[Smasharoo]

Just a short comment on your classical equilibrium theory statement. This is pretty much supply side economics so if you simoly were bandying about fancy terms you should know that I agree with Say's Law.


Sure, why not, it allows a crackpot theory to have some sort of classical foundation. Let's just ignore the fact that it doesn't, hasn't and will never work in any non striclty barter based economy.

Say's law doesn't apply to any economy with currency because the efficent nature of transactions required for it to apply do not exist.

It would appear that you are an advoacate of lassiez-faire economics. If you are, saying you believe in "say's law" displays either confusion or ignrance on your part. The focus of modern lassiez-faire theoriticians is the focus on freeing markets of barriers to full employment, like minnium wage.

I don't mean to be judgemental, but advocating lassiez-faire economic policy and using say's law as a reason simply makes you appear desperate to have some sort of classical refrence without realizing it doesn't apply and calls your credibility into serious question.