I know many people have expressed their desire to see Gary Stevenson and me in conversation.
Gary's team have told me that they have had many similar expressions to them.
As noted recently, Gary is aware of my videos and has praised them.
However, I am now told this will not be happening. His agent thinks he already has too many other media interviews, not that I thought I was offering a media interview.
All I can say is, I tried.
But I admit, we may well have not found much to agree on, given the content of his latest video. I will have more to say on that soon, but it is fundamentally economically worrying, in summary.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
That’s a pity.
I, for one, think Gary would benefit enormously from such a discussion. I feel he too often makes references which are easily construed to appear that he thinks the government can be compared to a household or that the government is about to run out of money.
He does evry obviously think that – this latest video makes that absolutely clear.
That’s what Oxford economics does for you.
I concur that it’s a real shame. I like Gary, he has lived experience of the way the City operates, he’s a good communicator for his target audience, has a large following and is gaining momentum, and seems to genuinely care about the future of the UK for ordinary people. Hopefully there will be a chance for Richard to collaborate at some point in the near future.
We really need the message of an alternative to be amplified as much as possible to fill the void of a collapsing neoliberal economic system. Before Garage at al fill it with poisonous shite.
He needs help with MMT. (Probably hasn’t encountered it much)
There’s this recent paper which might be useful to you both ‘Exploring the capital gains economy : The case of the UK’ (1995-2020)
‘In the capital gains economy, this means-end inversion becomes pervasive. Households borrow in order to benefit from capital gains, as much as to obtain a dwelling. Firms invest less of their profit, so more can be used to enrich and impress shareholders and to maintain access to financial markets on favourable terms. Governments tax in order to pay foreign bondholders, rather than to redistribute and build domestic productive capabilities.
Much wealth is not the accumulation of saved incomes, but capital gains spurred by debt growth. The difference is widely neglected, yet central to understanding the sources of wealth and the legitimacy of policies such as wealth taxes, often viewed as penalising thrift but alternatively viewed as taxing windfall gains from generalised liabilities growth.’
I looked at the first couple of minutes. He got the basics wrong – which means all the rest is +/- wrong. “Government has income from taxation” – eh?
It is a shocker…
This is not new, it’s one of the reasons I had hoped a chat with RJM (not shared with the world) would be useful. He’s very smart, but he’s gone for one thing (raising taxes on the wealthy to stem inequality) without appearing to have looked much further.
He is a fan of Keynes and he’s very critical of Oxford economics, I imagine he’s not done learning. Gary Stevenson is very effective at what he does, he’s very bright and like RJM, deeply concerned about inequality. I think he would be even more effective if he looked into the machinery of the fiat currency, the reasons for government sales of assets and the role of bonds, for starters. However, his strategy may be to stick to his simple message and pursue tax.
I keep pointing out in comments that taxing the income on wealth is far more practical, this for me is the first thing I would like to see GS take on board. Would you send him a copy of your Taxing Wealth Report?
He has it, and his team say they have read it.
They obviously disagree with it.
Richard
I have listened to Gary S and FWIW I suggest staying clear of him.
He’s a top notch commercial influencer there’s no doubt he is very capable but I suspect “team Gary” would interact like a business not a concerned intellectual citizen.
Collaboration with someone like Danny Blanchflower (I wonder how he is doing?) always seemed a better fit from my perspective.
Danny is immersed in the problems of US universities.
The government collects money, don’t be semantic on the topic of taxing ultra wealthy. Gary said “in your country, if you don’t tax the super rich, you have a problem.” In our country, the UK, we don’t tax the rich as aggressively as we tax ordinary jobs, dare I say “essential” jobs, “key workers”, remember this phrase? Why even tax these jobs at all? The success of any economy should be how the bare essential jobs of the economy are funded. Can people who work them live sustainably?
If it isn’t possible for “key workers” to buy a house then what economy will you have? We’re 15 years into this new mess at least, where will it be in 30 years? Dare I say 50 years? The economy will not be able to support essential jobs?
I know all that. Read the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 – 126,000 words of it.
But I am not being semantic about the fact Gary has a great deal wrong in that video – he is worryingly so.
Not me that used the phrase “income from taxation”.
