How to lower unemployment

[phattonez]

Apparently we should go back to the policies of the 1800s. Talk about some low rates.

 

[cpwill]

i seem to remember something about Coolidge lowering unemployment to 1.6%, the lowest peacetime rate in history.


gosh, what were the policies that he used to do that, phattonez?

 

[Mensch]

Cpwill, I LOVE your signature quotes. I'm almost tempted to steal them for myself.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Cpwill, I LOVE your signature quotes. I'm almost tempted to steal them for myself.

Yes, but too bad both were incorrect

 

[Mensch]

Yes, but too bad both were incorrect

Do you mean he fugded the quotes, or that the statements were inherently untrue?

 

[Missed AB]

Apparently we should go back to the policies of the 1800s. Talk about some low rates.

If we got all the women and minorities out of the work force, then there would be more jobs for the white men. And if we stopped counting all the minorities and women who are currently calculated into the unemployment data... Yeah, I'd say we'd have a lot rosier picture.

Now if we could only add some slaves to help lower the cost of production, this would also fight inflation and increase the spending power of the working white man.

Of course we would also have to engage in military spending to fight a war amongst ourselves further decreasing the unemployment rate as military men at war are clearly working. Then after the war, the death toll will create job vacancies for the returning veterans.

I see a return to the policies of the 1800's as the first time in US history where we have a negative unemployment number... I feare the ACLU, NAACP, and NOW may have a bit of biased spin and prevent it from happening.

 

[phattonez]

If we got all the women and minorities out of the work force, then there would be more jobs for the white men.

Lump of labour fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if we stopped counting all the minorities and women who are currently calculated into the unemployment data... Yeah, I'd say we'd have a lot rosier picture.

Is that what that chart does?

Now if we could only add some slaves to help lower the cost of production, this would also fight inflation and increase the spending power of the working white man.

Note that unemployment was still routinely low after 1865.

Of course we would also have to engage in military spending to fight a war amongst ourselves further decreasing the unemployment rate as military men at war are clearly working. Then after the war, the death toll will create job vacancies for the returning veterans.

Lump of labour fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see a return to the policies of the 1800's as the first time in US history where we have a negative unemployment number... I feare the ACLU, NAACP, and NOW may have a bit of biased spin and prevent it from happening.

Yes, because I said we should return to ALL of the laws from the 1800s. Hoorah for Jim Crow!

 

[Slartibartfast]

Apparently we should go back to the policies of the 1800s. Talk about some low rates.

yeah! lets go back to children working and horrible unsafe working conditions for slave wage labor rates! What could go wrong? :roll:

 

[VanceMack]

If we got all the women and minorities out of the work force, then there would be more jobs for the white men. And if we stopped counting all the minorities and women who are currently calculated into the unemployment data... Yeah, I'd say we'd have a lot rosier picture.

Now if we could only add some slaves to help lower the cost of production, this would also fight inflation and increase the spending power of the working white man.

Of course we would also have to engage in military spending to fight a war amongst ourselves further decreasing the unemployment rate as military men at war are clearly working. Then after the war, the death toll will create job vacancies for the returning veterans.

I see a return to the policies of the 1800's as the first time in US history where we have a negative unemployment number... I feare the ACLU, NAACP, and NOW may have a bit of biased spin and prevent it from happening.

Hogwash. More employed women and minorities equal more consumers which equals higher demand which equals greater employment needs. It has nothing to do with the workforce and everything to do with the current economic structure. When you convert your country to a service based economy vs an industrial based economy in both the name of profit and an overpaid and unionized workforce, you create...well...what we have now.

 

[phattonez]

yeah! lets go back to children working and horrible unsafe working conditions for slave wage labor rates! What could go wrong? :roll:

Yeah, that's exactly what happen. Everyone knows that if we go back to some laws of a previous time period that we'll automatically go back to technological knowledge and production capability of that same time period. It's basic logic!

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, that's exactly what happen. Everyone knows that if we go back to some laws of a previous time period that we'll automatically go back to technological knowledge and production capability of that same time period. It's basic logic!

Machines without proper guarding, grounding, and safety precautions (as enforced by OSHA or whatever else) as just as much a possibility now as they were in any age. A squeeze roller can flatten your hand just as easily in any age. An unguarded rotating axle can just as easily snag your clothing. So yes, it is basic logic. I work in a factory and I am on the safety committee with the requisite training, I know what dangers are there and the very conscious efforts (and often $$) needed to combat them.

