Roger Bailey

414001926

Advisor: Troy Lorde

SOME ECONOMIC SCHOLARS ARGUE THAT THE
CLASSICALS (MALTHUS NOT INCLUDED) SUPPORT
THE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATION OF SAY'S LAW:
SUPPLY CREATES ITS OWN DEMAND, IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO OVERPRODUCE, AND MONEY HAS NO
INFLUENCE ON REAL VARIABLES IN AN ECONOMY.
OTHER SCHOLARS COUNTER THAT THE
CLASSICALS DID UNDERSTAND THAT GLUTS WERE
POSSIBLE AND MONEY HAD REAL EFFECTS.
DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE ADVANCED BY EACH SIDE
OF THIS DEBATE.
ECON3008-History of Economic Though
Say’s law, also known as Say’s law of markets in Classical economics, states that supply itself creates its

own demand. The law states that aggregate production creates an equal amount of aggregate demand. It

is an economic rule that production is the source of demand.

Say’s law was the argument put forward by Jean-Baptiste Say, economist who had liberal views and

argued in favor of free trade and a laissez-faire economy.

A laissez-faire economy is one in which business activities between private individuals, commercial

enterprises, and other entities are free from government interference which implies that it is a free market

economy.

John Baptiste Say, in 1803, stated in his theory that “It is worthwhile to remark that a product is no sooner

created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value.

When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest

its value should diminish in his hands. (A Treatise on Political Economy: Or the Production, Distribution,

and Consumption of Wealth)”

“Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also

perishable. But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus the

mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products. (Say 1834)”

Mill, Ricardo and Say argued “that in the process of producing goods, there is sufficient purchasing power

generated to remove these goods off the market at satisfactory prices” (Landreth and Colander n.d.).

They held that overproduction or “gluts” may occur within some markets though generating gluts for the

entire economy is impossible.

Declines in monetary movement that occurred just continued for brief period, because of the market

consequently restoring the framework to full usage of assets. Along these lines, the thinkers insisted on

there being no excess accumulation of capital in the long run.

If something is produced then sold for $1000 and the payments made to the factors of production are

deducted, there will be no residual. By definition, this is correct since what is not interest, wages or rent

becomes profits for capitalists. Now there is $1000 in purchasing power with the landlords, capitalists and

labor. Similar rules hold in the total economy, the annual output is considered buying power by its

individuals. It could be said with conviction that enough obtaining force is created to get products and get

them off the market.

All this basically boils down to is that when somebody produces a good or service, they get wages for that

labor, and are then utilize that money to acquire other products or services. In other words, the money

you make from the production of new goods or the provision of an additional service is spent, which

increases demand levels.

Classicals realized, that supply and demand may not mix in some markets and that there may be a glut

of certain goods— excess supply in an industry. “This glut in a particular industry is a manifestation of

market forces at work, on either the demand or the supply side (Landreth and Colander n.d., 154)”.

Excess supply in one market means that there is excess demand elsewhere. “Assuming a system of

flexible prices and mobility of resources, factors of production will leave the industry with excess supply
and flow into the industry with excess demand. (Landreth and Colander n.d., 154)” Therefore, full

utilization of resources is guaranteed in the long run.

Despite the fact that enough acquiring force is developed to get products created off the market, what

ensure is there that this obtaining force would be connected in the market? The appropriate response

inside Say's Law is typically expressed as: Supply makes its very own demand.This perspective would

propose that the imperative point in financial development isn't expanding request yet an expansion

underway. Supply unquestionably makes potential interest, despite the fact that what is imperative is that

the potential interest is connected in the market as effective demand.

Say, along with Mill and Ricardo handled this issue by arguing that possible purchasing power was

brought back into the market as demand for either producer or consumer good. “Essentially, they came

back to the Smithian position that making a choice to save is a choice to invest. The possibility of

hoarding was denied. Money was only a medium of exchange in their system; thus, they denied any

possible monetary causes of depression or stagnation (Landreth and Colander n.d.).” In their system,

money was only a means for exchange, therefore any monetary reasons for depression were denied.
Arguments

Mill

Mill observed, that Say’s Law “contradicts those obvious facts which are universally known and admitted

to be not only possible, but of actual and even frequent occurrence (2017)” – since there are increases

and decreases in price, and of booms and recessions. Said conditions show unequal relationship

between total demand and total supply.

