I agree with his message too for the most part, and fully with you on your last statement. I just don't think watching Gary and subscribing to his patreon and all that is the right step in making a change. Especially because for some people he might be dissuading from actually delving into the topic deeper or seeking other sources of information and ways to better the situation. When he says stuff along the lines of 'All graphs are bullshit.', 'I know how the sausage is made, all economists are incompetent/liars.', 'There's gonna be total collapse unless you listen to me specifically.' might end up being harmful in the long run unfortunately. I feel like actual research groups, NGOs and activist groups probably have a lot better chance at influencing policies on this issue than an youtube personality. And if getting a ton of subscribers really was equal to political change, we's already be fucked, because a ton of people who want the opposite or way worse have heaps more followers than Gary ever will.
You're right, apologies, I should have just said a wealth tax, I was also thinking about increased income taxes for high brackets too, so got the two mixed up.
Some good government trackers to refer to from time to time:
https://www.economist.com/interactive/2025-british-politics/starmer-tracker
Some proof, or more accurately some valuable critique of Gary Stevenson's output:
Fact check video: Economist fact-checks Gary's Economics
Interview with Gary: Despolariza #89 GARY STEVENSON
Podcast on analysing Gary as a secular guru: Decoding the Gurus: Gary Stevenson: The People's Economist
I'm all for an increased wealth tax, and raising awareness is good, but saying that it would be the simple, complete solution as he implies is misleading. Gary also refuses to engage with the research, talk about specifics, show graphs and explain how wealth inequality is a complex issue in his videos. He simplifies things to the extreme and defines society in terms of he and his audience as the pure, non-elite people on one side and all economists and the corrupt elite on the other. This, along with the way he presents himself is why I believe that unfortunately his style is somewhat similar to that of populists on the right, even if their aims are very very different. I'll provide some sources for high quality critique on Gary's work as a reply to the other comment.
Gary Stevenson is a populist grifter, who mainly just wants attention so that he can boast about how he went to the best unis, how he's a genius at investing and complain about how tired he is. It's a shame, because some of the problems he brings up are very real, but he's not the way to solve them. Maybe he should just be sipping on pina coladas and rest a bit as he always keeps saying he could be doing instead.
As most things about the human body, it actually is more complicated. Caloric restriction also causes biological responses in our bodies, influencing hormones such as ghrelin and leptin which physiologically alter hunger and satiety. Some people can even be resistant to leptin for example, meaning that they struggle with a lack of satiety. Our bodies have also been shown to reduce their energy requirements by about 200 calories per day when intake is restricted.
So even if we disregard the problems the claim it's just a matter of willpower, there are other, biological things to consider.
All this to say, it is undoubtedly good to have more fiber, around 1.2-1.6g protein per kg of bodyweight, 120minutes of excercise a week and strength training, or just whatever we can implement into our routines.
Oh, and one more thing, fatness isn't a ubiquitous measure of healthiness or virtue, and thinness isn't either. We have to challenge our assumptions and biases, a lot of which come from our cultures and media.