I watched Gary Stevenson's Channel 4 documentary, How to Get Filthy Rich With Gary Stevenson, last night. I have a recommendation for you. It is that you do not waste your time.
This programme is deeply embarrassing. Gary shows himself quite unable to make the argument he sets out to deliver and, in the process, undermines the case for any form of increase in tax on wealth by failing to win any of the arguments with any of the people that he interviews, whilst emoting extensively, blubbing occasionally, proving himself to be all heart and no head, and someone lacking the expertise needed to make his case.
That said, I admit that I did not expect to be a fan of this programme. Gary Stevenson and I disagree on whether we need a wealth tax. My argument is that a wealth tax is the best way to tax wealth, except for all the other, much better alternatives set out in my Taxing Wealth Report, which suggests that there are opportunities for additional revenue, if that is the goal, much in excess of anything that Gary predicts to be possible. I was almost bound to disagree with this programme as a result.
What did, however, astonish me is that Gary appeared to do no more preparation for this programme than he did for his YouTube videos. In those, he has admitted that he is not a tax expert and does not know how a wealth tax could be designed or work, and that fact remained very apparent in this programme. In fact, what he revealed was that:
- He believes in the household analogy. In other words, he thinks that the government must raise tax before it can spend, and this is not true.
- He thinks that, as far as the government is concerned, money is scarce, when it is not because it creates the stuff.
- He believes tax is the only way to tackle inequality, when it is very clearly only one way, with better regulation, better fiscal policy, better Social Security, better education, better control of interest rates, and a straightforwardly better understanding of economics all playing at least as much a part as taxation can. That does not mean that tax is unimportant, but it is just one of many tools, and the wealth tax is a poor tool within that tax option.
In addition, Gary was let down by the programme makers, from the moment they chose to call it the series How to Get Filthy Rich, which was not what it was about, to the fact that they had obviously not done their homework.
They also failed to prepare Gary for the confrontational interviews they asked him to undertake, which, without exception, he handled badly, failing to have almost any counterarguments to his opponents' claims, making him look ill-prepared, lacking in expertise and without a case to make.
His problem was clear: when, as he acknowledged, he set out to make himself a millionaire within a neoliberal framing of wealth, which he obviously believes in, his chance of successfully arguing with those who endorsed that same mindset was very low, and he never came close to successfully doing so.
The result was a programme that was just dull. As entertainment, this failed just as badly as it failed as reasoned argument.
I thought I was being incredibly negative in thinking this, so I then checked for reviews in the media and found them in the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times and The Guardian. It is unsurprising that the first two were not enthusiastic, but I think the Guardian review wanted to be, yet it too ended up feeling that this was a massive lost opportunity and a failure. Its final section was:
Tax lawyer and adviser Dan Neidle deals the final blow towards the end of the programme by summing up the underlying problem of everything that has gone before. “You are unable,” he tells Stevenson coolly but firmly, “to separate your emotional reaction to inequality from a rational assessment of the best tools for it.”
This, really, is where a truly amazing documentary could have begun. Instead of Stevenson being left floundering, without convincing comebacks to any of them (was he not briefed? Was he paralysed in front of the camera? Has he simply spent too much time preaching to the choir and forgotten what it's like to be challenged? Or is Neidle right in his frustrated pronouncement that “There's no evidence you've ever thought about it!”), we could have had an hour of him being led through wider issues by a genuine expert and letting us all learn something along the way. This way was just a faintly embarrassing waste of time.
My conclusion? It is the same as that which I supplied to Channel 4 when they asked me whether I thought they should make this programme before it was commissioned. I told them that if they wanted to make a programme on the subject, they should commission it from somebody who knew about economics, tax, and the way government finance worked.
I never heard back from them thereafter, and that does not worry me. What does worry me is that this programme might actually have put back the case for taxing the income and gains from wealth more. Precisely because doing that matters, this programme was a failure, and I suspect that even Gary's most ardent fans would have to agree.
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!
Thanks for watching! Time to get your ‘Taxing Wealth’ Report and MMT articles in wider circulation, Channel Four missed out!
I expected as much – I mean look at the title?
Why did they choose that?
I almost wonder if he was set up?
Thats what I was thinking too.
An easy soft target to prove TINA
GS is in a his own media bubble, this wasn’t an environment he could control. Sad.
I watch his videos and support some of his views. But the programme was flawed from the outset with that ridiculous title
i watched about 30 minutes and gave up. Did I miss anything?
No
He believes in the household analogy. Does he believe in fairies as well?
Thanks for the heads up. Mr Stevenson would do well to leave the field to those that have some clue as to what they are talking about.
That said, another interpretation could be the meeja setting some narratives = taxing the rich is v’ difficult to impossible etc – looks even an “expert” can’t get it right.
This is the interpretation I favour.
Me too.
