Gary Stevenson put out a video yesterday in which he said that he was retiring from YouTube, at least for the time being. He indicated that the time being might mean nine months, and that when he returns, he might do monthly rather than weekly videos, and that they might be collaborative because the pressure of producing a weekly video is too much for him.
What became clear from this video is that he is burnt out. It is obvious that he put a lot of effort into his Channel 4 documentary on tax and wealth, and that, in the aftermath of its poor reviews, he has simply run out of road.
Let me be clear. I am not criticising Gary. Burnout is real. It happens to many people. It certainly happens to creative people, and that is what Gary has been. I also understand a great many of the pressures that Gary describes.
He describes the pressure of having to think up, create and film a video every week. I know all about that. I make one every day. Even when we are on holiday, there is still a daily video. The only thing that has stopped me publishing has been time in hospital. And I know the pressure of this as well. As I am writing this on Monday morning, we have no video available for Tuesday morning. Nor do I know at this moment precisely what it will be about. In fact, I have no very clear plan for it at all, let alone an idea for an outline script. We have just one reserve video in stock which we could use if I really run out of inspiration, but that is it. If we use that tomorrow, I am still under pressure to create another one for Wednesday. This is the reality of media creation.
And I can sympathise with the pressures as well. It is stressful being under constant scrutiny. That is particularly true in my case because I choose to read my below-the-line comments. I am aware that most of the time these are helpful, add value, and are appreciated by others. That is why I try to provide the relatively secure space that this blog makes available, which in itself is unusual. I do that by quite deliberately getting rid of commentators who appear here quite regularly who are rude, offensive, or just have the apparent intent of wasting my time. In part, that is because I wish to create a place for others to comment, but it is also about surviving the process of blog publishing. Constant attacks do have an impact. Whoever first said that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me totally misunderstood reality. Words can hurt, and sometimes they do. I have developed a thick skin, but not impermeability.
I also recognise Gary's problem that being recognised as an issue. I very much doubt that Gary realised that when he started writing he would become well known. I, too, most certainly never realised that this might happen, but it is now quite commonplace for me to be approached by people who ask if I really am Richard Murphy, which I customarily confirm. Let me be clear, I usually enjoy these conversations. Most are warm-hearted and undertaken with good intent, but it is odd, and contrary to most human experience, to be widely recognised and, because I appear in many people's lives every day, to be thought of as a friend when I have never had the personal chance to reciprocate the sentiment. It does create stress and expectations, and I think Gary is indicating that he is suffering from that.
That said, I think he is suffering from something else, and that is that his campaign has also burnt out. I have no doubt at all that Gary's sentiments are genuine, and his motivations and concerns are real. But when he began talking about wealth taxes, he had to subsequently admit that he had no idea how he might deliver one, and in the end he has latched on to ideas from Gabriel Zucman, none of which make the slightest bit of sense.
Zucman shows no understanding of the role of tax in the economy. He buys the household analogy. He thinks tax funds government spending. It is clear he has very little understanding of how a wealth tax might work in practice, rather than in his theoretical framework. His targeting is very limited, and any potential gain is very modest, and nothing either Gary or Gabriel Zucman talk about actually addresses the fundamental flaws inside the tax system as a whole that perpetuate the opportunity to accumulate wealth that many of the world's tax systems currently provide.
Those are fundamental campaigning failures. In my opinion, you can only campaign in the long term if what you are asking for is coherent, has a comprehensible theory to underpin it, and has detailed mechanisms for delivery that can be explained, are obviously deliverable, and clearly tackle the underlying problem that you are addressing. Gary's campaign did, quite simply, lack these qualities. So do those of organisations like Tax Justice UK, which I helped establish, and many other organisations that demand wealth taxes without understanding precisely what they are talking about because they lack the expertise to do so.
If, then, Gary's time off was used for a critical reappraisal of what he was doing with his time, and what reforms he wishes to make, that would be of immense value.
Gary is a successful campaigner. He has raised awareness. He has reached audiences which would otherwise not have engaged with tax campaigning issues. All of those things are successes. If he can now hone the message towards something that is deliverable, and uses his time off to reflect on that, the outcomes could be great.
Either way, I wish Gary a good break. I hope he recovers well. I hope he rediscovers a purpose and, in the meantime, the work here will go on.
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!