I question if Stevenson understands that without exception: all govs spend first then tax to recover that spending (= govs don’t need “income” to spend).
On the issue of levels of tax: yup those earning £100k+ per year don’t pay enough. Those generating lots of capital gains. same. Both are addressable via legislation (& gov desire to do so). The blog has featured extensive discussions on taxing “wealth” – which is tricky. So let’s go after the “low hanging fruit” first and “wealth” later.
(Karl Popper: Poverty of Historicism advocated for a piecemeal approach to changing complex systems – tax can be complex so best to do the stuff that is easy to understand and measure).
Thanks
This is my concern – that the progressive opposition to the prevailing failed destructive neoliberal establishment will remain fatally fragmented. And lose.
Which means no end to FPTP, no PR, more of the same, and probably, a Reform government, or, almost as bad, another neoliberal LINO one full of careerist mindless MPs who won’t represent us, or be interested in making the world a better place.
As you say, you tried.
Please keep trying.
That is disappointing. If he’s been watching your videos he surely must know that tax payers don’t fund services, so I’m not sure why he continues to sing from the same hymn sheet as the conventional narrative. Unless he thinks that his arguments will be undermined by the establishment if he starts to take a different track. Having a simple message (inequality is the root cause of our economic woes), is easier to champion in the media.
His narrative is very worrying – it even fuels the right – and austerity
Give me some time to address it
Sorry for another post. Just been listening to that video you mentioned above, with Gary Stevenson explaining “why the government is going bankrupt” using the “household analogy”.
AAAAAaaarggggh!!
Now I understand why he doesn’t want to do that joint effort with you.
I might need to talk about this..
His latest video was a shocker and not hard to see why he would not wish to engage with you. His ‘team’ must be concerned it might damage his credibility. I also have to note he wipes his nose a lot for some reason.
His use of the household analogy, for one thing, is a clear point of divergence from your thinking.
A massive one
I’d be really interested to hear your explanation. I watched his video prior to your blog and not being an economist didn’t see what you see. It was a very worrying video. Whilst his explanation may be wrong am I right in thinking Reeves is likely to do what he says?
It will happen – soon, ish.
I find it hard to accept that Gary doesn’t understand MMT. I’ve read his book. I’ve seen quite a few of his videos. I’ve heard long interviews he has done with friends and foes alike. Does anybody know if he has been asked searching questions about MMT – on the record? I’d like to know. If he has and he is not a “believer”, I’ve somehow missed it.
In the meantime, as a possible explanation for his apparent blind spot on MMT, could he simply be taking on the govt ON ITS OWN TERMS? Is he accepting their household budget nonsense, for the sake of argument only, and destroying it on its own terms using his video channel – which reaches more people now than a lot of major national newspapers?
His main claim to fame, it seems to me, is that he is a near infallible forecaster of markets and what influences them. As a result of this, he has made, and is still making by his own recent admission, millions of £/$ by trading on the markets. Fine, if that is what floats your boat.
The real world is where this guy claims to live. He is starting to act politically without adhering to any political party (much like Richard) in order to try to help those worse off than himself. This makes me suspect that he really CARES. Something Richard has been talking about this week.
Is it possible he has come to the real world conclusion that dying on the hill of MMT is not going to help anybody any time soon. Lets all be honest, MMT has been around for quite a long time now and it is not being used by any current politician who is holding power anywhere in the world, that I’m aware of. I’d love someone to tell me I’m wrong on that one too. My point being, maybe Gary doesn’t see any immediate prospect of MMT setting the political world on fire in the next electoral cycle and, wanting to deal with the arguments occupying voters’ attention NOW, TODAY, everywhere they look in the MSM, he prefers to leave MMT on one side and still show that there are options open to a govt that cares about the interests of the poor. I can’t see him disagreeing with many, or indeed any, of Richard’s Taxing Wealth ideas. So, I’d see him as an ally. The poor in society need all the friends they can get at present.
All it seems that Gary is doing in his latest video is predicting what Reeves is going to do in the next Budget – if we don’t ALL create an almighty stink. Do we want to bet against him being right this time? I don’t.
As I say, read his book and then tell me he isn’t capable of grasping MMT. Surprising things do happen but this seems unlikely to me. And even he he doesn’t fully buy into MMT, does it make his political prescriptions for action all wrong? Do we all have to be such purists – all the time?
