March 24, 2025 - 10:00am
Over the past two decades, the Left has had a string of infatuations with economists. Some of them — Thomas Piketty or Joseph Stiglitz, for example — were imports from abroad. But Britain has a strong domestic production line, too: Ann Pettifor, James Meadway and Grace Blakeley have all enjoyed moments in the sun. The latest to add to the list is Gary Stevenson, a former City trader who presents the YouTube show Gary’s Economics and has recently topped bestseller lists with his book The Trading Game.
Stevenson might initially appear an odd choice for the chosen economist of the British Left, given that his branding relies heavily on his previous career as a ruthless trader. Indeed, he claims that he was in fact “the best in the world” in 2011, thanks to his decision to bet that growing poverty would keep interest rates low. Hardly an auspicious start; but every saint must have a past, and every sinner a future.
However, Stevenson’s appeal is clearly divined. His delivery is punchy and self-assured, whilst he studiously cultivates the air of a normal person. He grew up in a single-income working-class household, and money has not come with pretensions. Stevenson wears T-shirts instead of a shirt and tie and is unapologetically unpolished, his thick MLE accent and tasteful interspersing of fucks adding an air of credibility to the image of a barrow boy with a conscience.
His popularity ultimately lies in his relentless focus on inequality, as reinforced by his appearance on The Diary of a CEO podcast last week. During the episode, he argued that “the only time we’ve ever really been able to provide decent living conditions for ordinary working people was the period after the war where we massively redistributed wealth,” and added that raising taxes on the rich was necessary to keep Britain affluent.
There are perfectly coherent arguments that inequality is economically damaging, including those made by the Left’s previous favourites. Piketty, Stiglitz and Pettifor all argue that significant inequality suppresses demand because poorer households have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the wealthy, so too high a concentration of wealth at the top therefore slows consumption. Blakeley argues that growing inequality forces ordinary people to rely on credit to maintain living standards, causing overexposure to asset bubbles, excessive debt, and instability. Meadway, meanwhile, has argued that high inequality weakens productivity by trapping people in poverty, preventing talent from being fully realised by limiting access to education, housing, and healthcare.
Stevenson, however, seems to rely on reheated Occupy-style assertions that the rich are stealing everyone’s money, and that growing inequality is bad because it further exacerbates inequality. Really, inequality is itself self-evidently economic suicide, rather than any potential consequences. Instead of economics, Stevenson seems primarily focused on politics. This preference appears to be the result of being able to repackage traditional Left-wing anti-millionaire activism, rather than genuinely fresh economic ideas.
In the meantime, there have been questions concerning the credibility of the grandiose claims he makes about his trading history, with an investigation by the Financial Times last year revealing that none of his former colleagues believed Stevenson’s claim to have been the best trader in the world. Likewise, his assertion a year ago that “economists have been all wrong about almost everything for 15 years now” must raise questions about his own expertise, given how many of his fellow Leftist economists have focused on problems of inequality. Considering that his project is more activism than analysis, though, this may not matter much.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI think Gary Stevenson merits a little more than a lazy side-swipe like this.
He’s on record as having said that his idea of ‘rich’ should start with those holding assets of around £10M or more and that the key is to tax passive income not income earned through work.
It is therefore inaccurate to portray him as an ‘anti-millionaire activist”; he belongs to the group Patriotic Millionaires UK and frequently mentions his own wealth on his Youtube channel.
He argues that money itself is not a resource, it is a means of distributing finite resources. As more and more money is being captured by a coterie of super-wealthy individuals they are able to out-compete the rest of us for these resources. The UK housing market is a good example of what this can lead to.
He holds a degree from LSE and a Masters in Economics from Oxford University and has hundreds of hours of videos on Youtube explaining the reasoning behind his ideas in everyday English.
https://www.youtube.com/@garyseconomics
There isn’t a “UK housing market”.
There is a “market” in development permissions the supply of which is a monopoly in the control of government, both local and central.
As with all monopolies there us no competition so prices are forced up.