And heck, half a good safety manager's responsibility is confronting employees who take shortcuts such as not wearing PPE or not locking out equipment (or whatever) and thats the employees who have a vested interest in staying safe. Employers have much less of an interest because they can go get someone else off the street if a guy gets hurt (who then becomes broke and is unable to sue for damages).

Of course that doesn't cover things like child labor, the horrible health quality in urbanized areas, lack of serious quality control, no recourse for snake oil salesmen, and all sorts of other problems we have helped fight against in the last 100+ years. Many of our current regulations are there for good reasons, to make life more worth living.

Finally, whats the point of having full employment if some of our citizens are basically treated like human cattle in debt to the company store?

 

[phattonez]

Machines without proper guarding, grounding, and safety precautions (as enforced by OSHA or whatever else) as just as much a possibility now as they were in any age. A squeeze roller can flatten your hand just as easily in any age. An unguarded rotating axle can just as easily snag your clothing. So yes, it is basic logic. I work in a factory and I am on the safety committee with the requisite training, I know what dangers are there and the very conscious efforts (and often $$) needed to combat them.

And heck, half a good safety manager's responsibility is confronting employees who take shortcuts such as not wearing PPE or not locking out equipment (or whatever) and thats the employees who have a vested interest in staying safe. Employers have much less of an interest because they can go get someone else off the street if a guy gets hurt (who then becomes broke and is unable to sue for damages).

Competition. Who's going to work for a place that's unsafe when he can work for a place that is very safe?

Of course that doesn't cover things like child labor,

It would be of a very low prevalence in this country, and who's to say whether education is more valuable to the child than the food he may miss out on without the extra income?

the horrible health quality in urbanized areas,

Move?

lack of serious quality control,

Competition?

no recourse for snake oil salesmen,

Lawsuit for fraud?

and all sorts of other problems we have helped fight against in the last 100+ years. Many of our current regulations are there for good reasons, to make life more worth living.

Most are completely unnecessary because they do the job that competition would have done anyway.

Finally, whats the point of having full employment if some of our citizens are basically treated like human cattle in debt to the company store?

Quality of life has risen. Laws don't make quality of life. Wealth comes from production, not laws.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Competition. Who's going to work for a place that's unsafe when he can work for a place that is very safe?

Anyone who is desperate for a job, which will be anyone unemployed as there would be no social safety net except for a few paultry charities.

It would be of a very low prevalence in this country, and who's to say whether education is more valuable to the child than the food he may miss out on without the extra income?

The ability for a child to have some ability to call their own shots when they get older is extremely valuable. You should understand this as the power of self determination is a big thing for libertarians is it not?

Move?

And if there are no jobs somewhere else or a person cannot afford to move?

Competition?

Competition is great for lowering prices. It is poor for work place quality unless it is a specialized field, but you yourself just posted that education isn't always valuable.

Lawsuit for fraud?

Not everyone can afford to sue a company. Also lawsuits are no guarentee of justice, given that the quality of the lawyer has a lot to do with the outcome.

Most are completely unnecessary because they do the job that competition would have done anyway.

Only in high demand specialized field where the employee has some bargaining power.

Quality of life has risen. Laws don't make quality of life. Wealth comes from production, not laws.

Laws do make quality of life because it forces companies and individuals to share some of the spoils.

 

[phattonez]

Anyone who is desperate for a job, which will be anyone unemployed as there would be no social safety net except for a few paultry charities.

First off there's charity, and secondly even a desperate man would choose the safe job over the unsafe job, all other things being equal.

The ability for a child to have some ability to call their own shots when they get older is extremely valuable. You should understand this as the power of self determination is a big thing for libertarians is it not?

Since when do you need school to learn?

And if there are no jobs somewhere else or a person cannot afford to move?

You're really grawsping at straws here. No jobs anywhere else? Can't commute a little?

Competition is great for lowering prices. It is poor for work place quality unless it is a specialized field, but you yourself just posted that education isn't always valuable.

How do you figure? What man would take an unsafe job when the safe job is also being offered?

Not everyone can afford to sue a company. Also lawsuits are no guarentee of justice, given that the quality of the lawyer has a lot to do with the outcome.

Class-action lawsuits? And how easy would it be to prove that snakeoil doesn't work?

Only in high demand specialized field where the employee has some bargaining power.

I wasn't aware that the working poor were basically forced to work at a job. Choices are everywhere.

Laws do make quality of life because it forces companies and individuals to share some of the spoils.

