“No One Coming” by Wayne Mathison is a hard-edged song about radical personal responsibility, self-reliance, and the moment a person stops waiting to be saved and decides to act. Its core message is that life rarely delivers perfect timing, outside rescue, or easy answers. Problems remain until someone takes responsibility for them, and that someone is usually you. The lyrics reject passivity, excuses, and dependence, while still acknowledging that others may support you along the way. But support is not the same as salvation. The song argues that real freedom begins when a person accepts that no one can step into his will and make his choices for him. From that point on, responsibility stops feeling like a burden imposed from outside and starts becoming a source of strength, dignity, and control. Ultimately, the song is about waking up, facing reality, and becoming the help, discipline, and courage you kept hoping would arrive from somewhere else.

160

L. Wayne Mathison · Oct 25, 2026 · 12:51 PM UTC

L. Wayne Mathison

@WayneMathisonOct 25

THE ECONOMICS WAB KINEW NDP WOULD RATHER IGNORE Wab Kinew has apparently discovered a remarkable economic principle. If housing becomes too expensive, simply order landlords to charge less. Problem solved. Apparently. Except economics doesn’t work that way. His 40% announcement doesn’t mean rents are falling 40%. It means landlords will be allowed to recover less of certain capital expenses through above-guideline rent increases. The roofs still need replacing. Boilers still break down. Property taxes, insurance, financing and labour still cost money. Government can restrict what landlords recover. It cannot legislate those expenses out of existence. Now apply a little Thomas Sowell reasoning: What happens next? And who pays the price? When government reduces the financial incentive to maintain and invest in rental properties, owners have choices. They can postpone improvements, sell their properties, convert units to other uses or invest their money somewhere else. Tenants protected by rent controls may benefit today. But what about young people looking for their first apartment? Families moving to Winnipeg? Renters trying to find a better home? A 2019 study published in the American Economic Review found that rent control in San Francisco reduced rental housing supply by 15% among affected landlords. The existing tenants benefited, but the supply reduction created costs for future renters. Different jurisdiction, but an economic warning Manitoba should take seriously. You cannot solve a housing shortage by discouraging the people who provide housing. If Kinew genuinely wants affordable housing, he should focus on increasing supply, reducing construction costs, removing unnecessary barriers and encouraging investment. Competition puts downward pressure on prices. Scarcity pushes them upward. Kinew gets his political headline today. The renters who struggle to find an apartment tomorrow won’t be standing beside him at the press conference. The first lesson of economics is scarcity. The first lesson of politics seems to be pretending scarcity can be abolished by regulation. 🤡🌎

723

L. Wayne Mathison · Oct 25, 2026 · 12:33 PM UTC

L. Wayne Mathison

@WayneMathisonOct 25

I agree with Jasmin. What Carney calls a “global rupture” is, in many respects, the accumulated consequence of political decisions made right here in Canada. For more than a decade, Liberal governments have pursued policies whose economic consequences deserve far more scrutiny. Climate mandates and regulatory costs have made investment and industrial development more difficult. Immigration expanded faster than housing, infrastructure and public services could reasonably accommodate. Rather than addressing why young Canadians struggle to afford homes and raise families, Ottawa increasingly relied on immigration to sustain population and labour-force growth. High taxes, regulatory uncertainty and unfair foreign competition have weakened the conditions for domestic manufacturing. Government employment expanded much faster than private-sector employment, while productivity and business investment remained persistent concerns. And years of public frustration over repeat violent offenders exposed serious weaknesses in our bail and justice systems. These problems have different causes, and global pressures are real. But governments must accept responsibility for the consequences of their own decisions. Carney speaks about rebuilding Canadian sovereignty, competitiveness and economic security. Those are worthwhile objectives. The question is whether his government is prepared to reconsider the policies that contributed to Canada’s vulnerabilities. You cannot spend years weakening the foundations of an economy and then describe the resulting cracks as an unexpected global rupture. Jasmin is asking the question every government should face: How much of the problem are you actually responsible for creating?

241

1,907