From the text: . . . A convivial politics would have to lead—on behalf of the equality of all people—the fight against excessiveness on one hand, and inequality on the other hand. Concretely, this means the fight against poverty and extreme wealth. One possibility for this would be an unconditional, basic income and a maximum income limit. For example, public procurement contracts would be awarded only to companies whose board earned no more than 25 times the income of the company’s ordinary employees (instead of the current 100 times and more). An unconditional basic income would offer the opportunity to weaken our fixation on paid work. Existential fears could be significantly reduced, opening creative spaces of cooperation. On the other hand, exploding income developments would be contained at the top. Morally, this would be expressed in the fact that no one need be ashamed of his/her existence, but that the hubris for some people to place themselves above others and to evade the common good is unacceptable. The perspective of conviviality is not on belt tightening, but on the abundance that arises from limits: on the abundance that could arise if cities were not developmental spaces for capital and cars, but living spaces for people. If the ultimate goal were not trimming for global competition, but that children would finally be able to play in the streets again. If life consisted not only of wage labor but also many other ways of being active, people could stand alongside each other on an equal footing. . . .