Paul Krugman is developing the anti-Mulligan case, but throughout the period since 2008, I have often pointed to blog posts by Casey Mulligan. My reasoning is quite simple: Mulligan usually present basic microeconomic arguments to counter the macroeconomic nonsense that a lot of policy intellectuals and politicians like to spout without really understanding the theory or evidence of the matter under discussion. My respect for Mulligan's basic economic reasoning started well before 2008, but was reinforced by his straightforward explanations --- including how a market correction in 2007-2008 was turned into an economy wide crisis by government policies that were pursued to prevent the necessary market corrections.
A lot of people I respect read Mulligan's columns with skepticism, I don't. I think he makes important points in the public discourse that just insist that we follow the logic of basic economics and interrogate the data armed with the logic of basic economics. What am I missing? And, if I am not missing anything, then how can someone build a "general theory of anti-Mulliganism" without rejecting the use of microeconomics to understand macroeconomic problems?