How I shared the truth with wealth inequality skeptics: The Trading Game

This method has moved my right-wing friends and family, both young and old, into solidarity on the issue of wealth inequality.

Buy this book, The Trading Game, and share it with those close to you. Maybe read it yourself first to figure out who you know might be receptible to it. Ideally, this book demonstrates how wealth inequality is an issue, especially for those otherwise skeptical or even opposed to the notion.

The book is the true story of growing up economically disadvantaged, winning a card game to land a job as a trader with Citibank, then quickly becoming their most profitable trader by understanding and betting on the continuing collapse of our macroeconomy, caused by wealth inequality. Also, the book is currently #1 bestseller in the Sunday Times, two weeks in a row.

The author has since became an activist trying to organize people together around understanding our shared economic imperative to reduce wealth inequality. His YouTube channel, Gary’s Economics, features educational videos on various aspects of the issue.

Below are, IMO, the two best interviews with the author, …

… his first interview with Novara Media (focused on the issue): …

… and his second interview with them (focused on his story):

Hopefully by buying and sharing his book we can keep it a best seller and grow the impact of his story and message. If your friends and family would be more interested in video content, rather than a book, then the second interview (above) may be a good start. And if the book does well enough, hopefully a cinematic adaptation of his story will emerge later.


I like the framing I will check those out when I get a chance. It does seem like he understands macro and micro economics well.


I would say he seems to appreciate well the depth of the crisis for the intersections of our financial and political system. Of course, our economy is more than those intersections. That said, and before I critique his work in detail I should note, I have seen all of his materials (so far as I know).

He organizes around and advocates for taxing the wealthy, and I would presume (based on his works) that he also would generally support correcting the private financial dominance over our political economy, which otherwise inhibits policy from even imagining public financial sovereignty. Yet, he does not address much at all the economic imperatives upon public investments following from such sovereignty. One notable exception may be housing, which even then he still says not much about resolving. He just points to housing ownership being increasingly concentrated as a problem. One might then ask him, how might he suggest we resolve issues of our housing sector in economic policy?; he would know better than to presume to think he knows, other than how to verify that a policy does not further enrich the already wealthy.

And, to be clear, that is not the only issue in housing policy, and not even the only economic issue. So, when you say he seems to understand the economics well, I would first agree, and then point to where he could yet still grow. I’m not saying he should be able to solve housing policy; I’m outlining that specific case to show in general how his economic thought has not yet reached his final form.

More basically, while he works to get us to the point of beginning to politically address our material issues, he hasn’t really said much which might imply he has informed thoughts on what to then do; but to be clear, I don’t much expect him to either (so far), and I suspect he similarly doesn’t expect that of his work (so far). He is often very clear about his being a not (otherwise) political person, and about how his primary political position of being for taxing the wealthy is derived from his personal experience with how the financialization of capitalism is otherwise economically terminal.

And so, while he does quite well actually at educating and focusing his audience on organizing around wealth redistribution through taxes, his works so far feel as if he implies that freeing people and governments from the delusions of financial primacy is a/the solution (which it is, given his narrowly defined goal).

However, in fact, his goal is still only the beginning of addressing in detail our broader issues-sets which place imperatives upon our economy. To summarize, assuming his goal is accomplished, then we would begin heavily taxing the wealthy (read: fairly taxing the wealthy), (ostensibly*) for public investment policies. And my point for this comment is mostly that: he has said almost nothing about such economic policies (other than how they are currently financially and systemically preempted).

1 Like

*(Re: ostensibly, in previous comment); our economic game does not in fact use taxes to fund government expenses (at the macro level). Still, taxing the wealthy is an issue of private financial balance within an economy. Outsized concentrations of currency, (such as are siphoned into the coffers of the finance, insurance, and real estate sectors), distorts an economy and undermines any potential for either economic efficiency let alone economic justice.

1 Like

Oh, also, Gary recently uploaded another video on what to do with the tax revenue from taxing the wealthy:

After watching this, I’m reminded of how much I’d like him to work with other prominent and informed/aware economists, especially such as Clara Mattei; it would be great to hear them discuss austerity. Now that he is done with his book, he hopefully would be more open for collaborations. Oh, and a discussion with Steve Keen on energy blindness. And a discussion with Nate Hagens on intersectionality, and debt/finance. And Michael Hudson on financialization. And Grace Blakeley on public investment.

I wonder if TYT would host something like that