Could Keynes have made a legitimate case against John Stuart Mill’s statement of the law of markets?

Roy Grieve (2016) finds some weaknesses in Steven Kates’s (2015) defense of Say’s Law. Kates gives Grieve grounds for the latter’s belief first by claiming that John Stuart Mill’s declaration, “Demand for commodities is not demand for labour,” is the true meaning of Say’s Law. Kates adds to Grieve’s conviction by denying that Mill’s proposition employs the wages fund as labor’s demand. Both of Kates’s claims are incorrect but neither is Grieve’s belief that Keynes could have made a legitimate case against Say’s Law. This chapter illustrates the impediments of Keynes’s changed meanings of economic terms on Grieve’s and Kates’s arguments.