That's a great question, and I'm afraid I'm not going to do it justice. But the place where I think you see the thermostat concern is in the paragraph: A 1983

That's a great question, and I'm afraid I'm not going to do it justice. But the place where I think you see the thermostat concern is in the paragraph: A 1983 study by Lars Peter Hansen of the University of Chicago and Kenneth Singleton of Stanford showed that short-term rates on Treasury bills and short-term returns on stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange had very little correlation with consumer spending. Many empirical studies have confirmed this sort of result (this comparison of inflation-adjusted Treasury bill returns and business sector profitability is a recent example). This summarizes "many empirical studies" in a single sentence. Unfortunately, it doesn't include citations. There are a number of ways to address the "thermostat" problem. Each potential solution only works in specific circumstances. I'd hope the underlying research adequately addresses this concern, but it's hard to say without seeing the research. In general, summarizing "many" 40 page papers in a paragraph is inherently difficult, and Mulligan seems to be especially vague here. If the claims here have any credibility, it would only be through an "appeal to authority," which most of us won't find very compelling. So to answer your question, I'm unimpressed with the Mulligan column... in part because we have no indication what problems there are in the underlying analysis.