[Politics] Gary's Economics

[BadFish]

After reading his book The Trading Game I keep seeing this guy talking about wealth inequality and how precarious the working and middle classes are.

I find the ideas are resonating with what I have been banging on about for years.



I am interested in NSC's thoughts on this.

 

[Simster]

Yeah he pops up a lot when I go down YouTube rabbit holes. His ideas are interesting, but sometimes I find it lacks any economic substance or offers much in the way of solutions.

 

[BadFish]

Yeah he pops up a lot when I go down YouTube rabbit holes. His ideas are interesting, but sometimes I find it lacks any economic substance or offers much in the way of solutions.

I agree, I have just been distracted from finishing that video but I think he is getting to the solutions.

 

[Hotchilidog]

He's pretty good, I do think that he takes a long time to get to the point in his videos though. Stevenson offers an economic critique that is rarely heard in mainstream circles and that is very welcome.

His message has become more focused now as inequality has increased at an even more alarming rate and is quite rightly now backing a wealth tax.

 

[BBassic]

I like his videos generally but I did watch one about investing for beginners or something which boiled down to "buy property" as if that's something most of us are capable of doing.

Felt a wee bit out of touch that one.

 

[dwayne]

This was good

 

[schmunk]

I find him rather self-aggrandising - by various accounts he was not nearly as successful in his career as he likes to make out.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

"Tax working people less and rich people more"

It's not exactly a new argument.

 

[Hotchilidog]

"Tax working people less and rich people more"

It's not exactly a new argument.

It's a good argument and it's one the government should take seriously.

 

[BadFish]

"Tax working people less and rich people more"

It's not exactly a new argument.

True, it's an old argument that seems to have been lost or forgotten. I like the fact someone is talking about it again.

Now we need to figure out how to bring those in charge to the table.

 

[beorhthelm]

I find him rather self-aggrandising - by various accounts he was not nearly as successful in his career as he likes to make out.

i read some comments that he wasn't on high enough account to be anywhere near best trader. very good, just not the best.

he's blungening the inequality horse for common room appeal. he does know his stuff and has a clear logic, but then makes some fairly obvious deviations from history to fit the conclusion. the very richest are largely increasing their wealth as outcome of asset price inflation stock market valuations, not taking money from the working classes. we dont suffer because of their wealth, the size of the wealth ballon inflated. the solution of tax the rich has been tried, to varying degrees of success, and reading between the lines his plan would mean including pensions and any large properties, the middle classes are in the crosshairs. if estimations of his wealth are accurate, he could start by selling up and donating to HMRC.

 

[The Fits]

He’s starting to take pelters because he’s an agitator. I like him because he’s banging the drum relentlessly and his message is getting across. Ultimately, it’s a bit of a nihilistic message because he isn’t offering a huge amount of solutions- but he’s honest about his stance- he doesn’t think there are any real solutions beyond taxing the rich and that’s a message the rich don’t want cutting through.

 

[Klaas]

He’s starting to take pelters because he’s an agitator. I like him because he’s banging the drum relentlessly and his message is getting across. Ultimately, it’s a bit of a nihilistic message because he isn’t offering a huge amount of solutions- but he’s honest about his stance- he doesn’t think there are any real solutions beyond taxing the rich and that’s a message the rich don’t want cutting through.

I agree, I hesitate to use the terms left and right because he himself doesn't like to frame it like that, but he has a charisma and populist appeal very much on the other side of the Farages et al. It's good to have a voice like that out there.

 

[Bakero]

I think he's doing good work and it's good to see he has quite broad appeal (just checked and he has over a million subscribers on YouTube, which seems pretty good for a one-man band economics channel).

Yes, he's a little self-aggrandising ("I was the world's best trader" etc) but he knows his stuff and his heart's in the right place. A sign of his success is the attacks he's getting from the right in print and social media.

 

[TimWatt]

i read some comments that he wasn't on high enough account to be anywhere near best trader. very good, just not the best.

he's blungening the inequality horse for common room appeal. he does know his stuff and has a clear logic, but then makes some fairly obvious deviations from history to fit the conclusion. the very richest are largely increasing their wealth as outcome of asset price inflation stock market valuations, not taking money from the working classes. we dont suffer because of their wealth, the size of the wealth ballon inflated. the solution of tax the rich has been tried, to varying degrees of success, and reading between the lines his plan would mean including pensions and any large properties, the middle classes are in the crosshairs. if estimations of his wealth are accurate, he could start by selling up and donating to HMRC.