I have done an analysis out tomorrow.
His framing is, candidly pure enolcalssical at best, but neoliberal in all likelihood. Youy can’t win change from there: it is simply not possible.
Despite disagreement in some economic ideas and communication strategy I do think there is a lot of common ground between you and Gary. Both you and Gary believe inequality and asset stripping is harming ordinary working people. Both agree working people already paying too much tax and wealthy people not enough. Both of you support wealth taxes and Richard in particular has done great work expanding what that might look like in practice. Perhaps Gary is not a supporter of MMT or his team does not want to divert from their ‘wealth not work” message discipline, but we should focus on common ground rather than differences or we all lose.
I will publish an analysis soon, and explanation of the fact that we are nowhere near the same space.
At university the lecturers and professors thought our multiple choice exams were too forgiving with answers a-e, so they made questions with answers a-m. Many of these were also incredibly similar often differentiating by 1 word between the correct answer and the incorrect answer. Why am I telling this story? In higher education it’s not enough to know the answer from plainly incorrect answers, you must be able to pick exactly the correct answer and be correct for the right reasons.
Richard, I’m reading this morning the BBC article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn85vyd1epzo) that the Niesr is telling the chancellor that “taxes must rise” to covert the £41bn shortfall.
Surely taxes don’t have to rise and in fact reliefs on the wealthy could be removed instead. For example, pension tax relief, other reliefs I’m not aware of but assume exist.
On Gary, I’ve read much of what Gary has to say including his book, he was quite complimentary of you in a previous video and recommended your channel to his viewers.
I have to say that Gary appears less radical than you. You seem to believe there is an alternative form of economics as opposed to what Gary believes is a different type of taxation to fund public services, taxing the rich to prohibit redistribution of wealth, you could call it a new state. The existing state is accelerating the distribution away from middle class/working class households to the rich. This state of taxation, of economics is what is driving the collapsing economy.
Unless I’ve misunderstood your economic philosophy I’d always be on the side of taxing the super rich to stop the accelerating redistribution of wealth given the dangerous consequences of this.
We both think the rich are undertaxed. But that is not enough to agree on. Otherwise, he is pure neoliberal as far as I can see.
I think in principles you’re both well aligned, to describe Gary as a neoliberal is way off though because of the work in which he does.
He is doing mass media rounds of simply saying “tax wealth not work.” And “unless you tax the rich, you have a problem.” “Tax wealth above £10m at 2%..”. He even told his followers to vote green because of their adoption of this policy. He even is quoted as saying this is “his policy.”
I have read a lot of what Gary has to say. I couldn’t call him neoliberal, I think stopping the wealth redistribution is his main priority, his message isn’t even about government finances, it is a more simple message of stopping the redistribution. Achieving that through taxation is the main aim. It does appear to be in direct conflict with the Angloamerican / Western neoliberal world order and I’m still uncertain was to the implications of achieving his aims but if it is broadly accepted and undertaken internationally then that is the main goal. There isn’t much that is neoliberal about that in my view, of course, until he, or someone like him takes power, it could all be BS…!
He is using the household analogy.
He is talking about tax funding stuff.
He is saying the government can run out of money.
He says it is running out of money.
He is saying it could need to imoose austerity.
Sorry, but that’s neoliberal. Please don’t pretend otherwise.
He wants to keep that systyem going with money from the wealthy but has no clue as to why and he very obviously does not think tax policy itself has an economic impact, whilst multipliers do not appear in his thinking. This is really not good economics of any sort. Why should I ignore that?
The start of a long comment I made Gary’s you tube post:
Perhaps there is hope… he has not deleted it 🙂
Your mainstream economic approach (neoliberal /neoclassical equilibrium economics / politics ) is hindering an approach that will really tackle long term inequalities in the UK (and western ) economy. Without a realignment the mainstream economic approach will always default to enriching the wealthy.
When I read he had a ‘team’ my heart sank.
I wonder if Campbell and Stuart got to him?
I will be unfollowing him.
Isn’t that missing the point? People like you and Gary don’t necessarily need to produce videos together, but you and all of those of us on the left need to strategise together and sing from at least similar hymn sheets, where possible.
