There is still no evidence to confirm the fundamental Keynesian proposition that supply doesn’t matter.
Oddly, for all of his apparent skepticism of Paul Krugman, Mulligan is completely suckered on this one. This is Krugman’s current version of Keynesian economics (and even then only sometimes), not Keynesian economics more broadly construed. There is nothing in the (very useful) data cited by Mulligan, in his posts on supply and employment, which runs against the Keynesian story. Of course I am a fan of the blogosphere, but sometimes it frightens me when I see it having influence over research interpretations. We’re just a small number of apes sitting at computers, relative to the overall literature. When it comes to Keynesian economics, I don’t always see us apes as reflecting the broader literature very well, yet we are read by a relatively large number of apes. We can expect this problem to get worse, as people learn the “blogosphere versions” of different points of view. Karl Smith comments. And, as you might expect, Scott Sumner makes perfect sense.