The idea of a basic annual income has been percolating for centuries but in the political arena it invariably loses to Calvinist fear and loathing of indolence. But now progressive forces, with some conservative support, are marshalling for a big push on “Mincome”. Will it corrupt the Protestant work ethic and turn us all into welfare bums, or deconstruct the bloated social assistance bureaucracy and replace dependence with choice and opportunity? Carter Vance weighs the arguments and the odds.

The post-war goal of globalized free trade, so critical to sustaining international cooperation and economic growth, is in big trouble. Most trade deals done these days are bilateral or multilateral arrangements driven by narrow political objectives as much as broad economic ones. Both candidates for the U.S. presidency are advocating protectionism. The Brexit vote was partly a rejection of open borders. But the ideal of free and fair global trade can be salvaged, writes Carter Vance, if trade-dependent countries like Canada take up the cause of reviving the near-moribund World Trade Organization.

Conservatives and libertarians righteously blame progressives for government hyper-regulation that suffocates development and inhibits the free market, job creation and economic growth. But the left has no monopoly on red tape or NIMBYism, writes Carter Vance. The right is equally prone to seek bureaucratic shields for its self-interest: Just look at Donald Trump’s ultra-protectionist trade policy, Brad Wall’s ban on institutional investment in Saskatchewan farmland, or capitalist cartel-seekers in almost every field of economic endeavour. Vance says both sides need to get over their chronic dependence on government intervention.