'...the size of the wealth ballon inflated.....' that is only true in the sense of increased creation of debt, which can be a good thing where it creates employment through business investment. But mostly it's held in assets (like property) that inflates the costs of those assets for other people in the short term, plus those debts will require repayment, meaning the wealth further concentrates with creditors who lent the money in the first place (banks/and financiers of the banks) longer term.

He makes the point early on that 'coming up with solutions' is a technical argument that is separate from the more important point that the above scenario, where money concentrates remorselessly without impediment - is a cause of financial hardship for the majority.

 

[highflyer]

He’s starting to take pelters because he’s an agitator. I like him because he’s banging the drum relentlessly and his message is getting across. Ultimately, it’s a bit of a nihilistic message because he isn’t offering a huge amount of solutions- but he’s honest about his stance- he doesn’t think there are any real solutions beyond taxing the rich and that’s a message the rich don’t want cutting through.

Indeed, see the critiques above.
Somewhat predictable that the main critique seems to be 'he wasn't as good as he says'. Clearly he has an ego, but reading around this seems that it depends (inevitably) on what criteria you use. It is telling that what seems to upset other traders most is not what he is saying, but the insinuation that someone (especially someone like him) might have been better than them!

On the ' why doesn't he just donate his wealth to HMRC'. He gets this almost EVERY time he is interviewed and has answered it very simply. Him paying more tax won't make any real difference and why should be? He is clear that he will happily pay more tax when all rich people are required to.

His analysis is more interesting and more complex than just 'tax wealth not work'. That is his conclusion, but he draws on various and multiple (respected) sources to get there. Piketty, Zucman, Ha Choon Chang and many others. He also continues to put his money where is mouth is, betting on his theories being right and winning.

He's winding all the right people up, which is usually a good sign.

What he does do well is to undermine (correctly) the idea that there is any such thing as 'mainstream economics'. What there is is a centre right set of economic ideas that have dominated globally for the last 50 years, not because they are 'right' but because they suit the rich and powerful.

From what i have seen (i havent read his book) I think he understates the importance of the economics of power (which makes me increasingly pessimistic that we can reverse inequality) and he misses some important globalised elements of how wealth is being accumulated (the rich are not just acquiring assets from our own government but, via global investment vehicles which are often backed by public 'development' funds, from governments all over the world).

 

[beorhthelm]

'...the size of the wealth ballon inflated.....' that is only true in the sense of increased creation of debt, which can be a good thing where it creates employment through business investment. But mostly it's held in assets (like property) that inflates the costs of those assets for other people in the short term, plus those debts will require repayment, meaning the wealth further concentrates with creditors who lent the money in the first place (banks/and financiers of the banks) longer term.

He makes the point early on that 'coming up with solutions' is a technical argument that is separate from the more important point that the above scenario, where money concentrates remorselessly without impediment - is a cause of financial hardship for the majority.

fair play, overlooked the effect on property assets. mainly because thats collateral damage, the main asset wealth increase is in stock valuations. property asset inflation could be mitigated with better managment of housing supply.

 

[Simster]

I still maintain that clobbering people with inheritance tax is likely to be the most effective way of doing what he suggests.

Income tax has done far too much of the heavy lifting down the years and doesn't penalise those who benefit from unearned wealth, VAT is brutally unfair on the poor and too many wealthy people can easily avoid other taxes with a decent accountant. But there is no way you can hide when gaining from inheritance.

 

[Titanic]

I still maintain that clobbering people with inheritance tax is likely to be the most effective way of doing what he suggests.

Income tax has done far too much of the heavy lifting down the years and doesn't penalise those who benefit from unearned wealth, VAT is brutally unfair on the poor and too many wealthy people can easily avoid other taxes with a decent accountant. But there is no way you can hide when gaining from inheritance.

Aren't Trust funds widely used to 'avoid' inheritance tax when there are large amounts of money involved?

 

[beorhthelm]

...

What he does do well is to undermine (correctly) the idea that there is any such thing as 'mainstream economics'. What there is is a centre right set of economic ideas that have dominated globally for the last 50 years, not because they are 'right' but because they suit the rich and powerful.

sounds very much like mainstream economics, if it's dominated the world for 50 years. which has been to the benefit of most in the western world, not only the rich and powerful. if we want to do things differently, need to examine and accept the consequences of the changes.