Scott Sumner today writes:
Of course wages are not flexible, but if NGDP was raised sharply then aggregate nominal wages would not rise as fast, allowing more jobs for Murdock making pick-up trucks, and more income to buy those pick-up trucks. This is what “Say’s Law” is really trying to “say.” If we can produce more stuff, society will be rich enough to buy that extra stuff. No matter how much we produce, there is always some price level where we are rich enough to buy all the stuff.
I have questions about this assertion:
You're advocating ↑NGDP, and you believe this ↑income to buy trucks. But how does ↑income without ↑wages?
If ↑NGDP, thus ↑cost of living, why won't people demand ↑wages?
If ↑NGDP , how does this actually lead to ↑income? Does ↑NGDP entail government sending checks to everyone? QE, does not cut it as a mechanism that ↑income, as it just exchanges income earning assets with non-income earning cash.
If you believe in neutrality of money, why would you believe that - if you ↑NGDP, which ↑costs, and thus ↑wages - it leads to ↑sellers and ↑income? Income for whom? And sellers do not automatically become buyers of same nominal amount.