You’ve clearly been listening to him MC. Chapeau. He’d have conveyed it much the same.
I don’t think you quite understood what Mr Cazaly is saying: ie: the problem is government.
So this guy’s saying that Britain over the last 30 years hasn’t been a consumerist society ? That’s news to me. Record debt, low savings, increasing consumption (and not buying things that last).
I have no idea who Gary Stevenson is. I’m guessing he’s probably pretty smart and has identified a marketable position that people wish to believe and he can usefully monetise for several years before pivoting to something new. For some reason, Derek Hatton comes to mind – did he actually believe all the Militant Tendency stuff ?
The article says consumption is slowed by wealth being too concentrated with the wealthy – it doesn’t say that it isn’t a consumer society. To be honest it’s a fairly banal point – go and look at a pub or restaurant in the UK and see who is spending the money – it’s the wealthy older generation, not the poorer millennial/ gen z.
Record debt, low savings and buying things that don’t last could clearly be the result of an unequal society / poverty.
I haven’t heard of him either but I’ll be checking him out.
His point surely was that net consumption is too low, regardless of who’s doing the consuming. My point is that low consumption doesn’t seem like an actual problem to me – in fact less domestic consumption with higher savings and investment and greater exports would be a better direction to go in. Instead, we continue spending beyond our means, underwritten by foreigners lending us the money to kick the can down the road.
It felt to me at the time that Blair chose consumerism as the way forward for Britain in 1997 – that increasing consumption would make Britain appear productive and wealthy. I always viewed this as illusory – i.e. faking economic growth. I think we’ve been faking it for almost 30 years now.
But I think you’ve got a good point that the spending isn’t from all groups in society and that wealthier groups of people are dominating it more than ever. And that this isn’t – other things being equal – desirable.
Stevenson no fan of Blairism, if one can call it that. Nor Starmerism – again if such a thing exists.
The inexorable concentration of wealth unless Govt does something to stop it is his key essential. Not especially revelatory but explained in a way that non economists can grasp which is why he gets traction, and why he’ll now draw fire.
“ increasing consumption would make Britain appear productive and wealthy. I always viewed this as illusory – i.e. faking economic growth. I think we’ve been faking it for almost 30 years now.”
Ponzi scheme
The only way to reliable improvements in prosperity is through increases in productivity.
Most economic arguments today seem to be about distribution of income, we need to grow the economy. That can only happen sustainably through better output per worker; it will not happen through tinkering with interest rates, taxes or government spending.
We have thirty years of data
Yes, but perhaps inequality prevents increases in productivity? If you know you’re not going to see much benefit from working harder or smarter, why work harder/smarter? Put in the minmal amount of effort at work to avoid being sacked, and do an easy arts degree instead of a STEM subject.
The freedom of movement laws were in my view a large impediment to increased productivity.
Productivity is increased by investing tools and technology that allow your workers to increase their output (a carpenter with a nail gun vs one with a hammer for instance). However with an unlimited pool of workers they could import to keep wage costs down most businesses had no incentive to invest in new tools as it was cheaper to simply hire more workers
The problem with massive inequality like what we have now is that you can increase production all you want but the only people who will benefit are those are the top. Those whose productivity increases will most likely simply remove the need for their coworkers to have a job in the first place – thus making the problem worse.
His main point as far as i can tell from the article is that wealth redistribution is necessary for the poor to have a decent standard of living (without having to get into ever greater debt).
In a capitalist society wealth redistribution is supposed to be bad, but when capitalism isn’t interfered with wealth distribution occurs naturally through market crashes and recessions, whereby the wealthy lose money and the poor get opportunities that would otherwise have been kept from. As an analogy, think of mass extinctions such as tgat of the dinosaurs – unpleasant for the creatures that die out but a great opportunity for the new, superior lifeforms that replace them. No mass extinctions – no humans!
The policy of Western Govts of the last 30 years or so has been to prevent recessions and crashes. Which prevents the redistribution of wealth. Hence stagnation and decline.
