We have now four communications in this thread in which Steven Kates writes about "general glut". In the last one (16.2.) he again related Keynes 1936 to this concept. In his first one (31.1.) he wrote: "To argue that aggregate demand might be deficient is specifically to argue ... that a general glut is possible." But this is plainly wrong. Keynes 1936 never used the term "glut" in the entire General Theory. He used the term "effective demand" which means demand = supply. See, e.g. Keynes 1936, p.31: " effective demand is the point on the aggregate demand function which becomes effective because, taken in conjunction with the conditions of supply, it corresponds to the level of employment which maximises the entrepreneur's expectation of profit." Entrepreneurs are seen as maximizing their profit. They are _on_ their supply curve. I do not see where even implicitly "glut" in the sense of overproduction of goods could come in if you follow Keynes. There _is_ an excess supply of labour (involuntary unemployment in the strict sense) in the GT. But the unsold labour services lead to deficient income from the point of view of workers and hence to unsatisfied demand. In Clower's parlance there is an excess of notional _demand_ over effective demand. If you want to see this set out in a more elaborate fashion, please consult my section on "Say's Law and the irrelevance of overproduction" in: G.M. Ambrosi: __Keynes, Pigou and Cambridge Keynesians_, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, p.389 Michael Ambrosi