Say's Law: A Summing Up

Say's Law of Markets, by making a distinction between those who compete with us and those who do not, tells us that the bulk of the market is made up of those who co-operate with us; that too, in two ways: first, by providing us with our needs, the goods and services we do not and cannot produce ourselves; and second, by providing the vital demand for the goods and services we come to the market to sell. 

The market is NOT "pitiless competition." There is more co-operation than competition - and, anyway, "competition is liberty, while the absence of competition is tyranny." There is no "Social Darwinism" in the market.

This is SOCIETY. 

This is the market society built on the principle of the DIVISION OF LABOUR, which is specialisation. This is the polar opposite of Gandhian "self-sufficiency.


Say's Law of Markets thus proves what Thomas Paine wrote in the very first paragraph of Common Sense - that "society is a patron, while government is a punisher." Society is the vast majority, and they are in the market; government is a small minority, set up to apprehend, try, and punish enemies of this market order, who are an even smaller minority. 

This is the "natural order."

To socialists, Society, State and Party are all ONE: "India is Indira." Say's Law proves this vision dead wrong.


Say's Law also tells us much about taxation - that any tax reduces demand. It suggests a minimalist State; it suggests "political economy." Giving taxes to the State hurts market demand for all. Say's Law proves many genuine experts in public finance right when they write that modern taxation is more expropriation - and that indirect taxation, including customs duties, as well as the income tax, should be outlawed by constitution. Say's Law suggests "user fees" ought to replace taxes, wherever possible.


Say's Law can also be used to analyse the effects of interventionism - the key question being how interventionism in one area will hurt non-competing industries, which is the rest of society, the rest of the market order.


Finally, Say's Law "pours lead into the Keynesian's ear" - as one of my readers put it. It shows that government is a cost, not a source of benefits, not a "stimulus to demand." It points to the real source of market demand - which is the production and sale of goods and services, backed by savings and investment. This is the pathway to civilisation. The Keynesians, with their funny money welfarism, heavy taxation and even heavier borrowing, have unleashed the forces of "de-civilisation" - which is rampant capital consumption. All welfare, it may be pointed out, is consumption; nothing is saved; nothing is invested.


As a wise man put it: "It is good if the people support the government - but all hell breaks loose if the government attempts to support the people."


To conclude: In these five posts on this vital Law of Markets  which is currently mistaught universally (the first post is here), I hope I have shown my reader the correct way to look at markets, at society, and at the State. I hope my reader will realise that Keynesian "macroeconomics" must be jettisoned in toto, and replaced by methodological individualism as the epistemology of the Science of Economics.


Thus, as Sudha Shenoy once put it in an interview with Austrian Economics Newsletter in 2003:

Almost every economics department in the world can be immediately shut down without having any ill-effect on the world of ideas. 

This is the power of Jean Baptiste Say's Law of Markets.