Right. It's not that the total level of wealth has risen, merely that it is better distributed now. That's the difference. :roll:

 

[Slartibartfast]

First off there's charity, and secondly even a desperate man would choose the safe job over the unsafe job, all other things being equal.

All things being equal, sure, but things are never equal.

Since when do you need school to learn?

Personally, I am rather terrible as self directed study. I need the structure a schooling institution provides me.

You're really grawsping at straws here. No jobs anywhere else? Can't commute a little?

Sorry, I was assuming one must move to the country as all cities without modern sanitation were cesspools in the 1800s. That usually involves a complete relocation, especially if someone is poor and does not have a car. Were you envisioning another scenario?

How do you figure? What man would take an unsafe job when the safe job is also being offered?

Life never has pristine choices.

Class-action lawsuits? And how easy would it be to prove that snakeoil doesn't work?

Winning a class action and getting a $5 coupon your next purchase while the lawyer rakes in 30% of the fees doesn't help anybody except the lawyer.

I wasn't aware that the working poor were basically forced to work at a job. Choices are everywhere.

If there is no social safety net, how else will they eat? Yes they must work and if there is no minimum wage, it will likely be multiple jobs (assuming their primary job isnt 12+ hours due to there being no laws about a 40 hour work week) and have no time to search for another because they are too busy not having enough money for food.

Right. It's not that the total level of wealth has risen, merely that it is better distributed now. That's the difference. :roll:

Its both. But I don't believe for a second that the moment our economy becomes a third world cesspool, that wealth inequality won't take an immediate turn for the worse with the assumed health, life expectancy, quality of life, crime, and social unrest outcomes that will come with it.

 

[Missed AB]

Lump of labour fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oddly enough when I read the link you supplied I found this tid bit of knowledge. "This economic argument is commonly invoked against attempts to alleviate unemployment by restricting working hours"

I am not suggesting restricting work hours as that was not the policy of the 1800's. I am just using the fact that women and minorities were often not counted in the workforce unemployment data. A house wife is not unemployed. If you eliminated all the female positions at your job today, and did not count the now fired women in the unemployment numbers, then you would have open positions needing to be filled. Those positions if filled using the policies of the 1800's would be filled by men probably white men (the policy of the time; the argument made by you at the top of this thread).

If there is a flaw in my logic then please show me where I have gone astray.

Is that what that chart does?

The chart only shows unemployment data. What were you expecting it to "do"? Do you disagree that in the south, slaves were not considered unemployed, and not counted in the unemployment data, and their "cheap" labor helped curb inflation? Do you disagree that most women were not working in the 1800's? Do you disagree that war creates employment and dead vets don't typically return to their prior job which would require hiring someone else?

Yes, because I said we should return to ALL of the laws from the 1800s. Hoorah for Jim Crow!

You said "Apparently we should go back to the policies of the 1800s." It is not my fault that you were not specific of which policies you were discussing...

Note that unemployment was still routinely low after 1865.

I wrote that after the war and high death toll there would be positions open... "After the Civil War, which saw the deaths of more than 600,000 men and the maiming of countless others, it became necessary for women to enter the work force in increasing numbers."

http://www.labor-studies.org/ALSC_old/Documents/Womens Labor History Month Article.pdf

Lump of labour fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just another tid bit of information from the link you provided... "Walker argues that the idea that the lump of labour is a fallacy often goes unsubstantiated, and that the reduction of working hours can have similar labour-saving impacts as the introduction of technology into the production process."

 

[Missed AB]

even a desperate man would choose the safe job over the unsafe job, all other things being equal... What man would take an unsafe job when the safe job is also being offered?

All things are not equal. Is it safer to be a cop than a Mc Donald's worker? Many people are willing to take on more risk for higher compensation. I pay a company to put on a new roof, the risk isn't worth it for me. But that guy on the roof seems to think it is.

Since when do you need school to learn?

You don't. But you do need a formal education for entry to many professional level jobs. On this point though I do agree with you. School should not be considered a right.

The ability for a child to have some ability to call their own shots when they get older is extremely valuable.

That's really funny! Like you really have a chance to call your own shots. Tell me, honestly, which company are you a CEO of, or are you still aspiring to be in the NBA? Did you ever reach your goal of being an astronaut? If people have their own destiny in their hands, then why are so many people unable to even escape the cycle of drugs and violence, never the less the ghetto, or their own socio-economic group? Reading that made my day

Competition is great for lowering prices. It is poor for work place quality unless it is a specialized field, but you yourself just posted that education isn't always valuable.