That’s not his point at all, and you would know that if you put in even the slightest effort looking into what his message is about. You are making assumptions about what his position is, and then critiquing the very assumptions you just made. In other words, you’re having an argument with yourself – not with Gary or his ideas. If you want to argue against him, respond to what he has to say, not what you have to say.
Sometimes reading two UnHerd articles one after another leads to interesting thoughts. I read Niall Gooch’s one just before this.
Is the truth that you can’t really stop economic inequality but politicians can choose which sort of inequality to have?
We have chosen to reduce inequality between the sexes and between natives and foreigners by making the market a free for all.
Before 1960 we favoured men in the economy over women and British men over immigrants which meant that women had to rely on their husbands for money and immigration was minimal.
The destruction of the male-only economy has led to the emasculation of society and falling marriage and birth-rates but has brought professional fulfilment and economic independence to some women.
The opening of our borders has led to an unprecedented rise in immigration which has been good for the immigrants (if bad for the working class white man).
You’d really only be truly happy if we went back to women knowing their place MM. Sometimes you make some half decent points but just now and then mask slips.
I’d suggest you try getting over yourself – but you’d need breathing equipment.
“ Is the truth that you can’t really stop economic inequality but politicians can choose which sort of inequality to have?”
Yes! But you can try to make it LOOK like you know what you’re doing and are certain it will work.
I’d like to watch him play ping pong with Owen Jones. Judith Butler could referee and Rory shoot them for the Tube with Campbell providing drinks.
For all the bluster in the article though, it doesn’t explain why he thinks Stevenson is wrong.
If he is going to criticise Stevenson for saying that the growing levels of inequality is bad for the economy and society in general, then perhaps the author can put forward his own argument as to why that isn’t the case and why the current system is preferable to one whereby the wealth is more evenly spread
Stevenson’s views aren’t fresh but the FT’s article was a low-integrity hit-piece.
The crux of the FT article was the testament of his colleagues. One couldn’t even tell if Stevenson’s book was fact or fiction.
Can someone explain why the ‘people of the left’ have to be so badly dressed? It is so contrived. And very very predictable.
Dominic Cummings seems determined to emulate them.
To be fair Jean anarchist in all but name!
If this represents Stevenson’s views accurately then he is missing the point about the post-war years as most commentators do.
The living standards of the British population and upward social mobility improved primarily because of changes in the labour market: there were more skilled and white collar jobs, low unemployment and higher wages. Redistribution by the State was largely irrelevant although the safety net of the Welfare State and NHS certainly reduced insecurity.
Absolutely. Both education and productivity certainly improved postwar. And a lot of rebuilding was needed.
Pension and health costs were almost certainly a lot lower. Few people lived long in retirement. There was far less over-regulation. Generally, overheads and unecessary costs must have been much lower. But none of these new wave economists ever seem to get to grips with the level of self-imposed additional costs we continue to burden ourselves with.
Seems pretty simple to me. The rent-seekers have had decades now to get all their ducks in a row and take an unsustainable share of the proceeds of productive work. Thanks to their political placemen. We were probably always going to end up at this point but capitalism is not a natural law of nature but a human construct and we can fine tune the rules if we choose. As the king across the water is proving.
The simple answer is no. I’ve watched many of his videos on YouTube, he starts with a point, then distorts reality to try to support it.
Sorry. Rule One is that nobody in politics or journalism has a clue. That starts with Jim Hacker and continues with Sir Humphrey and all the way down to Gary Stevenson.
The eevil Trump administration has shown, however, that the noble and intelligent educated class that we all revere are the real ones snagging all the goodies. In the US it’s wall-to-wall NGOs. In Britland, I suspect it’s wall-to-wall quangos.
Inequality is good.
He understands playing the idds relative to trading risk. No, he does not understand economics.
This fella has been on the money for some time. Only surprise is that the ‘informed’ Unherd and it’s base taken this long to mention him.
The ‘take-down’ attempts will now escalate and the fact he’s now drawn the attention of an Unherd Author suggests he’s getting more traction than the v Rich would like. Inevitable. Whilst some of his shtick works better with some than others he nails the essentials in a way many can grasp. For that reason he’s worth a listen.