Mill states, “is evidently founded on the supposition of a state of barter; and, on that supposition, it is

perfectly incontestable. When two persons perform an act of barter, each of them is at once a seller and a

buyer. He cannot sell without buying. (2017)”

“If, however, we suppose that money is used, these propositions cease to be exactly true. The effect of

the employment of money, and even the utility of it, is that it enables this one act of interchange to be

divided into two separate acts or operations… Although he who sells, really sells only to buy, he needs

not buy at the same moment when he sells; and he does not therefore necessarily add to the immediate

demand for one commodity when he adds to the supply of another. (J. S. Mill 2017)”

If Say’s law was true, “money must itself be considered as a commodity. It must, undoubtedly, be

admitted that there cannot be an excess of all other commodities, and an excess of money at the same

time (J. Mills 2017).” To argue that point, Mill said that it “involves the absurdity that commodities may fall

in value relatively to themselves. (2017)”

Along these lines, Mill foresees what is known as Walras' Law, yet does not work it out. The confirmation

that "money must itself be considered as a commodity," since there can't be an abundance of every

single other product, and an overabundance of cash in the meantime, is for the most part credited to Leon

Walras. Wealth can be partitioned into three classes – cash, cases, and merchandise. Walras

demonstrated that any overabundance interest for cash must equivalent the entirety of the abundance

supply in the other two markets. It stays genuine that you can't offer without purchasing, on the off chance

that you incorporate cash among the articles purchased and sold. (Mueller 1991)

Ricardo

Ricardo developed his views on Say’s Law in debates from the 1800s. They were called the Bullion

Debates. What was the cause of the Napoleonic wartime inflation? Was the issue. The Bullionists

expressed that money expansion from the wars was the cause.

The Anti-Bullionists held that the reasons were more substantial, but that they added in real life causes

like harvest failure. “They favored the Real Bills Doctrine: the doctrine that if the issuance of money were

related to short-term financial commercial operations (such as the financing of inventories), there could be

no overissuance of money (Landreth and Colander n.d.).” When monetary growth was not higher than the

needs of real trade, inflationary causes are not in the monetary sector.
Amid this discussion, Ricardo turned into a noteworthy scholar of the Bullionist position, which is

compared to an advanced position—inflation is dependably a money related marvel. For Ricardo, the

"activity" in the economy was in the genuine segment; his financial hypothesis mirrored that view. “Money

was simply a veil hiding the real economy, his works in the discussion were intended to expel that shroud

(Landreth and Colander n.d.).”

Early thinkers on political economy held various opinions on what we now call Say's law. David Ricardo

and James Mill both supported the law. John Mill questioned that general gluts cannot occur.

Mill and Ricardo restated and developed Say's law. Mill wrote, "The production of commodities creates,

and is the one and universal cause which creates, a market for the commodities produced” (J. Mill n.d.).

Ricardo believed demand depends only on supply.

John Mill likewise perceived excesses. He trusted that while in an overabundance, there isn't sufficient

interest for non-fiscal items and abundance interest for cash.

At the point when there is general uneasiness to offer, and a not having any desire to purchase, a wide

range of products stay for quite a while, and those which locate a prompt market, do as such at low costs.

Times as described, we have depicted, for the most part, individuals preferred it preferable to have cash

over different wares. Therefore, cash was in demand, and every other product were in comparable

unsavoriness.
As there might be a transitory overabundance of any one article considered independently, so may there

of items for the most part, not in result of over-creation, but rather of a need of business certainty.

Mill recovered the case that there can't be a synchronous overabundance all things considered and

merchandise by including cash as one of the item.

With the end goal to have the contention for the inconceivability of an overabundance of all products

material, cash must itself be considered as a ware. It must be added so that there can't be an

overabundance of every other product and an abundance of cash in the same time.
Works Cited

Landreth, Harry, and David Colander. n.d. History of Economic Thought . 4th. Toronto: Houghton Mifflin

Company.

Mill, James. n.d. James Mill’s formulation of “Say’s Law”. Accessed November 19, 2018.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/544.

Mill, John Stuart. 2017. Ultimate Collection: Works on Philosophy, Politics & Economy . Madison &

Adams Press.

Mills, J.S. 2017. The Essence of Mill's Economics: Principles of Political Economy, Essays on Some

Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, Socialism & The Slave Power. Madison & Adams

Press.

Mills, John Stuart. n.d. Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy 2nd Edition. Augustus

m Kelley Pubs.

Say, John Baptiste. 1834. A Treatise on Political Economy: Or the Production, Distribution, and

Consumption of Wealth. Grigg & Elliot.