Patterns of play, tactical approaches and theoretical concepts in football - Explained and visualised.
•Phases Of Play
•In possession
•Out of possession
Thread (Part 1)⬇️
https://t.co/LOkkuupgUm
Thread\u2b07\ufe0f
— Eric Laurie (@EricLaurie) December 29, 2020
Advantages and disadvantages of various formation in football.
More from Eric Laurie
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.)