Gary definitely made a big impression, I began a journey into learning about political economy with Gary’s videos. That was short lived, as after hearing Richard on Bold Politics i was hooked. I hope the momentum from Gary’s work can help foster a better and wider understanding though, ie those people find Funding the future, too.
Thanks
Sadly he still has really poor presentation skills and is not a good communicator. I’m not sure if YouTube is the best format for him. Whether you agree with their views or not there are a number of excellent communicators out there that can articulate such ideas much better than Gary. Ash Sarkar is brilliant at getting her ideas across and cutting through even in hostile environments. Ava Santana is becoming a really excellent interviewer. Owen Jones is good and Grace Blakeley can articulate her ideas much better than Gary. And of course Zack Polanski. Gary was trying to explain economics to those with limited knowledge but whilst he clearly understands it well I struggled to follow much of what he said. Maybe he should take time out and reassess where his strengths lie and either get help with his presentation or team up with someone who is a better communicator.
There is definitely a sad story arc with Gary where he started with a very plausible economic theory that wealth inequality hurts growth and living standards but ended with excessive enthusiasm for a tax too small, too avoidable and too administratively expensive to make any meaningful difference.
Unfortunately I think a big part of the problem is that he was too selective about who he worked with and then too unreliable with the people he did engage, so he didn’t learn much on his journey.
His documentary included round after round of smug rich people who would avoid his tax and undermine democracy (it would seem whilst Scargill was not allowed to use extra-Paliamentary power to undermine democracy, for them it is totally fine).
I do hope though that from his legions of fans, new ideas will come forth.
Before I heard the news about his sabbatical, I finally got round last night, to watching “How to get filthy rich.” It made me feel quite sad. He has effectively highlighted the dangerous destructive nature of wealth inequality, but has been unable to come up with a solution that materially changes the country for the better, merely one that might make some rich people have slightly easier consciences, and some very angry people feel that a little bit of fairness has arrived. Yet nothing substantive would have changed, because firstly, the new asset tax wouldn’t actually work, and secondly, it wouldn’t make a dent in the pace of destructive accelerating UK inequality.
But – the legacy of Gary’s work is a high level of awareness and anger, about the gross injustice and widespread dangers of destructive accelerating inequality. You are building effectively on that with both a major challenge to the orthodox theories about money, AND a practical tax toolbox aimed at redistributive fairness and monetary effectiveness.
Thanks, and much to agree with
Hear, hear!
Richard there is a name for the phenomena that you describe in your sixth paragraph.
People who are familiar with you through your internet output and web presence especially video and audio which brings ‘you’ into their daily lives.
They have a parasocial relationship [1] with you (and Gary).
It is a one way relationship from you to them, but their is no reciprocal path from them, to you.
[ Except for us, the tiny minority of text based weirdos who comment and email you 😉 ]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction
Thanks
Yes burnout is a big problem. I find that the stress involved in researching material and the producing posts about the subject when you get people coming back who are either abusive or lack knowledge about the subject so make uninformed comments quite tiring. If someone point out an actual factual error, questions a line of argument or simply says something like “I am happy to carry on emitting GHGs”, well ok!
I always act on errors if I can
I make them!
Good stuff. Very fair feedback.
While you are at odds about delivery there is a symbiosis, I think, between the stories that you both tell. Gary has been really good at explaining why growing inequality is bad and what will happen if it is left unchecked. He sometimes dips in to the false economic praxis, but the focus on inequality is and always has been the key message.
His “Tax Wealth Not Work” slogan is very powerful, and fits right in with your taxing wealth report. It’s all there. We can see the building blocks, the foundations. We already have a good story, and I think we are working towards building an even better one.
How do we feel about framing taxing wealth as an act of economic self-defence? Lots of people (including Gary sometimes) frame taxing wealth as either fairness or financing which sounds… not urgent. Even “reducing inequality”, although the correct objective, sounds a little soft. Reframing it as protecting ourselves gives it more urgency, and therefore more salience.
Taxing Wealth = Economic Self-Defence
Do we like?
I admit that does not work with me, buit I think the idea is a good one
Might be worth trying to make contact with Gary, a good discussion between you both might be productive.
He is heading for Japan
And he needs a break – and I believe him
Whilst he recovers, you should send him your infographics to read in the meantime, and even the TWR.
🙂