PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: Question about Say's Law
- To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Question about Say's Law
- From: Sandwichman <lumpoflabor@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:32:20 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=EKsYXe/g6lPS3+TlFMixZ5zsesqRHjC27mRzj9kGodTOzlyBy1xokNpAkbhpAvM0FouuGpoSaO6CdezmRTy/lrFaTnAoYqxfTmmTn4USwxRw25FagbbuYLSKvfRvVsD+zLwamlTmKo0dRCmPczU+8JGbu59HSHOH/WrKzRHOqHo=
On 5/25/06, Max B. Sawicky <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A lot of people here know all this stuff, but what the hell. In micro
shortages are impossible.
In macro, Keynes relates Say to constant, full employment. Davidson extends
this to the (alleged) neutrality of money. So yes, under naïve classical
theory if you have fewer workers you have less need for output. No problem.
That's what I suspected. When the shoe is on the other foot the naive classicals magically turn into bastard Keynesians!
--
Sandwichman
- Thread context:
- Re: Question about Say's Law, (continued)
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]