Isn’t Say’s law another way of saying TANSTAAFL?
Thats something that Shay’s Rebellion suggests to me. Here were these farmers and other producers who got paid for their goods in paper money that wasn’t worth its face value. So they weren’t able to buy the goods they wanted in turn in exchange for the crops they sold. The farmers didn’t want little pieces of paper. They wanted other agricultural goods, farm implements, material tobuild their homes, and so on.
Under Say’s Law, their crops are the supply with which they demanded other people’s supply of those other goods. But they didn’t get the other goods, and were quite rightly angry about it. (What they did in response might be morally questionable, of course.)
So in fact, Say’s Law was violated. But only because the farmers got screwed.
Would I be wrong in saying that any time you do manage to actually violate Say’s law, its because someone got cheated and someone else got something for nothing?