I’ve decided to migrate my regular newsletter from Mailchimp to Substack. Having done that, it seems worthwhile to try out Substack as a blogging platform. For the moment, I’ll post here at johnquiggin.com in parallel with the Substack blog.
My first substantive post is over the fold. I’m hoping for good discussion, so it would be great if commenters here could also take part at Substack.
I’ve published a couple of articles in The Conversation this week. The first, on a topic where I’ve done quite a bit of work, is headlined The Greens’ liveable income guarantee is a serious idea the major parties won’t touch – yet
The second, a bit more tangential to my interests, but relevant to my main focus on climate change, is headlined Atomic disruption: how Russia’s war on Ukraine has rattled the nuclear world order
John Quiggin 
I have to ask, as my effort to answer this would not be worthy.
JQ? Economic Torture Consequences please.
https://johnquiggin.com/2022/03/21/monday-message-board-549/comment-page-1/#comment-251623
The liveable income guarantee is a worthy proposal. I think it may need a new name or label. The statistics are stark. The number of “working Poor” in this country is alarming. These are the ones who cannot survive on welfare payments but also cannot find a “liveable income”. My suggestions are meant to get across the urgency of this proposal. So I went with either, antipoverty supplement, or, sustainability allowance. There must be more focus on the negative externalities of poverty. There are money and social costs. Poverty is a handbrake on future economic growth! It stops a country from having a vibrant growing economy. The “sinkhole” of excessively low income groups unsatisfied needs can hold back regional sectors and even demand vibrancy in major cities. As for the social costs of poverty they include: deskilling of a significant part of the labour supply; unstable housing affordability; crime; social disorder; some child starvation; poor nutrition for poor families; and dislocation from political involvement. A larger portion of the population are being forced into black markets and caverns of dislocation from the social norms that have always been seen as part of Australian’s egalitarian ethos.
Agree with Gregory McKenzie; flagging the costs of inaction to address this poverty makes it much more saleable as an investment. Discuss where the funds for investment come from, not how much it will cost. Discuss the costs that will not be incurred under this strategy, as outlined by GM, ideally with some numbers against them.
A pity the Greens dropped as too daring JQ’s proposal for wider eligibility through non-market contributions to society. Here’s a revolutionary suggestion. Take a tip from the so-called “scientific method” proposed by F. Bacon, R. Descartes et al starting around 1610, involving such exotic principles as “try it out on a small scale” and “measure the effects if any”. I realize that politicians and bureaucrats are bound by the doctrine of Unripe Time, and 400 years has not resolved all the Questions Raised about these innovations. Still, it might just be worth a shot.
One key Question Raised has often been designing the experiment to be big enough to act as a good test of the hypothesis. You probably need a city or a state.