Abstract
Most scholars view the expectations held by consumers to be little more than uninformed guesses. Nonetheless, research has repeatedly found a close correspondence between aggregate trends in consumer expectations with the corresponding trends in national statistics. The theory of tailored expectations has reconciled the false paradox of micro-inaccuracy and macro-accuracy by shifting the focus from national data to the conditions people actually face. Processing, interpreting, and learning from economic information are largely accomplished by non-conscious cognitive activity. The inherent social nature of economic expectations generates cascades that can result in self-fulfilling expectations and consumers deserve equal billing with business and the government as having an independent and potent impact on the macro-economy. Lastly, the lament that non-conscious cognitive activity cannot be directly observed should not impede progress toward a more robust theory of economic expectations.
Keywords
Rational expectations Tailored expectations Consumers SurveysNotes
References
- Chen, Yiqun G. 2019. Inflation, inflation expectations, and the Phillips curve. CBO Working Paper 2019-07. Washington DC: CBO.Google Scholar
- Curtin, Richard C. 2010. Inflation expectations and empirical tests: Theoretical models and empirical tests. Inflation Expectations 56: 34–61.Google Scholar
- Curtin, Richard C. 2019. Consumer expectations: Micro foundations and macro impact. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Damasio, Anotonio R. 1994. Descartes’ error. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
- Gramlich, Edward M. 1983. Models of inflation expectations formation. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 15 (2): 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mehra, Yash P. 2002. Survey measures of expected inflation: Revisiting the issues of predictive content and rationality. Economic Quarterly-Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond 88 (3): 17–36.Google Scholar
- Thomas Jr., Lloyd B. 1999. Survey measures of expected U.S. inflation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 13 (4): 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar