I am trained in economic calculation and I’m the top Austrian price theorist in the entire Mises Institute. Your arguments present nothing to me other than the usual New Keynesian claims regarding idle resources and the profit-and-loss mechanism. I will refute your assertions with precision the likes of which academia has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with arguing in a peer-reviewed journal that Say's Law is invalid and the "accelerator" and "multiplier" of the consumption function determine levels of employment? On the contrary, my friend, you are committing a very deep economic fallacy. As we speak I am contacting Peter Klein, Mario Rizzo, and Robert Murphy and your citation is being copied into my abstract, so you would do well to prepare for a comment. The comment that wipes out most of the claims asserted in your paper as though they are a priori principles, despite your other statements to the effect that they must be confirmed inductively somehow. You are going to be hard-pressed to respond in the next volume. I can publish in any journal, in any volume, and I can respond via a great variety of methodological approaches, and that's just with my own arguments. Not only am I extensively trained in the deconstruction of fallacious arguments, but I have access to the entire set of academic databases with economic sciences included as subjects and I will use them to their full extents to respond to your unfounded presuppositions. If only you could have known what response your otherwise non-controversial paper was about to bring down upon you, perhaps you would have reconsidered publishing it. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you are facing the consequences of intellectual laziness. I will bombard you with corrections and expositions, and you will be overwhelmed by them. You may have to reconsider the theoretical underpinnings of your methodology, professor.