Maybe responding privately to each other’s videos would be the appropriate channel to develop a coordinated approach?
He has shown he is on a neoclassical / neoliberal nonsense today.
There really is remarkably little common ground. There is not even a hymn sheet right now, let lone a common tune. Frankly, his video is a gift to those promoting austerity. All they have to say is that the wealthy are paying enough and then they can say, so Gary Stevenson agrees we must do austerity. It is that bad.
There is a reason why Stevenson is being amplified, as there is why the uterly hopeless Tax Justise UK (who know nothing of consequence about tax) and Tax Justice Network (likewise)are. And that is they are very useful opponents for the right when they talk stuff like this, which is totally wrong.
I suspect also that other players are happy to promote or amplify the promotion of the “wealth tax on assets” idea, for similar reasons – they know it will fail, thus discrediting the whole idea of taxing the wealthy, including TWR2024.
I fear so
I will assume good intentions and I will see Gary’s video as “why government will raise taxes” from government’s perspective. Or alternatively, why even by adhering to the neoclassical religion (household economics), it makes some sense to tax the rich and nationalise assets, otherwise everybody else will be squeezed. Capitalism means that capitalists (ok successful businessmen in best case) are “taxing” the employees (at least), accumulating ever growing wealth.
It has been articulated very poorly as it is pointed out here, but I think the mismatch is matter of scope.
Gary (maybe) thinks that taxing the rich can make this system work.
Richard thinks that this tweak is not enough, a more fundamental change is required, different understanding of the nature of money and thus nature of taxation and even one step ahead that historic capitalism needs to be replaced with a different kind of politics because perhaps the nature of money/debt/tax is not mix and match with the nature of the political system. By political system I do not mean the % of voting and small systems tweaks, but on the societal core values. This becomes clear with his criticism of social democracy.
You can only do that by suspending your disbelief.
The economics on display here is pure neoliberal guff, and deeply dangerous. He should know better, and has a duty given his profile to do better than talk nbonsense. And I will say so.
If you really wish to influence him, it would be better to do so in private. Publically calling him out could turn him against you, which could easily be viewed as left-on-left squabbling by critics of you and him.
If he’s aware of Keynes and Quantitative Easing, then he should be open to MMT. It may be it hasn’t been explained to him in a clear way, or that critiques he has of it have not been fully answered. It may be that he is aware of it and fully understands it, but he just doesn’t think it useful to describe it to the public.
I speak truth to power without fear, whoever thinks they have the power.
Gary claims to be creating a new political platform. The foundation he is using is poure neoliberalism, excepting an apparent addiction to a wealth tax that cannot work, which in itself worries me. None of that makes any sense at all. Of course I will call it out in that case.
t’s your platform and you’ve more than earned the right to say whatever you want to whomever you want. No one is disputing that and fear doesn’t come into it.
I just don’t understand what real world results you seek to achieve by calling someone out on social media when you could agree issues such as taxation and inequality.
The household budget analogy is grating and false, but it’s a familiar framing and one Gary may find effective. Neither of us know the extent to which he believes it, nor can we unless we speak to him. We do know he believes that governments can ‘print money’, as he has stated such, but the lived experience of this rapidly growing inequality, not investment or wealth redistribution. There is an argument that neoliberalism would have collapsed if not for MMT and this may put him off it. I can’t speak for him and I don’t know.
I have no idea why his ‘agent/team’ won’t talk to you but it’s seems like it’s on them not you. From what you described and what I gather from his channel, it’s a new team, it’s a small team, it’s finding its feet and it’s overwhelmed. I doubt they disagree your Taxing Wealth Report. They probably haven’t read it all.
I wish he would talk to you because it feels like you have more in common than not.
I know the scene.
I know the NGOs he is taking to.
And I see the framing he is using.
They’re all profoundly economically wrong. And dangerous because they endorse the ‘there is no money’ theme, plus the ‘poor little government has no money so you will have to put up with austerity’ agenda. And that is totally untrue. It is misinformation. It is feeding the neoliberal narrative. Why on earth should I not say that. I don’t even agree we need a wealth tax. That’s also wrong. Why agree with those you don’t agree with?