Education isn't always valuable.

Laws do make quality of life because it forces companies and individuals to share some of the spoils.

Laws are regulations that hinder companies from maximizing profits. They are the traffic lights on the economic highway. Some are necessary, too many will make you take another rout.

 

[phattonez]

Oddly enough when I read the link you supplied I found this tid bit of knowledge. "This economic argument is commonly invoked against attempts to alleviate unemployment by restricting working hours"

I am not suggesting restricting work hours as that was not the policy of the 1800's. I am just using the fact that women and minorities were often not counted in the workforce unemployment data. A house wife is not unemployed. If you eliminated all the female positions at your job today, and did not count the now fired women in the unemployment numbers, then you would have open positions needing to be filled. Those positions if filled using the policies of the 1800's would be filled by men probably white men (the policy of the time; the argument made by you at the top of this thread).

If there is a flaw in my logic then please show me where I have gone astray.

A housewife today is not counted as unemployed either.

The chart only shows unemployment data. What were you expecting it to "do"? Do you disagree that in the south, slaves were not considered unemployed, and not counted in the unemployment data, and their "cheap" labor helped curb inflation? Do you disagree that most women were not working in the 1800's? Do you disagree that war creates employment and dead vets don't typically return to their prior job which would require hiring someone else?

Even after slavery unemployment was low. Who cares that women were not working in the 1800s. Did they want to work then?

And yes, war creates employment, but after the war you typically have high unemployment. There was high unemployment after WWI.

You said "Apparently we should go back to the policies of the 1800s." It is not my fault that you were not specific of which policies you were discussing...

Apparently you can't just make a reasonable assumption.

I wrote that after the war and high death toll there would be positions open... "After the Civil War, which saw the deaths of more than 600,000 men and the maiming of countless others, it became necessary for women to enter the work force in increasing numbers."

Or was this just a carryover from war production as was seen after WWII?

http://www.labor-studies.org/ALSC_old/Documents/Womens Labor History Month Article.pdf

Just another tid bit of information from the link you provided... "Walker argues that the idea that the lump of labour is a fallacy often goes unsubstantiated, and that the reduction of working hours can have similar labour-saving impacts as the introduction of technology into the production process."

Except it ignores basic economics. There is no such thing as a fixed amount of work to do. Production creates its own demand.

 

[phattonez]

All things are not equal. Is it safer to be a cop than a Mc Donald's worker? Many people are willing to take on more risk for higher compensation. I pay a company to put on a new roof, the risk isn't worth it for me. But that guy on the roof seems to think it is.

It just depends on the person. The fact is, when you reduce the total amount of options available to people, you necessarily decrease the total utility. Since all trade is mutually beneficial and you outlaw certain agreements, then people necessarily won't get as much as they could have before.

You don't. But you do need a formal education for entry to many professional level jobs. On this point though I do agree with you. School should not be considered a right.

Hence people get loans, go to night school, etc.

 

[Missed AB]

A housewife today is not counted as unemployed either.

Right. So lets assume that half of the work force is women, and halfof unemployed are women and that would make about 4.5% of that group is unemployed. If you subtract them out of the equation of people looking for jobs, then you must have a lower unemployment number. Further if you then fired all of the women who are currently working, and dedicated them to "house wife", then that void would need to be filled by the remaining men out of work. I am not stating that their is a fixed amount of work as you keep suggesting. But clearly if you removed half the work force tomorrow, there would be a void that could be filled by some if not all of the remaining 4.5% of the "unemployed" remaining men.

Even after slavery unemployment was low. Who cares that women were not working in the 1800s. Did they want to work then?

The slaves were not really free to leave. They wer considered part of the work force now as paid employees.

They may have wanted to work, or they may not have. But the POLICIES of the day were for them to be the house wife, and not running for president.

And yes, war creates employment, but after the war you typically have high unemployment. There was high unemployment after WWI.

WW1 was a short lived event for the US. There were plenty of economic factors such as the treaty of versilles to hamper economic recovery in Europe...

Except it ignores basic economics. There is no such thing as a fixed amount of work to do. Production creates its own demand.

This is true that there is no fixed amount of work, but there is always some amount of work. If there is 9% unemployment today and you removed half the work force tomorrow, there will be a void.

However, production does not drive demand. You can make lots of "crap", but that doesn't mean someone wants to buy it. Demand drives production.

