> Note the contradiction: "no involuntary unemployment and, indeed, no money" followed by "real wages fell by 40% but employment dropped".
That contradiction quickly dissolves once you see that he first he talks about macroeconomics as taught in the university ("no involuntary unemployment and, indeed, no money") and then about microeconomics ("real wages fell by 40% but employment dropped").
It's still nonsense. Macro does discuss involuntary unemployment and money. Also, the specific microeconomic phenomenon he discusses is exactly the microfoundation for a specific macro theory (Keynesian economics).
That contradiction quickly dissolves once you see that he first he talks about macroeconomics as taught in the university ("no involuntary unemployment and, indeed, no money") and then about microeconomics ("real wages fell by 40% but employment dropped").