I don’t know the scene, nor the NGOs he’s talking to so I cannot comment on that. I don’t know Gary’s plans for the economy because he skirts around the specifics, and has openly stated they are a work in progress. He has changed his rhetoric from a ‘wealth tax’ to ‘taxing the wealthy’ which, while vague, is more in line with your ideas.
And no-one’s asking you to agree with his framing because his framing is wrong, but I’m not sure you are his specific target audience. He seems more aimed at the low-engagement voter, using a framing they can engage with to present general ideas they will vote for. Like it or not, many of these people will not take the time or make the effort to engage with MMT, but their votes will still be needed if change is to occur. And change needs to occur.
It’s a solid principle that policy should be based on fact, but misinformation has won every election in my life-time, and it will win the next one until there is serious reform to the electoral system. It would be better if the misinformation was Gary’s than Farage’s.
We will have to disagree because the issue is too important to be misrepresented.
Hi Richard did you mean to link to near the end of his video?
No
But I am human. I linked to where I had probably last stopped it
Does it really matter?
You might have seen my recent post about an extended family member who was ex-head of service in a Northern local authority talking rubbish about taxation etc., recently.
I’m very disappointed to see Gary going down the household anal-rhubarb.
What does Gaz and my extended family member have in common?
Maybe the culture of contentment? If a system has helped you to become comfortable, then maybe one’s critical faculties are less sharp?
I came across an intelligent critique of Gary very recently. What he is proposing is warranted but in the final analysis from 20 years on the future, is inadequate. We are facing more problems than just ‘economic’ inequality. It is a broader political problem. The problem we gave is also about our leaders abandoning values such as ‘truthfulness’ and our follow citizens feel that they can do the same and abandon their civic responsibilities.
Bill, I believe the economic, political and social problems we are facing in the UK, the Anglophone world, the West in general is much deeper than greed and corruption. They are the symptoms of a society, those particularly in charge, who have abrogated duty and responsibilities and moral obligation and swapped them for an amoral, moral free and perfectly unjust system similar to Darwinism. I might call it the American model writ large. The Survival of the Fittest, but I would amend that to the survival of the greediest and most amoral.
Timbo, you have described the Neo-Liberal project to a T. It is not new, it is deliberate, and it is what the wealthy have done since time immemorial.
I was one of those suggesting a discussion between you and Gary. It really is a shame they have turned you down. He has a large audience so the messaging has impact, whether he understands or agrees with your teaching and approach or not, he wants change for the right reasons.
Thank you for trying Richard, the loss is his and his large following.
I commented on one of Gary’s blogs, some time ago, that I felt he was not correct in his understanding of the economy. I was surprised that you had considered he was someone worth listening to, but I kept quite about it, thinking I might be wrong. I am glad he has finally exposed himself, and confirmed my suspicions.
https://xcancel.com/garyseconomics/status/1947357046652760158#m
Fortunately, others also see through him
To be fair to him, Stephanie Kelton mentioned in her book that American progressives such as Bernie Sanders are aware of MMT but don’t push it. I wonder if MMT is just considered a hard sell alongside the core message of adressing inequality or whether there is something else at work. Class warfare perhaps? We need to take the money from the rich specifically, because they have stolen from the finite supply. Perhaps the optics are better than trying to explain a concept that has been hidden from the puplic consiousness for so long. I really don’t know, and don’t want to feed my over imaginative brain with conspiracies, so I hope it is just the optics of it.
Your language is not helpful. Most have stolen nothing. The system may be rigged in their favour, but let’s not make untrue claims. They a5e nt needed to show the injustice of the system.
I meant that the message of the wealthy having “stolen” is perhaps easier to sell than one about the government needing to distribute the money supply more equitably and tax more strategically. The Americans refer to the wealthy of the Gilded Age as Robber Barons. Perhaps making an enemy of the wealthy is easier to sell and popularise than simple government reforms. I don’t believe there has been theft. I’m just opining on why someone who is likely aware of MMT doesn’t use it in their narrative.
I prefer the truth when arguing.
Ooops, I should have used this link with my comment
https://xcancel.com/malcolm_reavell/status/1952833869280854494#m
I had thought that here was a BoE article stating that BoE creates money required for public spending.