This fella has been on the money for some time.
Not really. He’s another lefty who can’t do maths and thinks, like you, that the wealth held by a couple of hundred billionaires adds up to more than the trillions held by millionaires, of whom there are millions.
If I have understood correctly, it is somewhat difficult to obtain a Masters degree in Economics from Oxford if you “can’t do maths”. To prove your point, perhaps you’d care to attempt a detailed critique of his Masters thesis which you’ll find here: https://www.wealtheconomics.org/unithesis/
it is somewhat difficult to obtain a Masters degree in Economics from Oxford if you “can’t do maths”.
Perhaps it was once. Not so now.
So you agree with someone you agree with and have done so for some time. Thanks for that gem.
Pleasure. I try to please, occasionally
The economy is positively shrinking, and borrowing is not far off double what had been expected, but Rachel Reeves is still there. There really must be no one else. Well, no one else who usefully did not understand the money supply, anyway.
The issuing of currency is an act of the State, which is literally the creator of all money. As a sovereign state with its own free-floating, fiat currency, the United Kingdom has as much of that currency as it chooses to issue to itself, with readily available fiscal and monetary means of controlling any inflationary effect, means that therefore need to be under democratic political control. The responsibility of the Government is to ensure the supply of goods and services to be purchased with that currency.
It is impossible for the currency-issuing State to run out of money. Money “lent” to the Treasury by the Bank of England is money “lent” to the State by the State; such “debt” will never be called in, much less will bailiffs be sent round. Call this “the Magic Money Tree” if you will. There is no comparison between running the economy and managing a household budget, or even a business. There is no “national credit card” to “max out”. “Fiscal headroom” is only the gap between the Government’s tax and spending plans and what would be allowed under the fiscal rules that it sets for itself and changes frequently.
That is what both fiscal policy and monetary policy are for: to give the currency its value by controlling inflation to a politically chosen extent while discouraging certain politically chosen forms of behaviour, and while encouraging others, including economic equality, which is fundamental to social cohesion and thus to patriotism. There is no debt. It is an accounting trick. The Treasury, which is the State, has issued bonds to the Bank of England, which is the State. Even if those bonds were held by anyone else, then the State could simply issue itself with enough of its own free-floating, fiat currency to redeem them. Say it again that there is no debt.
Taxation is not where the State’s money comes from. Nothing is “unaffordable”, every recession is discretionary on the part of the Government, and there is no such thing as “taxpayers’ money”. Within and under that understanding, a tax of one to two per cent on assets above £10 million could abolish the two-child benefit cap 17 times over, while merely taxing each of Britain’s 173 billionaires down to one billion pounds per head would raise £1.1 trillion, an entire year’s tax take. The taxation of unearned income at the same rate as earnings, as was the case under Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson, could easily abolish the two-child benefit cap as advocated by Nigel Farage and Suella Braverman, restore the £20 per week uplift to the Universal Credit two in five claimants of which were in work, and extend that uplift to disability benefits, all of which would inject money directly into the consumer economy. And so on.
There is no case whatever for cutting the benefits of the sick and disabled as if that would cure them or find them jobs, for retaining the two-child benefit cap, for withdrawing the Winter Fuel Payment from anyone, for increasing workers’ bus fares by 50 per cent, for failing to freeze Council Tax, for threatening to abolish the single person discount, for increasing employers’ National Insurance contributions so as to destroy charities and small businesses while making it impossible for big businesses to take on staff or to increase wages, for forcing working farmers of many decades’ standing who formally inherited their parents’ farms to sell them to giant American agribusinesses, or for any other form of austerity. There is an unanswerable economic and moral case for the full compensation of, among others, the victims of Orgreave, Grenfell Tower, the Windrush scandal, the Post Office scandal, and the contaminated blood scandal, as well as the WASPI women.
Apart from the fact that you would destroy the value of sterling and wouldn’t be able to afford to import stuff you need. Food for instance.