1mo ago

‘I was a multimillionaire, I had a beautiful girlfriend, I was unhappy’: the ups and downs of a supertrader

www.theguardian.com ‘I was a multimillionaire, I had a beautiful girlfriend, I was unhappy’: the ups and downs of a supertrader

Gary Stevenson grew up poor, got rich in the City – then found himself wrestling with depression. Now he says he’s the only person on the left who really understands the British economy – and the people who wield the power

UK Politics @sh.itjust.works

floofloof @lemmy.ca

4w ago

‘I was a multimillionaire, I had a beautiful girlfriend, I was unhappy’: the ups and downs of a supertrader

www.theguardian.com /books/2025/jan/24/i-was-a-multimillionaire-i-had-a-beautiful-girlfriend-i-was-unhappy-the-ups-and-downs-of-a-supertrader

-14 3

You're viewing a single thread.

21 comments

Now he says he’s the only person on the left who really understands the British economy – and the people who wield the power
Humble, huh?
Stevenson still makes a lot of money trading, which he does “to demonstrate to myself that I’m not insane. A lot of people can say pessimistic things, but not a lot of them can make hundreds of thousands of pounds every year on financial markets. I don’t just say these things; I bet on them. And I make money every year. You can’t do that if you’re not right. If you made every economist who chats shit on the media bet their own personal money on what they’re saying, there’d be a lot less bullshit on the news.”
If he makes money off properties, gold and stocks without realising that that affects the housing crisis, the environment with gold mining, or there's no ethical approach to what kind of companies he gets stocks from... He is still part of the problem. I don't care how much he says he's on the left.
- No you don’t get it he’s a leftist just like my buddy who owns a bunch of apartments in the slums he bought with the money he made off his “Asian massage” parlors. He’s totally not exploiting people for wealth /s
- IMO with stocks, one is only responsible when buying from an IPO or other emissions directly from the company. otherwise the buyers money goes to another investor, not the company. at least unless one buys enough that votes actually make a difference.
  
  You may not pay the company when you buy shares from another trader, but you buying the shares drives the price of the shares and with that it makes the company more valuable.
  
  no, the share price doesn't reflect the worth of a company, but the worth of the shares. if all shares just suddenly vanished, the company would still be there and still be worth the same. the share price may just increase the money they can make by emitting more shares.
  
  The share price does reflect the worth of the company in that a low share price will prevent companies from taking on loans to expand or keep operating. That was the whole idea behind the GameStop shorting saga. Also, the share price also benefits those that hold a majority of the shares. Musk is the richest man on earth because he holds the most Tesla shares. He can use the fact he owns these shares in order to take out loans with great conditions and to buy influence.
  
  That doesn't make any sense. That way you could only buy stocks and never sell them. Then what's the point of investing? Also you couldn't just leave the company behind if you stopped believing in it and its leadership.
  
  Then what's the point of investing?
  It's basically gambling, getting tiny dividends and getting votes in the shareholders' meetings.
  That way you could only buy stocks and never sell them.
  No, you can sell them to other gamblers, like trading cards.
  
  No, it's not gambling. It's people coming together in order to build something. And a place where people can sell their stocks is a stock market.
  There are many problems in this world. But there existence of stocks and the fact that they can be traded is not one of them.
  
  i'm not saying it's a problem btw.. i gamble with stocks myself. it's just silly fun if you have some spare change
  
  Alright. Your messages sounded a bit different to me at first. You can certainly gamble with stocks. But you can also invest more or less safely.
  
  stocks are only sold after the company is up and running. it has nothing to do with building anything. the money raised by the IPO is usually blasted away in top manager fees in the following coupla years.
  
  Early investors geht stocks. And they can even sell them before the company goes public (if it ever does). The IPO or direct listing or whatever process is chosen, brings the stocks to an open exchange. And a company usually issues new stocks during an IPO and can issue new shares at any time.
  The fact that IPOs are overpriced and kinda shady is true, but that's one of those problems I meant, which are not explicitly due to the existence of stocks.
- If he stopped doing all that we'd still have an economy where the rich exploit the poor. The only solution is system change to make a fairer economy - which he advocates for through measures like taxing the rich. The question is has his actions undermined your trust in him to the point that he should be ignored, or do you think he really is advocating measures that would work?
  
  I think what he proposes would make certain things better, but it would still be just a patch to a broken system.
  Don't think he should be ignored, but I also don't think he is this saviour he thinks he is.
  
  I agree tbh
- Why?
  Sometimes it feels "the left" has no idea of what society should be like solely what it shouldn't be like and that's no solution to anything.
  This guy is a douchebag but using the system around you that exploits people isn't your fault and we shouldn't treat it that way, this guy can't change that. Why are you blaming him?
  The left fails because they're too worried about doing no wrong than doing one thing right.
  
  The left fails for many things but mainly because the media works with the elites and blame, create fake news, and dictate what the public think, want and feel.
  Using the system around him and ultimately exploiting people, even if he advocates for good will, it is a choice, and something he can change. That's what I'm blaming him for.
  To me, what he wants is maintaining capitalism but just a little less biased in how wealth is shared. To me that is not real left. It does not address the many problems of capitalism.

21 comments