I recently listened to a podcast episode of The Headliners with Nihal Arthanayaka in which he interviewed Gary Stevenson. I’d never heard of Gary Stevenson before moving to the UK. Gary had a lot to say about wealth inequality, which was interesting, but I was left with a lot of questions. I know this isn’t BBC Radio 4, but I would have thought at least Nihal would ask a few probing questions and challenge him on some of the details. No. It was a really poor interview.

It got me interested though. It led me to read Gary Stevenson’s book - The Trading Game: A Confession. ★★★★★

The Trading Game by Gary Stevenson. Book Cover.

Whatever you think about Gary’s interview style and social media prophesizing, I found the book fascinating.

Trading Game is not really about wealth inequality. It’s mentioned, more towards the end, but the crux of the book is a personal biography of his journey as a poor kid from East London, to the ivory towers of Canary Wharf as a city trader (via the London School of Economics), and his gradual realisation that we’re all getting screwed by the ultra-rich.

He talks with real conviction about how he made himself millions by betting on a large increase in economic inequality, and that growing poverty would cause interest rates to stay low, despite the predictions from Government, The Bank of England and leading economists who all said, year after year, that normal levels of interest rates would come back.

I think this is the first book I’ve read in a single day. No skim-reading. I read the full book in one day (I got nothing else done that day).

I couldn’t put it down. It’s an incredible insight into that life. Think Wall Street or The Big Short but relocated to London. More than that, when he becomes disillusioned and decides to leave, it’s more like a thriller. It doesn’t read well for Citibank - I got the picture that it’s easier to leave the mafia than this global bank.

I won’t say much more because this is one of those books where you really do get the pleasure of finding things out.

Wealth Inequality

In general, I buy the key argument about wealth inequality and the need to tax wealth, not work, but I have a few issues with his YouTube channel and the interviews I’ve heard so far.

I think he’s successfully getting the message out there that there has been a massive increase in wealth inequality in the last three decades particularly. When he talks about how the 2008 financial crisis and COVID exacerbated the shift of assets from the middle class to the ultra wealthy, I get it.

I’ve been reading a few books on economics lately - trying to get my head around some of the basic economic theory. Gary is inspired by economists such as Thomas Piketty, who popularised the “r > g” argument in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

The “r > g” argument refers to the idea that when the rate of return on capital (r) exceeds the rate of economic growth (g), wealth tends to concentrate over time. In other words, if the income generated by investments (like dividends, rents, interest, and capital gains) grows faster than the overall economy and wages, those who already hold capital (typically the wealthy) will see their wealth grow disproportionately. This dynamic can lead to rising inequality unless offset by policies like progressive taxation, especially on capital and wealth.

Gary’s solution, in general, is to place a 1% tax on unrealised gains from those worth more than £10 million. After that, he’s a bit hazy on the specifics. This is where the main problem lies.

I’m really interested, but I need to hear the counter-arguments and practical solutions. How do you prevent a wealth tax resulting in capital flight, or the risk of less foreign investment? Does he agree with the Laffer Curve? What’s his answer to the French experience of a wealth tax, which ultimately failed? If part of the solution is taxing capital gains at the same rate as income, how do you change capital gains tax without it adversely impacting the middle class?

He’s an economist, so he knows the arguments. He just chooses not to go into details, because, I think, he has this view that it’s more important to start with the general message, and maybe us mere mortals are too thick to understand economic theory. It’s a little patronising.

I’ve watched and listened to him being interviewed on various channels. These interviews are also mainly patronising - not delving into the academic arguments or challenging him in anyway.

This is part of the problem. He has become a darling of the left, so most of the interviews so far have been from left-wing broadcasters such as The Guardian, Novara Media, James O’Brien, etc,. He has been shouting into the echo chamber. If his campaign is going to work, he needs to reach a broader audience. I’d love to see him get interviewed by Andrew Neil on Times Radio. He did get challenged on the Piers Morgan show, but the problem with Piers Morgan is the format. It’s no place for a proper, nuanced debate. Piers is more interested in getting guests into a shouting match, and in this case he countered Gary with the loon that is Dave Rubin .

If he starts aligning himself with the likes of Novara Media - actual supporters of communism, he’s got no chance of winning over the vast majority, including me.

Another issue is his presentation style. If you read the book, he reaches a moment where he takes a ‘fuck-it’ attitude and starts coming in to work in just a hoodie and trackie bottoms. He’s now made that part of his identity. He obviously wants to give the impression that he’s still just this working class kid from the east of London, not the multi-millionaire that he became. I generally think people should wear what they want, but I can understand why he might not get invited on certain shows. He also swears, a lot.

Anyway, even if you’re not interesting in economics, I highly recommend The Trading Game. It’s a page-turner!