But the link – piece below really seems to focus mainly on the private commercial sector and households and private banks rather than including the public sector. It seems to mention BoE money creation in relation to QE., but otherwise stresses that private bank loans create most money.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/quarterly-bulletin-2014-q1.pdf
Correct.
UCL had to do the work proving the same is true of the BoE, which it had to be, of course.
Lol what a tease! Found it…3 years old, first I’ve heard of it! https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/publications/2022/may/self-financing-state-institutional-analysis
Unlike, I suspect, most here Gary Stevenson has not made the fundamentally necessary paradigm shift.
If he continues to base his arguments with the establishment in a tax-and-spend environment he is fatally vulnerable to all of the well versed counter arguments that have been made for decades. He is making all the wrong arguments to achieve what he, and I’m sure all of us here, want….a caring economy.
To make full and proper use of his audience he HAS to understand the role of fiat currency in the economy and it is only from this Richard that I would urge you to redouble your efforts to get through to him and his ‘team’. Going above and beyond with him could reap enormous dividends.
I wonder if the fundamental problem with Stevenson is that he has never explored the actual *origin* of the money in the economy.
Ask most people where money comes from and they’ll tell you that it comes from earnings, or job creation (by the wealthy) or some such thing. The fact that it somehow has to come into existence doesn’t seem to occur to them. I liked Kelton’s book because she explains how she asked that question, how does it come into existence, and set about finding an answer.
Once it’s established that it is created by the state one can then begin to understand the logic behind the fact that money creation (by state spending) has to come before taxation. But I don’t think that many people get that far.
I asked Chatgtp what would happen if the state stopped creating money and just depended on tax revenue to fund it. (for simplicity’s sake I ignored foreign earnings)
The answer was obvious really:
“1. Circular Flow of Money Would Collapse
If all money is created by the state, and the state stops issuing new money, then:
The existing money stock becomes fixed.
Households and businesses can only obtain money that already exists in the system.
Since the state taxes money back to fund itself (instead of issuing more), no net financial assets are added to the private sector.
Over time, this would lead to a shrinking money supply, because:
Taxes would drain money from the economy.
No new money would replenish it.”
It didn’t really need AI to work that out. Anyone with an ability to think logically could do it. I don’t think Stevenson has ever come to grips with this.
Also, critiques of MMT, which no doubt he’s familiar with, tend to concentrate on policies advocated by its adherents and ignore the fundamental fact that money is created by the state.
I did watch some of Stevenson’s videos but I found his mannerisms distracting and his arguments didn’t really ‘flow’.
I don’t watch your videos either, Richard. I don’t have good recall of the spoken word. I read the transcripts. The written word isn’t ephemeral. I think transcripts of Stevenson’s wold be a nightmare
(if this comment is too long, I apologise)
I think it works like this…If the state stopped creating money, then it would stop spending. Gov’t salaries would cease, no MPs would get paid nor would the PM or Chancellor (every cloud has a silver lining). All local authority grants from gov would end. NHS funding would end. All welfare payments would end.
(For an example see USA when Congress won’t approve the budget, total federal shutdown – it isn’t pretty)
All income taxes paid by those employees would stop. Taxes paid by everyone else not employed by govt would be paid but having been paid and destroyed, would disappear out of circulation.
It would be like watching a bath with a large open plug hole being fed from a tank of circulating money that also leaked. Eventually no one would have any money, and we would be a barter economy.
At any point the government could start the cycle, collect the bodies, and start again but the damage would be enormous.
The analogy may fall flat once private bank money creation is considered – I’m not up to explaining that!
@RobertJ….”If the state stopped creating money, then it would stop spending. Gov’t salaries would cease, no MPs would get paid nor would the PM or Chancellor (every cloud has a silver lining). All local authority grants from gov would end. NHS funding would end. All welfare payments would end”.
I think it’s because we are quite far along that arc at present that public services are in the dire straits that they are.
It is commercial bank money (private debt) that is increasingly sustaining the whole house of cards and as that becomes less and less viable we are once more staring into a 2008 style abyss.
^The analogy may fall flat once private bank money creation is considered – I’m not up to explaining that!^
Private bank money (loans) withdraws money from the economy. Granted, while in circulation it enable economic activity but it has to be repaid plus interest. Repayment of the principal destroys the bank created money. The interest paid effectively withdraws money from the economy as it mostly goes to pay dividends and high salaries to the already wealthy who are known to have a marginal propensity to spend; some of what *is* spent is withdrawn via taxation. So not much gained there.
