<Li> no government intervention . </Li> <P> Under these assumptions, Say's law implies that there cannot be a general glut, so that a persistent state cannot exist in which demand is generally less than productive capacity and high unemployment results . Keynesians therefore argued that the Great Depression demonstrated that Say's law is incorrect . Keynes, in his General Theory, argued that a country could go into a recession because of "lack of aggregate demand". </P> <P> Because historically there have been many persistent economic crises, one may reject one or more of the assumptions of Say's law, its reasoning, or its conclusions . Taking the assumptions in turn: </P> <Ul> <Li> Circuitists and some post-Keynesians dispute the barter model of money, arguing that money is fundamentally different from commodities and that credit bubbles can and do cause depressions . Notably, the debt owed does not change because the economy has changed . </Li> <Li> Keynes argued that prices are not flexible; for example, workers may not take pay cuts if the result is starvation . </Li> <Li> Laissez - faire economists argue that government intervention is the cause of economic crises, and that left to its devices, the market will adjust efficiently . </Li> </Ul>

Which of these is not true about say's law