Written by Shreya Gupta
The Hayek Society hosted a debate they clearly hoped would bolster their faith in free markets, capitalism, and all things vaguely right-of-centre. What I witnessed instead was… not that. In fact, the evening drifted into something the organisers definitely hadn’t planned: a reminder that banking on your preferred speaker and a few well-worn data points isn’t always a winning strategy. And at the centre of it all was the debate’s unexpected star: Mr Gary Stevenson.
Mr Stevenson (LSE alumnus and former interest-rate trader turned inequality slayer) went head-to-head with Mr Kristian Niemietz, Editorial Director at the IEA. The premise was simple: Mr Stevenson argued that the rich will keep getting richer because economists misunderstand the mechanisms driving inequality. Mr Niemietz argued the opposite: inequality isn’t rising, the rich aren’t the problem, and we should all stop worrying about wealth taxes. The Hayek Society, unsurprisingly, were rooting for the latter.
But from the opening minutes, it became clear who was actually winning. Mr Niemietz leaned so heavily on “the data” (a phrase I heard at least 30 times) that at one point I feared he might start citing the Bank of England’s weather report if it helped. His insistence that in the UK wealth inequality isn’t alarming could have been compelling – if it hadn’t immediately collided with audience questions about, well, the housing crisis. Meanwhile, Mr Stevenson delivered the line of the night: economists suffer from an “inability to think without data.” The audience loved it. Mr Niemietz, once again, responded with…data.
And here’s the thing: this is what actually “went wrong.” The Hayek Society wanted a clean ideological victory. Instead, their preferred champion spent most of the evening looking mildly startled while Mr Stevenson – who they clearly hadn’t expected to be this sharp – kept landing arguments that resonated with a room full of students financially traumatised by London rent. Even the invited press didn’t ask questions. And the chair, despite her Spectator-tinted sympathies, admitted: “I’m confused.”
This little campus debate ended up mirroring a much bigger national dilemma: the growing disconnects between economic arguments based purely on abstract metrics and the realities people are actually living. Mr Stevenson built his case on both logic and lived experience. Awkwardly for the Hayek Society, that combination proved far more convincing than spreadsheets alone. By the time we reached closing remarks, Mr Stevenson warned that ignoring inequality, especially in housing, would only create future instability. Mr Niemietz predicted rising living standards in… the US and Switzerland. For a debate about the UK economy, that was certainly a choice.
And, of course, we can’t forget that Mr Stevenson made millions at the age of 23 by correctly predicting inequality would surge after the Financial Crisis. So, when he predicts rising inequality again, you do start to wonder whether the Hayek Society should maybe hedge their intellectual bets.
Either way, I imagine they’ll be watching closely to see whose prediction comes true. Though if this debate is anything to go by, Mr Stevenson has probably already invested in popcorn.
Response from Hayek Society:
The LSE Hayek Society is proud to have hosted our recent debate featuring Gary Stevenson and Dr. Kristian Niemietz. As a society, we are firmly committed to upholding freedom of speech and creating a platform where diverse perspectives can be heard, challenged, and explored.
Our mission is to foster open intellectual exchange and ensure that students have the opportunity to engage directly with contrasting viewpoints on today’s most pressing social and economic issues. We were pleased to provide an event that allowed attendees to think critically and make up their own minds based on rigorous, respectful debate.
We would like to thank our speakers and all who attended for contributing to a thoughtful and constructive discussion, and we look forward to continuing to promote open dialogue at the LSE.
Response from Mr Kristian Niemietz:
“Gary Stevenson and I were never going to agree on much, but I nonetheless rate his willingness to debate, and to engage with opponents in good faith – a rare quality these days.
He deserves credit for that, because he does not have to do that. Gary is probably the most popular economics commentator in the country right now, with a best-selling book, and a huge social media following. In his position, many others would simply refuse to even share a stage with an opponent: they would insist on an event format where they can tell a sympathetic audience what they want to hear, without being seriously challenged.
I enjoyed the event because, regardless of whether students ended up on Gary’s side, my side, somewhere in between, or whether they thought we were both wrong – they would have gained a good overview of two very different perspectives, but also two very different methodological approaches.”
