Disputing the Correct Interpretation of Say’s Law: A Comment on Roy Grieve’s and Steven Kates’s Arguments

Abstract Steven Kates recently has been interpreting Say’s law of markets as equivalent to John Stuart Mill’s declaration in his fourth fundamental theorem respecting capital that ‘Demand for commodities is not demand for labour’. Kates’s interpretation distorts both Say’s own statement of the law of markets and the meaning of Mill’s fourth theorem. Roy Grieve correctly disputes Kates’s denial of Mill’s having employed the wages fund to illustrate the meaning of his controversial declaration. Citing some criticisms of the wages-fund doctrine, Grieve believes he has shown the error of Say’s Law. Both Grieve and Kates are mistaken in their principal arguments.