In response to Barkley Rosser's latest post, let me make two points:  
  
(1) Demonstrations of Keynes's error in interpreting Say's law are   
already in print.  See, for example, Steven Kates's 2003 edited volume,   
"Two Hundred Years of Say's Law," that was compiled following a HES list   
discussion, and numerous pages in "Classical Macroeconomics: Some Modern   
Variations and Distortions" (Routledge 2003).  I well understand that   
some people will choose to hold on to Keynes's views no matter what   
explanations they see (or hear) demonstrating their errors.  (I also   
know that there are people who still believe in the practical utility of   
studying Marx's economics.)  
  
(2) I suspect that Rosser hasn't bothered to read Keynes's 1923 book, "a   
Tract on Monetary Reform," particularly page 88, in order to appreciate   
that what he conceived of as the long run in which we are all dead was   
mistaken.  (I first made that point in "On Keynes's Misinterpretation of   
'Capital' in the Classical Theory of Interest," HOPE 1990.  I'm well   
aware that few pay any attention to that article.)  Thus, I would not   
keep repeating how Keynes misrepresented the long run in classical   
monetary analysis.  I don't believe in the utility of "banging my head   
against the wall."  I have more important things to do with my time than   
that.  
  
James Ahiakpor