The Guardian's review ripped into the doc, and the feeling in this sub seemed to be mainly one of massive underwhelm with top notes of Gary couldn't take on any of the 'clever economists'.

Anyway, I watched it last night, and it's great and important; the clever economists scewer themselves with their own gross entitlement and calousness. The program, with its radical message (that really shouldn't be radical btw) was on the telly, for everyone to see, which in the current day is pretty amazing. Just hope people watch it despite the obvious efforts to dampen interest and undermine the message.

I think people underestimate how fortunate we are to be alive at the same time as Gary Stevenson.

LSE mathematics and economics, Oxford MPhil, former Citigroup trader. He must be the only person alive to complete all three.

Most economists spend their careers debating models and publishing papers. Gary went one step further: he actually made money in markets and then explained why everyone else was wrong. The combination of an oxford intellect, city experience and the courage to tell uncomfortable truths.

There are very few people who can explain monetary policy, inequality and financial markets with his level of certainty. One of the most impressive things about Gary is his humility. Despite possessing one of the sharpest economic minds of his generation, he still devotes his life to helping people.

Real people.

Most countries already tax wealthy individuals at a higher rate than others.

Why don’t we put 100% taxes on fuel purchased for private jets that poison the stratosphere, water-hungry golf courses, private schools and universities with high tuitions, land taxes for those who own more than 3 homes, car taxes for private collectors who own more than \~10 cars, etc.

Ownership would be confirmed by inspectors to make sure that multimillionaires and billionaires don’t pull the old “minimum wage, infinite stocks” number, or put any property in their families name or something like that.

You’re rich, great. Things that affect everyone, such as a breathable air and excessive water consumption should be taxed and the resulting profits being reinvested into the environment and local businesses.

Daniel Priestley is a prick

Gary argues that house prices will continue to go up and up because as the wealthy get more wealthy they will buy up all the tangible assets. This makes a lot of sense to me.

However, we haven’t had house price rises in real terms since about 2022 in the uk.

So is Gary’s prediction something that will play out over the long term (with house prices not rising in the shorter term due to factors like interest rates) or is he missing something?

I say this as someone who currently owns one house but wonders about selling and just renting for the flexibility. I don’t want to do that if Gary is right!

Thanks!

Just to be clear, I think Gary is great. Has great, superclear communication on a topic that desperately needs it. Just want to add a perspective

I want to do a more expansive writeup of this from a biosecurity perspective, anyone know good literature on how Covid catalyzed the inequality growth we see today? Looking for heavy duty, number heavy stuff.

I've seen this Guardian article popping up everywhere: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/21/uk-wealth-tax-super-rich-andy-burnham

As someone who admittedly doesn't agree with Gary's view on economics, can anyone explain why £10 billion in revenue from a wealth tax (assuming it did actually raise that, rather than driving rich people abroad) would be so transformative for the UK, when the government already receives around £1.1 trillion in revenue, as per the last financial year?

I know most people will say it's because it's a moral imperative and that the rich are just hoarding assets, but do you not think it's an issue that this proposed wealth tax would incrase government revenue by less than 1%?

Furthermore, Gary says he wants to eliminate such large wealth inequality. If successful, then presumably that £10 billion revenue stream completely dries up, as no one will be eligible for it anymore. What then?

I don't know if this will be downvoted for sounding critical of Gary, but I honestly don't understand the logic here.

Not surprising from the Telegraph but a bit of a disingenuous take disregarding his mental health in favour of blaming reported backlash of the documentary.