I didnt watch (and having read this wont)
“What does worry me is that this programme might actually have put back the case for taxing the income and gains from wealth more. Precisely because doing that matters, this programme was a failure”
or
“Mission accomplished”
Those interviews did not go well. One has to wonder if Gary Stevenson was simply allowed to expose the lack of rigour in his arguments or the consequence of Gary not rising to the demands of format.
The documentary commissioning process tends to be exacting and time consuming. The production company, Mindhouse Productions, is well established and has a reputation for high-end documentaries and investigative journalism. Founders include Louis Theroux.
A lost opportunity. Stevenson is good at explaining how economics is driving the growth in inequality, but seems entranced with his own oversimplified solution.
I agree that the documentary was clearly set up to fail with a title like that, but I will say this is clearly a bigger issue than just an ‘economics’ issue. While we can disagree about the particulars, I think it’s clear Gary is right about the direction of wealth inequality and the enormous power that these wealth owners now have. This battle isn’t going to won by sitting on here why they have free reign in the media. Before Gary, what was the cut through?
Are you saying no one noticed inequality before Gary?
That is not credible
The link between rising wealth inequality and declining living standards wasn’t a popular talking point within the establishment media sphere prior to his rise in popularity on social media. He is not solely responsible for shifting the discussion, but it would be wrong to say he hasn’t played a part in that.
Credit where credit is due. I think his influence has been a net-benefit for the tax-justice cause, but I get the impression that you think he does more harm than good, which is a shame.
This is nonsense, to be polite. When I was co-running the Tax Justice Network we delivered global reach on this.
No, I think he is saying that Gary brings a way of expressing it to a new audience, which is something you, for all of your clear understanding do not really do to anything like the same extent, if at all.
While I agree with a lot of the issues raised with the documentary, I strongly disagree with your central premise that this has set back the argument for taxing the rich.
While Gary may have failed to win the argument in the moment, the individuals he was interviewing didn’t to my mind present themselves in a sympathetic light. So While they made arguments that what Gary proposed would not work, they themselves reinforced that there was a requirement for the wealth of the super rich to be addressed, because they were clearly not going to be part of the solution.
As I co-created the Tax Justice Network, the Green New Deal, the Fair Tax Mark and more, and have 380,000 YT followers, I find the idea that I have no reach really quite odd.
Rising inequality?
It was a hot topic for those of us running food banks over a decade ago. I remember lecturing on it in a Lent series on “Spirituality and *****” at Wimborne Minster (mine was the last in the series – “Spirituality and Poverty”.
I regularly used to write to my Tory MP about it, post 2015. There was plenty of data available, especially from the very robust and huge national combined database of Trusell Trust and the independent foodbank network (IFN). When the DWP or any gov minister lied about poverty and inequality, we could produce the data to prove them wrong.
The difference now, is that these issues now impact the middle class, and large numbers of low income working people. So the MSM talk about it. Gov’t ignored it so it got much much worse.
“I, Daniel Blake”, came out in 2016. Didn’t shock me at all, I had seen that every week at our food bank since 2012, in a wealthy market town.
10 years later, all the same issues are in the interim Timms report, just the acronyms have changed. 10 years of us shouting, but no one in gov’t listening, till some scared LINO-STP MPs found some more long grass to kick the poor into, called the Timms report. “Unfit or purpose?” Bravo! Someone finally noticed?
As for Richard’s practical contributions to reducing inequality, he was a key player over many years effecting change in international tax law. Gary S has made a lot of money, made a poor documentary, got a large YT following, but on his central issue has NO SOLUTIONS because he doesn’t understand money
Now if he gave FTF £200k team Murphy could put it to good use…
🙂 and thank you
“Channel 4 when they asked me whether I thought they should make this programme before it was commissioned. I told them that if they wanted to make a programme on the subject, they should commission it from somebody who knew about economics, tax, and the way government finance worked.
I never heard back from them”
It seems crazy that you never heard back from them. My neice worked on the commissioning and production of this programme. I’ll ask her why they approached you in the first place if they weren’t going to listen to what you had to say and why they didn’t get back to you.
Here you go Mr Carstairs my analysis wrt Richard not hearing from C4 (see my post).
“the meeja setting some narratives = taxing the rich is v’ difficult to impossible etc – look even an “expert” can’t get it right.”
The prog was designed to fail. Had Richard been on instead of Mr Stevenson things would have been very different. As for getting any C4 explanation – would not have been worth the paper it was written on. The UK mass propaganda space has to be carefully controlled (= UK serfs mis-educated mis-directed). Happens all the time. This was another example. Normal service has been resumed and Mr Stevenson exposed. Job done.
I’m not a particular fan of GS but I did watch the program. My overwhelming impression was one of class intimidation. He doesn’t have a sophisticated analysis, nor a very viable solution which of course was part of the problem, but for me the most uncomfortable thing was that he seemed so intimidated by the establishment people he interviewed and it seemed odd almost to put the program out.
Interesting to know the agenda of Channel 4!???