Am I right in this analysis?
It’s good
I’ve always thought that if someone won’t debate their position or argument, they can’t really believe in what they are saying. Of course, I remember when Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time and there was a furore around giving him airspace, yet he did appear and I gather didn’t make much of an impression as the BNP were wiped out in the next round council elections. Which is why generally I always believe it’s better to let people speak rather than silence people you disagree with.
But the fact he won’t debate with you is telling. Very telling.
I think Gary would benefit from a crash course, such as Steve Keen’s Rebel Economics course.
Gary’s gripes about academics not going back and checking their predictions would be answered and Steve Keen’s superior mathematical knowledge would be extra beneficial. I have tried to nudge him in the right direction but to obviously no effect.
Steve Keen did some good videos aimed at Musk and would ask him ask to produce something aimed at Gary. Obviously it would have more heft coming from you!
Gary has a great passion but he is being set up to fail by the establishment. He knows all the problems, particularly identifying financial inequality, but as stated in this blog he has no viable demonstrable solutions.
You are right when you say Gary has a great passion but he is being set up to fail by the establishment. I am sure that is true. He is immensely useful to them as a result.
I stopped following Gary Stevenson a while back quick simply because he’s starting to be viewed as a bit of an economic rock star and although his latest hit ‘tax wealth not work’ is still top of the charts I think it’ll be knocked off of its slot soon. Passionate though he may be I also suspect that he may turn out to be a bit of a one hit wonder. Yes, currently his message is getting him lots of coverage and a big following but I think he’s being set up by the establishment and will give up st some point. A shame because his heart is most definitely in the right place but he’s young and humility has never been a strength of the young.
Humility is not his strength
Hmm, interesting. ‘His agent’, ‘his team’….
There’s really no reason why Richard and Gary should not have a conversation, either privately or in a public forum. You could always disagree; it would be educational, and continue the discussion as circumstances evolve. It would entirely depend not on the substance of the argument, but on how it was framed as a conversation.
Which is his agent’s job.
Agents don’t represent the public interest, they promote the profile of their employer and of themselves. Set the framework for an ongoing dust-up between ‘our lot’ and ‘their lot’ with your guy in the winner’s seat, and you have an income for as long as you can keep the fight going. The bigger the fight, the bigger the bingo.
This is why PR – although we absolutely need it – would be such a challenge in the UK. The culture isn’t there yet. What little space opens for debate by public figures around contentious issues is immediately shut down by the middlemen, whose interests do not align with collaboration, compromise, debate, mutual education and good governance. There’s a walloping literature on it going back to the early medieval period, when governments were nonexistent and the power of the leader was everything. “Mirrors for Princes”. Check it out. It has a lot to say about agents and middlemen.
Is Gary Stevenson interested in renewing economics in the UK? We need to grow the public conversation, not shut it down. He should have a word with his agent.
I am oopne to the discussion.
I set out the issues tomorrow, and maybe in a video later on.
I originally thought a collab between you two would be good but then I watched more of your content Richard and noticed Gary doesn’t really explain things in the detail required to merge the knowledge into a more holistic understanding. He also tends to lean back onto “I was the best trader, I know it” when under scrutiny which will get him picked apart eventually.
I think he would benefit greatly from your knowledge and experience. You (and everyone else) could benefit from his large platform to spread the message about MMT, the myths politicians tell about the economy and how it can be different.
I would like to see things change, going in a better direction and for you to see more of your life’s work realised.
I am happy with my direction of travel right now.
Not only the super-rich are scared of losing their wealth. With the cost of living crisis anybody who has amassed any assets is scared of losing them. I’m just a recently retired married truck driver with a decent pension pot plus cash savings and no debts due to frugal living and being good at maths.
We rarely spend on non essentials and the doom loop of the last few years has just reinforced our frugal living. Unlikely to touch the pension pot and still adding to savings in case the rainy days get worse.
Economic growth won’t happen if we are typical. Both got bus passes and 3 routes stop outside the door, so next thing to go will be our car.
Fresh air and walks in the countryside are basically free and raise zero taxes.
Sorry RR.