Gary Stevenson aka @GarysEconomics

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
So he's potentially earning £101,220+ a year before tax from Patreon alone, without Youtube & book sales included.

As I took the lowest tier not everyone will be on that one. Others will be paying more to be a hero or a friend.
With all of this, the point still stands that a TC of low six figures isn’t enough to become “a millionaire” with assets you can draw down a decent salary from. Yes your NW may be low single digit millions but that’ll include your house & pensions, you’d still need to keep earning. This is the problem with fiscal drag - fixed tax bands, high housing costs, even high earners aren’t able to build what people assume the 1% have.

Tattle might not be the platform for this discussion tbh because I already know I’ll get flamed for the above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
I honestly, I don’t think this is flameworthy at all, it’s just reality. I do agree having a £1–2m net worth doesn’t automatically make you financially independent if the majority is tied up in a primary residence and pensions you can’t touch until later. True wealth of the 1% requires either inherited capital or sustained compounding over decades not just a good job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I find his man of the people schtick intensely aggravating - the 'I have my meetings in Canary Wharf Nandos' balls. How convenient that he only decided about the evils of capitalism once he'd made his million (although there was a moment during his Piers Morgan interview where he said something like 'how am I going to afford to send my kids to school' - surely a great advocate of social equality would be sending their kids to state school?)

He's so peevish over the criticisms too - fair enough, respond if you think you've been misrepresented, but I'm shocked that someone who has worked in financial services would be surprised that vague and outlandish claims like being an IB's most profitable trader wouldn't be challenged.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 6
I find his man of the people schtick intensely aggravating - the 'I have my meetings in Canary Wharf Nandos' balls. How convenient that he only decided about the evils of capitalism once he'd made his million (although there was a moment during his Piers Morgan interview where he said something like 'how am I going to afford to send my kids to school' - surely a great advocate of social equality would be sending their kids to state school?)

He's so peevish over the criticisms too - fair enough, respond if you think you've been misrepresented, but I'm shocked that someone who has worked in financial services would be surprised that vague and outlandish claims like being an IB's most profitable trader wouldn't be challenged.
Hmm in the book it seemed because of working in the city and seeing how the banks bet against society’s interest that radicalised him. Would anyone have listened to a working class grad who was theory only and hadn’t done their time in the industry itself?
That school comment would have irked me tho, his non existent children will go to school whatever happ
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I watched some videos from him a few years ago (?). I didn't find that he came across in a particularly genuine way. These people who bend over backwards to be 'just like you, povvo' are usually hiding something.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 4
What could he do to be better?

He hasn't had a privileged life with a family estate going back to the 16th century. There was no trust fund. He lived in a council house for much of his early life . His mother was a cleaner. His father a builder. He didn’t attend Eton or Westminster, or any other elite private school that quietly prepares students for fast tracked success. He hasn't had internships at Goldman Sachs or USB (Switzerland), because his father knew someone. That world was miles away from where he started.

He worked hard to earn his place at LSE and Oxford. Earning $35 million dollars in a year trading is still a lot of money even if it might not make him number one in the world.

He's making a lot of money now and most people in his position would do the exact same thing to maximise their earning potential. After years of working hard, breaking into elite spaces without the safety net of wealth or connections, and building a following from scratch .

Perhaps it’s a bit of a catch-22, if someone stays grounded and talks about their roots, they’re “trying too hard to be relatable”; if they don’t, they’re accused of forgetting where they came from. That doesn’t mean he’s beyond criticism, of course.

Maybe he does play up the accent a little, but the core message remains: there is deep, entrenched inequality in the UK, and it affects opportunities, outcomes, and entire lives.

Sending kids to state school can certainly be an act of supporting social equality, but the reality is, even with the best intentions, personal decisions often reflect a complex set of factors. A advocate of social equality could push for systemic change in education while also making a decision based on the specific needs of their family. There might be SEN to take into consideration.

Also perhaps the little beany hat and gloves look is to make people think he hasn't got the heating on. Class signalling works both ways.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 5
Also the idea that banks bet against society’s interests is particularly evident when we look back at the 2008 credit crunch. Financial institutions did take massive risks, creating complex financial products that were built on bad loans and unsustainable debt. The banks did gambling with people’s futures, by pushing subprime mortgages on individuals who could barely afford them, all while making huge profits. Ordinary people lost their homes, jobs, and savings. Taxpayers had to bail out these institutions.

The UK government provided £137 billion to RBS and Lloyds to prevent them from collapsing.

The crisis led to a severe recession, and the start of austerity measures which deepened income inequality and disproportionately affected lower-income households.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Diary of a CEO has a huge platform. 9.87 million subscribers.

