assuming, to fix our ideas, that the reversal from an upward to a downward movement occurs at the point at which the index number would have reached 200 had there been no stabilization, the index numbers in successive adjustment intervals are given (omitting decimals) in the following table as they would be, both without and with stabilization.
| Without Stabilization | With Stabilization |
| 100 | 100 |
| 101 | (100 + 1 =) 101 |
| 102 | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 103 | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 104 | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 150 | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 151½ | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 153 | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 154½ | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 198 | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 200 | (101 - 1 + 1 =) 101 |
| 198 | (101 - 1 - 1 =) 99 |
| 196 | (99 + 1 - 1 =) 99 |
| 194 | (99 + 1 - 1 =) 99 |
| etc. | etc.etc. |
From the standard hypothetical case, just calculated, experimental departures will be made in order to determine what set of rules will serve best in controlling price movements, as they are actually experienced.
