I just finished watching the “debate.”  What really stood out to me is the simplicity (in the pejorative sense) of Moore’s thought.  In advancing the old supply-side arguments, he notes that production is paramount; that obviously consumption requires production.  That is surely true.  But what he fails to say is equally true.  Production requires consumption.  Within the capitalistic order, the stuff has to be sold in order to generate profits and the consumers must work to make the stuff.  We can avoid this gnarly “chicken or egg problem” by approaching the problem in general equilibrium terms.  Ladle on adequate mathematics and one might even forget what’s at stake whilst deriving first-order conditions.  Leontieff’s idiots savant  come to mind.

That will however only mask the miasma.  We must ultimately confront the issue of which matters more.  Moore clearly exalts the producer (capitalist class); giving a nod to the need to protect the “old  people” whilst we release the producers from impound in these perilous times.  Randy’s focus is ultimately all about the worker/consumer (and the fate of civilization/planet).  Profits vs. people in stark contrast on this May day.  Schumacher comes to mind.  (I read it when it came out, perhaps making me one of those folks Moore deems worthy of special protection even though I am not old enough to have witnessed the failure of the new deal.)

I am well aware this is not news to any of you but it gives me a way to wish you all a happy May Day.