I haven't listened to the entire thing yet.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I struggle to see how he can pitch himself as this virtuous anti-capitalist while still openly admitting to making his money 'betting' (I guess calling it 'trading' is too corporate) on the downfall of the economy; on other people's misery. He constantly brags about being rich, he can dress it all up in the 'oh but I saw the evils of the city' thing, but unfortunately it does come across as very riches for me but not for thee. He also says 'listen' too much, which I appreciate is a very petty complaint. I will admit that appearing with Steven Bartlett guarantees that you won't be the most annoying person in the room, at least.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 9
I promise I’m not secretly him or that I know him in real life. :LOL:

He has not claimed moral purity just openly acknowledged that he has made money from the system he criticizes. That doesn’t automatically invalidate his critique; rather it adds weight to it because he understands the underlying mechanisms of the financial system and why it’s not working.

Others like Bernie sanders who challenge capitalism have benefited from it in some way. The key difference is whether they acknowledge that contradiction or try to hide it. Gary has been upfront about it.

It’s perfectly fair to question how much of his stance is self-serving, but the idea that someone can’t critique the system just because they’ve been successful within it would mean only those who’ve never had wealth or access can speak out which isn’t realistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Also a free listen on Spotify if you have premium. (Still not given it a go yet, my current highbrow audiobook is the affair by Claire Allen. )

IMG_1018.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
It’s perfectly fair to question how much of his stance is self-serving, but the idea that someone can’t critique the system just because they’ve been successful within it would mean only those who’ve never had wealth or access can speak out which isn’t realistic.
This isn’t the criticism I’m levying, personally. I actually don’t think he’s been particularly successful, and that’s my problem with him - he’s presenting himself falsely therefore nothing else he does can be trusted, because why not just be honest? Why not say - isn’t it shocking I can get onto a golden career path only to find out how impossible it is to build wealth without a generational leg up? There’s entire communities on Reddit dedicated to just this school of thought so he wouldn’t be alone in saying this, it just wouldn’t be particularly monetisable.

Instead he’s operating from a place of ego and falsely reporting that after 2 years at a junior role in a bank as “the best trader ever” then a badly timed geographical abroad has left him as a multi millionaire. That in itself is a stretch, but combine that with the new public profile I’m super cynical. If he had anything left in his finance career he’d be there lbr, but he doesn’t so here he is grifting for cash on Patreon.

The path of cosplaying working class grifter with a Patreon page is very well trodden one. I can’t take anyone claiming to be the first and only working class person in their industry seriously as it’s no longer 1970, and erases the massive contributions/progress made by WC people before us? The notions he puts out that this cheeky chappy from Ilford was the one educating them on how the masses live in the late 2000s actually makes my skin crawl with cringe it’s so unrealistic and self applauding. 🤢

And finally, and most pettily, I don’t know anyone that sounds like him? I’m from SE London, thinking of friends from across south & east out to the Home Counties aged 20-40s and no one has an accent like that. He sounds like he’s cosplaying as an older man it’s not a naturally occurring accent from our lifetime/area? I wonder what his real voice sounds like. Again, code switching is a thing and he wouldn’t be alone in admitting he does it (I do!) but he won’t because his code switching is clearly the other way around. 🤷‍♀️

I’m sure he’s a fab fiction writer as the reviews for the book are good. I just can’t see how anyone can take him seriously post FT takedown. In fact if I had been eviscerated to that degree by the FT I’d simply cease grifting?
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 6
The article is slightly cringe but to be fair, the FT would HATE him. he is exposing a lot of hard truths that people just do not want to believe. It’s way easier to blame immigrants and benefit claimants than to accept that the system is rigged to not only keep you in your place but to reduce everyone’s chance of gaining financial security and the best way out for it is to vote for people who will tax the rich. And btw, no one who is really rich got their by pulling themselves up by the bootstraps.

plenty of people doing so much worse. Do t really care if he’s pumped up his narrative. He’s doing good and is a net positive in my book.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 10
With all the money he's made , he would be daft himself if he didn't put sone of that off shore though.
 
For me I don’t think Gary’s credibility necessarily hinged on whether he was “the best trader ever” or the length of his finance career in the UK.

Jordan Belfort exaggerated parts of his story, but he still exposed how shady stock market manipulation works. Similarly, Tai Lopez (YouTuber) built his brand on the image of being ultra-successful, but his core message about financial literacy and leveraging social media still resonated with people.

The Financial Times article obviously did make him look bad, but was focused on whether Gary was truly a top trader, but it didn’t refute his wider points about inequality or how the system benefits the already wealthy.

As for the “cosplaying working-class grifter” critique, I don’t think he’s claimed to be the only working-class person in finance, it was was still rare, and the barriers to entry are real. He’s managed to tap into frustrations that many people have, and while some might find his delivery grating, that doesn’t mean the broader conversation he’s pushing is without merit.

The code switching could just be an unconscious or deliberate adaptation.Compared to the level of deception from Elizabeth Holmes, who also lied to investors and ran faulty medical tests a bit of code switching and self mythologizing isn’t exactly scandalous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5