We compare the finite-sample performance of impulse response confidence intervals based on local projections (LPs) and vector autoregressive (VAR) models in linear stationary settings. We find that in small samples, the asymptotic LP interval often is less accurate than the bias-adjusted bootstrap VAR interval, notwithstanding its excessive average length. Although the asymptotic LP interval has adequate coverage in sufficiently large samples, its average length still far exceeds that of bias-adjusted bootstrap VAR intervals with comparable accuracy. Bootstrap LP intervals (with or without bias correction) and asymptotic VAR intervals are shorter on average, but they often lack coverage accuracy in finite samples.

A direct consequence of restricting the price of a good for which secondary markets do not exist is that, in the presence of excess demand, the good will not be allocated to the buyers who value it the most. We demonstrate the empirical importance of this allocative cost for the U.S. residential market for natural gas, which was subject to price ceilings during 1954–89. Using a household-level, discrete-continuous model of natural gas demand, we estimate that the allocative cost in this market averaged $3.6 billion annually, nearly tripling previous estimates of the net welfare loss to U.S. consumers.