Demand for houses in Florida in prior to 2009 led to the housing boom. How many unsold vacant houses remain in Florida today? Where's the demand? The demand dried up, so production stopped.

If production drives demand, how come these homes are still on the market at ever falling prices? If production produces it's own demand, then it would make sense to build more houses in vacant developments, right? That doesn't seem like "basic economics". eace









And yes, war creates employment, but after the war you typically have high unemployment. There was high unemployment after WWI.



Apparently you can't just make a reasonable assumption.



Or was this just a carryover from war production as was seen after WWII?

http://www.labor-studies.org/ALSC_old/Documents/Womens Labor History Month Article.pdf

 

[phattonez]

Right. So lets assume that half of the work force is women, and halfof unemployed are women and that would make about 4.5% of that group is unemployed. If you subtract them out of the equation of people looking for jobs, then you must have a lower unemployment number. Further if you then fired all of the women who are currently working, and dedicated them to "house wife", then that void would need to be filled by the remaining men out of work. I am not stating that their is a fixed amount of work as you keep suggesting. But clearly if you removed half the work force tomorrow, there would be a void that could be filled by some if not all of the remaining 4.5% of the "unemployed" remaining men.

But was it law that forced it, or merely the culture of the time?

The slaves were not really free to leave. They wer considered part of the work force now as paid employees.

And you think that significantly skewed employment numbers?

They may have wanted to work, or they may not have. But the POLICIES of the day were for them to be the house wife, and not running for president.

Again, is that policy or culture?

WW1 was a short lived event for the US. There were plenty of economic factors such as the treaty of versilles to hamper economic recovery in Europe...

But they all saw high unemployment after the war. Immediately following the war, you have high unemployment because government spending will decrease, thus putting an end to those jobs that don't create wealth (which is a good thing in the long run).

This is true that there is no fixed amount of work, but there is always some amount of work. If there is 9% unemployment today and you removed half the work force tomorrow, there will be a void.

I actually would think that unemployment would stay at 9% because you would lose the demand and investment of the half that you lost.

However, production does not drive demand. You can make lots of "crap", but that doesn't mean someone wants to buy it. Demand drives production.

Here is Say's Law put another way.

Money performs but a momentary function in this double exchange; and when the transaction is finally closed, it will always be found, that one kind of commodity has been exchanged for another.

In the end, it is production that creates demand. Of course, though, it has to be production of something desirable. The extent of the demand that production creates is equal to the value of what was produced.

Demand for houses in Florida in prior to 2009 led to the housing boom. How many unsold vacant houses remain in Florida today? Where's the demand? The demand dried up, so production stopped.

Because it wasn't production of something valuable.

If production drives demand, how come these homes are still on the market at ever falling prices? If production produces it's own demand, then it would make sense to build more houses in vacant developments, right? That doesn't seem like "basic economics". eace

Because you're basically attacking a straw man and going against the bastardized version of Say's Law.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

But was it law that forced it, or merely the culture of the time?



And you think that significantly skewed employment numbers?



Again, is that policy or culture?



But they all saw high unemployment after the war. Immediately following the war, you have high unemployment because government spending will decrease, thus putting an end to those jobs that don't create wealth (which is a good thing in the long run).



I actually would think that unemployment would stay at 9% because you would lose the demand and investment of the half that you lost.



Here is Say's Law put another way.

Money performs but a momentary function in this double exchange; and when the transaction is finally closed, it will always be found, that one kind of commodity has been exchanged for another.

In the end, it is production that creates demand. Of course, though, it has to be production of something desirable. The extent of the demand that production creates is equal to the value of what was produced.



Because it wasn't production of something valuable.



Because you're basically attacking a straw man and going against the bastardized version of Say's Law.

Producing something valuable indicates it has a demand for that item. You produce something with no demand for it, it will have no value. Demand is the important aspect, (or at least perceived demand) will drive production, production will not drive demand, it will fill demand

 

[phattonez]

Producing something valuable indicates it has a demand for that item. You produce something with no demand for it, it will have no value. Demand is the important aspect, (or at least perceived demand) will drive production, production will not drive demand, it will fill demand

And if I don't produce anything then how can I expect anyone to give me anything?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

And if I don't produce anything then how can I expect anyone to give me anything?

the demand is their, if their is enough profit in it, someone will produce it

Supply will not create demand, demand can create supply

 

[Missed AB]

But was it law that forced it, or merely the culture of the time?

