Further Implications Of Say's Law Of Markets: Take #2

Today is the 130th birth anniversary of Ludwig von Mises. This post is written in his honour. He hated the Keynesians and he upheld Say's Law against their vicious attacks. It is Say's Law that proves the truth of Mises' words below, written for the benefit of the working classes who mistakenly support socialism, unionism and Keynesianism:

In the capitalist society there is a place and bread for all. Its ability to expand provides sustenance for every worker. Permanent unemployment is not a feature of free capitalism.

Murali's comment to my previous post - on Jean Baptiste Say's Law of Markets, and its implications on the current economic crisis, has prompted me to write another post on this vital law, this time explaining some of its other practical implications. In the world of classical liberal political economy, if you were not an adept at Say's Law, you were not considered a political economist worth your salt. It is therefore important to know all about this law of markets - a law that John Maynard Keynes thought he had disproved.


First, let me restate the law:

The sale of X gives rise to the demand for all non-X.

If X sells, it creates the demand for all non-competing goods.

Thus, if a bhel-puri wallah sells his stock, he will be possessed of the means to purchase all other, non-competing goods on the market, except bhel-puri, which of course he will not buy. This disproves the deliberately misleading Keynesian formulation of Say's Law as "supply creates its own demand." The supply of bhel-puri does not create the demand for bhel-puri. The supply and sale of all other, non-competing goods and services do.  


Now, the first objection the Keynesian will have to this formulation is that the market tends towards over-production, so without Keynesian monetary boosts, recessions are inevitable. But Say's Law says:

Markets Clear - If Prices Are Not Rigid Downwards 
(due to interventionism).

Thus, ANYTHING PRODUCED will finally be sold - even as junk, if prices are allowed to fall. There is NO OVERPRODUCTION. And there is NO CASE for any monetary boost to "stimulate consumption." 

Indeed, as the Austrian School of economists have proved with theory, and as history has proved today as well, it is this sort of monetary tinkering based on Keynesian "macroeconomics" that is the root cause of all boom-and-bust "business cycles."

Say's Law asserts the obvious: That SAVING and INVESTMENT and INCREASED PRODUCTION lead to INCREASED DEMAND for ALL GOODS AND SERVICES. This is the ONLY WAY to boost demand permanently. 


Keynesian inflationism destroys savings; erodes capital; and thereby reduces production. If at all it boosts consumption, this is during the temporary, heady and short period of the artificial boom, for inevitably the bust must follow, and this is invariably of longer duration than the boom. Further, there have been historical periods of "stagflation," when inflationism failed to boost consumption at all, and economic stagnation combined with high inflation.  

Second: Say's Law proves that all businessmen are best off if they DO NOT COMBINE in protectionist groups. Such groups, if successful, reduce the supply and sales of all non-competing goods - and this reduces demand for all businessmen who do NOT compete with these goods. Thus, whereas Amul Cheese may want protection, it makes no sense for Kingfisher Beer to support this claim, and vice versa. 


Recall that, in our protectionist heydays, there was precious little available in Indian shops - and all businesses suffered. Our markets had zero catallactic energy. 


Thus, Say's Law proves that the business interests of a particular class of traders called "importers" must be supported by all. 


Further, it makes a rock-solid case for "rugged individualism" on the part of all businessmen. It opposes mixing politics - particularly protectionist politics - with business.

The same is true with regard to immigration restrictions. These exist in the West because of a few very powerful trade unions, like the US Automobile Workers' Union. These unions demand visa restrictions because they fear that immigrants will "take away their jobs." 


But the fact remains that all immigrants are NOT competing with autoworkers. Some may come as doctors and nurses. Some may come as dishwashers and construction labourers, restaurant waiters and cooks. And some as software engineers. After all, labour is NOT a homogeneous entity. And there is therefore nothing called "unskilled labour." Further, the demand for labour is always the demand for a particular skill.

If immigration was free, Say's Law proves that overall demand would rise, because as the workers in the non-competing areas managed to sell their services, they would buy whatever they needed from that very same market. I daresay if the USSA had opened up to immigration two years ago, their crisis in the housing market would well nigh be over.

There is more: Because automobile workers' unions are so influential and powerful, the US automobile industry has collapsed. General Motors has been nationalised! Obviously, an important cause of this collapse is the high cost of domestic labour. 

So here is a third and final implication of Say's Law: That all non-competing businessmen gain the most if ALL goods and services are sold at their most competitive price, which is, of course, the LOWEST PRICE.

THIS INCLUDES LABOUR.

Thus, cheap and abundant labour is good for an economy, just as cheap and abundant coal or oil or natural gas or timber is. If labour is cheap, all businesses benefit. All costs are lowered. More goods and services are produced and there is more competition. Thus, workers in all industries gain as consumers - even though their individual wages may be lower. For example: If waiters and cooks can be hired cheap, restaurants will be cheap, there will be more of them - and more workers will be able to eat out.


Cheap labour is beneficial to other, non-competing businesses in another, vital way: consumers have more to spend on the other offerings of the market. Thus, if cars are cheap in the US, the US consumer has money left over to buy beer, jeans, CDs and books. 


This implies that free immigration and cheap labour are GOOD for all American businessmen. Further, there is NO REASON for all workers to join socialist trade unions. Karl Marx's slogan, "Workers of the world - Unite!" makes as little sense as "Businessmen of the World - Unite for Protectionism!"

So, just as Say's Law of Markets suggests RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM as the best policy for businessmen, so also does it suggest the same for workers. Trade unionism and labour market restrictions hurt all workers outside the combination - and thereby hurt all other businesses, and the workers employed in them, too. Workers must compete with each other - just as businessmen must, too. After all, workers in the same factory compete for the next promotion, don't they? As Mises put it: 

Under capitalism everybody is the architect of his own fortune.

Say's "Law of Markets" thus makes a water-tight case for free trade, for free immigration, and for laissez faire. It supports the logic of open borders and the free mobility of capital, goods and labour. It tells us what really boosts demand permanently - which is, increased production of goods and services, based on higher savings and investment. It totally explodes the Keynesian myth that monetary stimulation to boost consumption is good for an economy.

Jean Baptiste Say was known as the "Adam Smith of France." His Law of Markets is as unshakable as the Law of Gravity - despite all the efforts of the evil, lying Keynesians. Truth keeps on working, as Mises said, even if the textbooks contain lies. This law makes a logically indestructible case for free markets and free competition. It makes a solid case for rugged individualism. It opposes politics - which is what the Keynesians, Marxists, protectionists and union bosses have injected overdoses of into our lives, thereby damaging civilisation, even to the point of destroying it.

If you want to learn more about Say's Law, I suggest the late Professor WH Hutt's A Rehabilitation of Say's Law, available from the Mises Institute in PDF, as an e-book, and also as a proper book. Follow this link.


WH Hutt was an outstanding classical liberal; that too, despite being educated at the London School of Economics during the heydays of Fabian Socialism. Hulsmann reports that Hutt, while a student at the LSE, attended a guest lecture by Mises - and then he "broke on through to the other side."


Hutt was born into the British working class - which is why his works against trade unionism are all the more worth studying.


Part 2 of this post can be read here.