“The coronavirus gospel of ‘within six feet for more than 15 minutes’ wasn’t enough—and the NFL had the data to prove it.”
Anyone with children in schools, please read this (thread
“The coronavirus gospel of ‘within six feet for more than 15 minutes’ wasn’t enough—and the NFL had the data to prove it.”
https://t.co/irWJgHRvbo
“The guidance was that someone had been exposed to the virus if they had been within six feet of an infected person for more than 15 minutes.
https://t.co/G6krWYHbVX
The NFL told teams to take meetings virtual, avoid indoor gatherings, even if they were distanced and quit eating together.
(cont'd)
More from Sport
It's Sunday, Fed blackout, am recovering from soccer match, sipping on double espresso, so of course a perfect time to take on Tyler Cowen here. 🙂
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
It is hardly phony, especially on social media, to refer to IS-LM models and the like as \u201cKeynesian.\u201d Krugman pushing it and, for better or worse, rising in popularity.
— tylercowen (@tylercowen) January 17, 2021
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
