[slowmovintarget]

The real question to follow from Rutger's speech is: What is the "moral equivalent of war?" That is what he claims is required to resolve intensification of inequality.

He also mentioned the 91% marginal tax rate applied after WWII in the U.S., but wasn't part of that policy designed to slow down the economy from the hyperproduction achieved during the war? That is it was designed to prevent a meltdown of the economy.

Another question would be, if we're trying to use the existential threat of climate change as the economic "moral equivalent" of war, how do we keep the mechanisms created from being used as means of oppression? Most current efforts in world government and among the very rich end up devolving to control of money and control of behavior instead of working to survive climate change.

Do close the loopholes. Do, please, prove that the additional revenues goes toward meeting the needs of the poor and vulnerable. Do, please, ensure that women with children are given what they need to retain health and sanity while caring for our next generation. Please, demonstrate that the revenues don't go toward power maintenance, like they do today.

I wish I had more answers.