[Politics] Gary's Economics

[Machiavelli]

Surely if you are in the business of selling war machinery, rebuilding countries in the void of war or redistributing resources then war is very profitable. There are many companies in the US that have made vast sums of money from America's foreign policy over the last 30 odd years.

I guess this isn't classed neoliberalism though.

I can't respond in full to @Bakero and this but can say that US military spending has reduced from c8% of GDP during the Cold War to 3.3% now -- which covers most of the period of neoliberal financialised globalisation. You're both right to point to this but all I'll add is that it's a relatively minor part of global throughput/output and the remainder of the economy thrives better in the absence rather than presence of war (when governments nationalise parts of the economy and/or heavily regulate it).
This is not to say that there haven't been substantial periods of capitalism's (which is far broader than neoliberalism) history where war was perpetrated.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

His own parents have disputed his account of his childhood.

Several of his former colleagues (from his very truncated banking career) have disputed his claims of being the best trader in the business.

To be very clear, I am not against his (borrowed) economic arguments, but I don't think he does the message any favours by continually repeating his exaggerations.

He never specifically calls out his childhood as anything other than working class.
He makes it clear that plenty of his peers were much worse off than his family.

He doesn't claim to be the best trader in the business.
He claims to be the most profitable trader in 2011 (or 2010, I don't remember which)
This success was due to him guessing right in those years, when most of his peers were expecting the economy to improve.

 

[Bakero]

Surely if you are in the business of selling war machinery, rebuilding countries in the void of war or redistributing resources then war is very profitable. There are many companies in the US that have made vast sums of money from America's foreign policy over the last 30 odd years.

I guess this isn't classed neoliberalism

I can't respond in full to @Bakero and this but can say that US military spending has reduced from c8% of GDP during the Cold War to 3.3% now -- which covers most of the period of neoliberal financialised globalisation. You're both right to point to this but all I'll add is that it's a relatively minor part of global throughput/output and the remainder of the economy thrives better in the absence rather than presence of war (when governments nationalise parts of the economy and/or heavily regulate it).
This is not to say that there haven't been substantial periods of capitalism's (which is far broader than neoliberalism) history where war was perpetrated.

Wouldn't you agree that the drop in defence spending was due to the shift to a unipolar world?

I totally agree that the economy functions better in peace time than when billions are being blown on foreign wars. Vietnam and Afghanistan being prime examples.

However, neoliberalism is intrinsically linked to globalisation. The whole system was based on all countries falling into line and was achieved through a variety of means: economic power, cultural hegemony, institutional influence, and military might in certain cases.

The concept of Regime Change goes hand in hand with neoliberalism.

 

[38Red]

Precisely. How can the current system be the right one when it rewards and gives immense power to the very worst kinds of people?

It was ever thus. Sh1t floats to the top

 

[beorhthelm]

Wouldn't you agree that the drop in defence spending was due to the shift to a unipolar world?

I totally agree that the economy functions better in peace time than when billions are being blown on foreign wars. Vietnam and Afghanistan being prime examples.

However, neoliberalism is intrinsically linked to globalisation. The whole system was based on all countries falling into line and was achieved through a variety of means: economic power, cultural hegemony, institutional influence, and military might in certain cases.

The concept of Regime Change goes hand in hand with neoliberalism.

you're confusing political and economic ideals. regime change is a decision to achieve a political aim, not a economic outcome. you could achieve globalisation through other, non-military means, usually perfered. economic power, cultural hegmony, institutional influence are not objectives of neoliberalism, simply have free trade and market will decide.

 

[Bakero]

you're confusing political and economic ideals. regime change is a decision to achieve a political aim, not a economic outcome. you could achieve globalisation through other, non-military means, usually perfered. economic power, cultural hegmony, institutional influence are not objectives of neoliberalism, simply have free trade and market will decide.

I totally disagree. The political and economic aims are intertwined.

I didn't say that cultural hegemony and institutional influence were the objectives but the tools. The US's dominance, alongside institutions like the World Bank and IMF, spread, through SAPs etc, neoliberal ideals. When countries resisted, military action was often taken.

 

[Bakero]

Good article about Gary here https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2025/04/whos-afraid-of-gary-stevenson

 

[nicko31]

Good article about Gary here https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2025/04/whos-afraid-of-gary-stevenson

Always so many threats about the rich leaving, very few will. They don't spend that much of their money, they can't. What's more when they do a lot leaves the country.

Public finances are screwed, we need to get a grip

 

[highflyer]

Always so many threats about the rich leaving, very few will. They don't spend that much of their money, they can't. What's more when they do a lot leaves the country.

Public finances are screwed, we need to get a grip

More importantly (though I agree that the threats are far lower than the daily mail.and torygraph endlessly insist) the alternative, rarely spoken aloud, is that we have accepted that the rich now decide policy. In their own interests. And that there is nothing we can do about it. I don't think many people would say that is a good idea. Yet it is exactly what is being accepted by those saying 'you can't tax the rich because it's too difficult/they will all leave'. I say f*ck that.

 

[dsr-burnley]

What I find interesting about this stuff isn't explicitly stated as such but there seems to be a thread around the idea that to progress one must be entrepreneurial. Such people are lauded and highlighted as successes of our time. I can't help but wonder why these people with this personality type are the ones we choose, as a society to reward. This is over-simplified, but it does beg the question of how we decide which roles in our society we value and choose to reward with riches? The next question of course is how we look at changing those decisions.

The simplest way to stop entrepreneurs getting so very, very rich would be to tax employment. If there was some way to ensure that no-one was allowed to gain from the employment of perhaps 10 other people, then no-one could get rich. By and large, people get rich via employment of many, many people.

 

[highflyer]

The simplest way to stop entrepreneurs getting so very, very rich would be to tax employment. If there was some way to ensure that no-one was allowed to gain from the employment of perhaps 10 other people, then no-one could get rich. By and large, people get rich via employment of many, many people.

Paging doctor No.

The rich get richer through capital accumulation.

 

[Doc Lynam]

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

This comment reminded me of this.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Gary's Economics​

Sorry, not been keeping up. Is this the long-awaited sequel to Gary's Anatomy?

 

[highflyer]

Gary's Economics​

Sorry, not been keeping up. Is this the long-awaited sequel to Gary's Anatomy?

As per post #92. 'Gary's analogy'.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

As per post #92. 'Gary's analogy'.

Bit random

 

[schmunk]

This comment reminded me of this.
View attachment 199719

Why?

Which one do you take to be Gary Stevenson? Which one me saying he's too boastful? What does the other person represent?

 

[Doc Lynam]

Why?

Which one do you take to be Gary Stevenson? Which one me saying he's too boastful? What does the other person represent?

It’s more that fact that it’s a target of someone who’s from a low socioeconomic background, arguing for more financial equality. And then you continue a rumour that’s put out to undercut him. That I don’t get.

 

[nicko31]

This comment reminded me of this.
View attachment 199719

Ruppie talking to Brexit voters

 

[dsr-burnley]

Paging doctor No.

The rich get richer through capital accumulation.

Specifically, you're saying that entrepreneurs get rich by capital accumulation? Most dictionary definitions say that entrepreneurs are businessmen who see an opportunity and bear the risks of loss in order to make a profit.

 

[schmunk]

The simplest way to stop entrepreneurs getting so very, very rich would be to tax employment. If there was some way to ensure that no-one was allowed to gain from the employment of perhaps 10 other people, then no-one could get rich. By and large, people get rich via employment of many, many people.

I propose a 15% Employers Tax on everything paid to an employee above a base threshold of £5,000.

That's got to be a votewinner, right?