Here's one economics PHd wielding economist refuting the paradox of thrift. http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Murphythrift.ht...
Here's an eminent one refuting it, in case the Nobel prize counts: https://mises.org/library/hayek-paradox-saving
Here's my issue with Keynesians and neo-Keynesians. They have zero concept of capital, it's all about cash flow - spending, saving, debt. They stimulate by printing, temper by taxing, etc.
They ignore the effects of such behavior on capital, and end up amplifying the cycles they try to prevent. This ties into monetary policy and deficit spending as well, but that's way too much of a tirade for Hacker News.
The invocation of Say's law strikes me as insufficient to strike down the paradox of thrift.
In fact, that is precisely the paradox - that the individually responsible and rational thing (more saving in the face of uncertainty) actually accelerates the problem: an economy crashing down.
Among the policy lessons would be to reduce uncertainty, and encourage consumption (in the economic sense), e.g. via government provided stabilisers (food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc.).
> saving is the correct response to economic uncertainty, and it's what's responsible for the eventual recovery after a crash.
That's a very contentious statement, and personally I'd be rather careful in casually contradicting eminent economists on economic matters.