The divides in economic theory aren't simple at all, as is also the case with political views to.  In this age, there is a desire to end up saying there are just two camps (red and blue) and then you have to get into one or the other.  I do see, with the situation remaining what it is, there is a continued looking back at the Austrian school, to see what is going on.  Way too much belief the government can throw a switch, and blammo miracles are supposed to happen, which isn't the case.   In that case, there are wars between camps, that battle for the mind.

A lot of mals going on here.  I take Malinvestment theory to other side effects, like malproduction and malconsumption, which burned in my mind when I saw a robot rodent on a clearance table at a clothing store that sung Blue Suede Shoes.  Who in their right mind would end up making this and thinking it be a good idea, unless resources with misallocated in an economy.  I would then say it has to do with economists BADLY modeling economic activity without the use of currency, and totally forgetting that under all economic activity is barter, and that Say's Law is still relevant.  Keynesians believe in stimulating the economy (with or without resources properly aligned) and Monetarists believe that the right flow of money makes all the difference.  Neither one seems to ponder about whether or not resources are in the right place.  Of course they wouldn't, if they believe that government can throw a switch and make things suddenly work.

I would point to the fact that Hayek was against government controlled and raised interest rates specifically because he was afraid it would lead to an aritifical increase in jobs in proucts and fields that didn't really have demand and therefore could not exist normally.  So i'm sure he'd agree with you there, though not use those words.

I really wouldn't disagree with anyting here.

Except that most economists don't really forget Say's law is irrelevent so much as believe it never was by mischaracterising it.

Which is fairly common in academic circles when it comes to theories because you can't learn them all, and usually get the trunicated text book "learning it for a text" version, which is usually... completely micharacterizing what's said in a braod summary that's been summarized from other broad summaries.

I would also throw in malconsumption along with malproduction.  This happens when, driven with too much production, companies then begin to advertise and market and produce artificial demand that normally wouldn't exist.  End result is you get a consumer driven culture perpertually driven by getting "evermore" never being content, and throwing savings under the bus as they have to get more, more, more.    You can see a number of social commentary by George Carlin and others on the madness of American culture.

In regards to Say's Law, beats me how they can say it is irrelevant when it says that supply meets supply, and at the heart of all economic activity is goods and service swapped for other goods and services.  And when such is misaligned, you can't effectively get what people want, irregardless of how much money is thrown into the system, or how much demand is stimulated.  I would say this is a reason why third-world nations, when they fire up the mint and print money like crazy, produce hyperinflation, because the economy is not in a place to produce sufficient amount of goods and services to consume the money being printed.

But hey, what do I know, obviously Ben and Tim know better than I do.  Nevermind that I think Ben and Jerry are of more value than those two.  At least I get some interesting flavors with the second, when there is a double dip (as opposed to increased misery).

i have no idea wht to say

Well,feel free to ask about what is said, or questions, or say you agree.