To be honest, without doing a lot of research, my guess with the exception to slavery most of it was cultural or general policy/ unwritten law. From what I remember reading in the past, there was historic policy among most companies to hire a man as it was expected that the man was the provider for the household, so when the option existed hire the man. Also there is a psychological factor of hiring the person most like you, and most "bosses" at that time were white men. However there are a few jobs like teachers, and nurses have historically been gender biased towards females. In either respect, it was that way in the 1800's regardless of the cause.

And you think that significantly skewed employment numbers?

I don't know how strict the reporting was then, so it is hard to say with any degree of confidence. In an ideal world, where the laws were followed if 10 pecent of the population one day went from being slaves to being counted towards employment, then yes it would make a big difference. Check out the math in today's world. for every 100 people, 9 are unemployed = 9% Working population of 110, and 9 unemployed = 8%.

But they all saw high unemployment after the war. Immediately following the war, you have high unemployment because government spending will decrease, thus putting an end to those jobs that don't create wealth (which is a good thing in the long run).

There are many different factors at work at the end of WW1, WW2, and the Civil War. You were right in the past to point out that the technology of the time would not be replaced if the policies were altered to reflect those of the 1800's. At the end of WW2, it is important to note that women stepped aside from their factory jobs for their returning husbands... returning to the house wife role. The truth is the reported unemployment rate did not reflect the actual unemployed people in the time of the retooling post ww2. This however still supports my point that if you decrease the people counted as unemployed, you will in effect decrease the reported unemployment number.

I actually would think that unemployment would stay at 9% because you would lose the demand and investment of the half that you lost.

We will never know for sure, but very few jobs today are industrial which would be included in your above theory. Since this is a service economy, the job still needs to be accomplished. Streets still need cops, hospitals still have their staffing ratios - and people still get sick, mail needs to be delivered, children need to be educated...

Here is Say's Law put another way.

Money performs but a momentary function in this double exchange; and when the transaction is finally closed, it will always be found, that one kind of commodity has been exchanged for another

I am not going to pretend to be an expert on Say's law, I know enough to know that the quote supply creates it's own demand, is innacurate, false, misleading, and not even by Say's. It was propaganda pushed by his "rival" Keynes. His aim was to point out that it is not money that creates demand but other products. You have a DVD player, now you need DVD's, AA bateries, HDMI cable and a power strip.

This, says Say, is the truth behind the confused assertions of businessmen that the main difficulty is not in producing but in selling. It would be more appropriate to declare that the first and main problem of business is to produce in the best and cheapest way those commodities which will satisfy the most urgent of the not yet satisfied needs of the public. Lord Keynes and Say's Law - Ludwig von Mises - Mises Daily

Which clearly shows demand will drive production, as I have previously stated.

In the first section of Chapter 3 of his GENERAL THEORY, Keynes states Say's Law to be "supply creates its own demand" and he interprets Say's Law to mean "that the aggregate demand price of output as a whole is equal to its aggregate supply price for all volumes of output". Both Keynes' statement and interpretation are erroneous. Say's Law states that a produced good represents demand for other goods, not for itself (as "its own" could imply). SAY'S LAW AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Say’s law
In economics, Say’s Law or Say’s Law of Markets is a principle attributed to French businessman and economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) stating that there can be no demand without supply. A central element of Say's Law is that recession does not occur because of failure in demand or lack of money.

The more goods (for which there is demand) that are produced, the more those goods (supply) can constitute a demand for other goods. Say’s law

Because you're basically attacking a straw man and going against the bastardized version of Say's Law.

Interesting enough you would say that. It doesn't seem I am the on bastardizing the writings...

The first published use of the phrase 'supply creates its own demand' as a definition of Say's Law occurs in John Maynard Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (Keynes 1936, p. 18). While it is often assumed that the words are found in the works of Jean-Baptiste Say or elsewhere in the classical literature, in actual fact no earlier use of this precise form of words has so far been found. Most importantly, there is no source as yet identified in the classical literature amongst defenders of the law of markets in which these specific words are found. Although one can never be absolutely certain, it appears more than likely that it was Keynes himself who was first to put these words into print....

he phrase 'supply creates its own demand' is entirely inadequate as a definition of 'Say's Law', not just failing to capture the full meaning that classical economists had intended to convey but seriously misleading if one wishes to understand how classical economists understood the way in which economies actually work.

'Supply creates its own demand': a discussion of the origins of the phrase and of its adequacy as an interpretation of Say's Law of markets | History of Economics Review | Find Articles at BNET

His aim was to point out that it is not money that creates demand but other products.