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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
