Gary Stevens political statement challenged on topic of inequality Also, “the rich” recognising on how prevalent it is are deciding to group together on micronations thereby side stepping any attempt at parting with their cash should there be an organised movement against them. By definition these will be places where Inequality will be less
The claim
Gary Stevenson’s line is essentially:
Inequality is rising globally, and you can’t really escape it by moving country or opting out.
There’s truth in this — but it’s also a bit overstated and simplified.
What he gets right
1. Inequality has risen in many rich countries
- Since the 1980s, income and especially wealth inequality have increased in:
- UK
- US
- parts of Europe
- Wealth concentration (assets, housing, equities) has grown faster than wages
So his core direction of travel is broadly correct for advanced economies.
2. Wealth is increasingly global and mobile
- Capital can move across borders far more easily than labour
- High-net-worth individuals can:
- shift assets
- change tax residency
- Large firms operate across jurisdictions
This does create a sense that inequality is part of a global system, not just national policy.
3. Structural drivers are widespread
Many of the forces he talks about are real and cross-border:
- Asset price inflation (housing, stocks)
- Lower labour bargaining power
- Returns to capital outpacing wage growth (in many periods)
- Technology concentrating rewards
So he’s right that similar pressures show up in multiple countries.
Where the argument is weaker
1. “Inequality is rising everywhere” is not quite true
It depends how you measure it:
-
Between countries globally
- Inequality has actually fallen over recent decades
- Driven by growth in countries like China and India
-
Within countries
- Mixed picture:
- Rising in UK and US
- Flatter or lower in some European countries with strong redistribution
- Mixed picture:
So it’s not a uniform global trend.
2. Policy still matters a lot
Different countries have very different outcomes despite global forces:
-
Nordic countries:
- Higher taxes
- Strong welfare systems
- Lower inequality after redistribution
-
Anglo countries:
- Lower redistribution
- Higher inequality
So you can’t fully escape the system, but where you live still significantly changes your experience.
3. “You can’t run away” is rhetorically strong, but incomplete
For most people:
- True — moving country doesn’t magically solve inequality
But for:
- High earners
- Investors
- Remote workers
There is some ability to arbitrage systems:
- tax regimes
- cost of living
- asset markets
So the claim is:
- socially true
- but individually less true for the mobile and wealthy
4. It downplays cyclical and political variation
Inequality is not a one-way street:
- It has:
- risen
- stabilised
- sometimes fallen
depending on: - policy changes
- economic cycles
- shocks (e.g. wars, inflation, taxation shifts)
Framing it as inevitable can make it seem more deterministic than it is.
What’s really going on
He’s compressing a complex reality into a powerful narrative:
-
Reality:
- Global forces matter
- National policy still matters
- Outcomes vary
-
His framing:
- “This is happening everywhere and you can’t escape it”
That framing is effective for:
- urgency
- mobilisation
But it trades off nuance for impact
Bottom line
- ✅ Correct: inequality pressures are widespread and partly global
- ✅ Correct: many people can’t easily “opt out”
- ❌ Overstated: it’s not rising everywhere in the same way
- ❌ Incomplete: policy differences still meaningfully change outcomes
So his claim works well as a mobilising message, but not as a fully accurate description of how flexible and varied the system actually is.