While Gary is clearly not the first to identify inequality as a major societal problem I suspect he’s played a part in reaching a demographic that don’t have a specific interest in politcs and economics and would not be not be familiar with yourself and other writers and academics mentioned on this blog. I welcome anyone that brings these discussions into the public domain when our MSM can only ever seem to blame immigration.
Dear Richard
You rightly criticise the household analogy as flawed. Nevertheless it’s not entirely wrong either; there is an upper limit on government spending for reasons that are well understood.
Could you suggest a better analogy that would be seen as reasonable to the majority of economists?
Thanks
What is that upper limnit in your view.
I have explained mine.
And no analogy is needed: it is simply using the real resources available in the economy to help people best realise their ptotential.
What is wrong with that?
The ceiling for state spending is full employment with zero underemployment. The state should keep spending on the real resources until this goal is reached.
Agreed
Hi Richard – will you be posting a commentary on the Prosperity 2030 report? Seems to propose some changes to tax and economic policy you might agree with?
It seems like total garbage to me, and just about impossible to read. I have thought about it, but why make it impossible to access. What are they so ashamed of?
Would it be too cynical to speculate that Gary has been a willing participant in a straw man plot to discredit any alternative to neoliberal economics?
Working class kid turned millionaire trader becomes successful influencer challenging inequality. Built up as our only hope against the failed neoliberal orthodoxy, but then very publicly exposed as having no credible solutions. Conclusion: there is no alternative. Orthodoxy can prevail. Gary gets his payoff and then disappears.
But that reading would be entirely fictional.
Wouldn’t it?
What a shame you couldn’t persuade C4 to follow Gary’s programme with your perspective on a separate programme.
That would have been fun
On Wednesday I watched Inequality Media’s ‘The Last Class’ documentary.
I am sad GS did not come across well. His heart is in the right place, but it is so frustrating that he is ensnared in the household analogy among other things.
I need to watch that one
I have grown to love Gary because I can see he is genuinely concerned about the future for the vast majority of people who are denied a real chance to thrive. I empathise with his perspective which is born of his very ordinary beginnings and his experience of the bias of the rich which makes them express the opinion that they are rich because they deserve to be.
Gary Stevenson unfortunately does not present MMT or even mention it. Please try to get an opportunity to present a program on it.
Nevertheless Gary showed how wealth accumulates for an elite and said it was a danger to society.
Those interviewed were allowed to show themselves as greedy and uncaring – especially the land owner of an inherited estate.
The title was misleading but perhaps aimed to engage opponents of change.
I think therefore it was helpful in limited ways – I can’t remember any other program of an hour long criticism of wealthy elitism. It was a call for protest, change and awareness of social values.
Hi Richard, just my thoughts. My knowledge on this subject is quite new and limited — I’m a layman, but more importantly, inequality is something I’ve seen affecting me and others for years. What Gary has done for me is open a door to people like yourself that I didn’t know existed. It’s sharpened my thinking and my arguments on the problem, and it could — and hopefully will — do the same for others. I’d hate to see division among inequality campaigners, activists and economists. It’s too important. Maybe don’t throw Gary out with the bathwater just yet. Is there a version of this critique that doesn’t cost the movement its biggest audience-builder?
He is promoting a poor idea, badly. Isn’t it for him to up his game? Shouldn’t you be asking him to listen?
Fair point, and yes — I’ll ask him to listen and engage properly. But worth noting: Gary has said he asked Dan Neidle directly whether he would help him with this. It came up in a podcast — Gary said Dan didn’t want to help — though it didn’t make it into the documentary. Would you be open to actually engaging with him directly?
I have offered to do so. He declined, even when he appealed for help and I offered it.
There’s a basic misunderstanding about the documentary. And how you view it will depend largely on who you are. From my perspective and that of my family, it served the purpose intended. There’s also a good reason for the title.
Firstly, it’s clearly NOT a documentary about TAX. We might need one of those and doubtless you, Richard, would be an excellent person to make it.
But this isn’t that. It’s a documentary about calamity. About people, the societal disconnect (also illustrated by the response of the commentariat) and the horrific direction of travel. It’s a call to the many to fight back. Even hearing this narrated by someone who doesn’t sound like a talking head but like he’s from our manor and is relatable, is a huge relief (and a blessing/inspiration massively underestimated by legacy commentary).
Secondly, it’s called ‘How to Get Filthy Rich’ because it’s demonstrating what you need to be like if you’re going to be ‘filthy rich’ and shaft everyone else – in other words the answer to ‘How?; is ‘be as utterly callous and disconnected from what really matters as these people’.
It shows the rest of us the real reason for wealth inequality. And what we’re up against. It shows that, while these people are happy to argue about theories, they absolutely couldn’t care less about the fate of humanity.
That’s the point of it. And it did what it intended to do. We all deeply appreciated it. It spoke for us. Of course theories are important, essential. But this is rare as the Gold of Ophir. And we need it.