Did inflation targets reduce the level of expected inflation in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom? In this note, predictions of forecasts by professional forecasters are constructed for five consecutive 12-month periods after the announcement of targets. These predictions use a variety of information variables known to forecasters at the time they make their forecasts. The results show that, after the announcement of targets, predicted forecasts are less than actual forecasts in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden. This is evidence that targets reduced the level of expected inflation. No evidence of such effects is found in the United Kingdom. © 2003 President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

We adapt techniques from the literature on chaos and nonlinear dynamics to detect misspecification in models of serially independent data by checking for dependence between the regressors and disturbances. Our tests are nonparametric in that they determine whether the distribution of the disturbances depends on the regressors without identifying a model of dependence or the distribution of the disturbances. In Monte Carlo simulations we find that these tests have good power against dependence caused by omitted variables, incorrect functional form, heteroskedasticity, and similar problems.We also apply our tests to detect misspecification in models of income imputation.

Using questions expressly added to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, we estimate the change in consumption expenditures caused by the 2001 federal income tax rebates and test the permanent income hypothesis. We exploit the unique, randomized timing of rebate receipt across households. Households spent 20 to 40 percent of their rebates on nondurable goods during the three-month period in which their rebates arrived, and roughly two-thirds of their rebates cumulatively during this period and the subsequent three-month period. The implied effects on aggregate consumption demand are substantial. Consistent with liquidity constraints, responses are larger for households with low liquid wealth or low income.

We present evidence on the level of and trend in inequality from 1985-2010 in the United States, using disposable income and consumption for a sample of individuals from the Consumer Expenditure (CE) Survey. Differing from the findings in other recent research, we find that the trends in income and consumption inequality are broadly similar between 1985 and 2006, but diverge during the Great Recession with consumption inequality decreasing and income inequality increasing. Given the differences in the trends in inequality in the last four years, using both income and consumption provides useful information.

Item-level transactions data yield cost-of-living indices that can account for quality change and consumer substitution. Transactions data require confronting the rapid turnover of items because prices of new and existing products are interrelated in equilibrium. This paper evaluates multiple approaches to measuring quality change at scale. It shows that a hedonic superlative approach—using econometrics or machine learning for hedonic estimation combined with index formulas that require simultaneous observation of item-level price and expenditure—yields improved measures of the cost of living. Accounting for ubiquitous quality change and for consumer substitution yields lower measures of inflation than traditional, official methods. (JEL C43, C45, E31, L15, L81)

We measure the change in household spending caused by receipt of the economic stimulus payments of 2008, using questions added to the Consumer Expenditure Survey and variation from the randomized timing of disbursement. Households spent 12–30 percent (depending on specification) of their payments on nondurable goods during the three-month period of payment receipt, and a significant amount more on durable goods, primarily vehicles, bringing the total response to 50–90 percent of the payments. The responses are substantial and significant for older, lower-income, and home-owning households. Spending does not vary significantly with the method of disbursement (check versus electronic transfer). (JEL D12, D14, E21, E62)