This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. A total of 1,105 donors have already contributed to our mission of fighting against corruption and predatory practices, especially within the financial sector. We invite you to support our cause through our donation page, which provides information on donating via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. Learn more about the reasons behind this fundraiser, our accomplishments over the past year, and our current objective, the bonuses for our talented writers.
The mantra of TINA continues to reign.
“There is no alternative,” once echoed by the neo-liberal icon, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, alongside US President Ronald Reagan, has fueled a wealth pump that has significantly exacerbated income and wealth disparity for over 45 years.
Regrettably, mainstream political parties in the West still assert that there is no alternative to the increasing chasm of inequality.
While the center-left in the West expresses readiness to adopt various strategies in response to the ongoing polycrisis, they conspicuously avoid confronting the issue of financial inequality.
Although there have been some exceptions in the last decade, figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn faced overwhelming opposition by 2020.
With both the Democratic Party establishment and Keir Starmer’s Labour Party experiencing dwindling popularity, can we expect a resurgence in redistributionist policies?
Highlighting the Obvious
A recent episode of Gary Stevenson’s Gary’s Economics podcast on YouTube echoed the cycle of despair we’ve been entrenched in this decade and century.
Stevenson, a former Citibank trader turned anti-inequality advocate, was a new discovery for me, thanks to the YouTube algorithm. He’s an author and has made appearances in The Guardian and other mainstream outlets.
What struck me from his insights was:
I predicted that Labour would become unpopular rapidly due to economic mismanagement amid an ongoing economic crisis. Inequality has surged, wealth is increasingly concentrated among the few, and without taxing the wealthy, living standards will decline. This is why it was easy to foresee Labour’s decline in popularity.
…
Once you take a broader perspective, one can see that Labour has also faced unfortunate circumstances.
…
Earlier this year, I noted that both Labour and Donald Trump would likely fail for the same reasons.
This includes the centre-left Labour, centre-right Conservatives, and even Trump.It’s not just these parties. The Democrats, under Biden, and Macron in France have made similar missteps. The center-left and right have miscalculated in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan.
…
If we zoom out further, the issue goes beyond the shortcomings of politicians, economists, or journalists.We have an economy suffering from a malignancy, yet a segment of intellectuals refuses to acknowledge it. That analogy fits the current economic crisis well.
The core issue is that the wealthy are consistently increasing their share of resources, squeezing out others, which leads to severe economic consequences. Notably, this leads to diminished wealth for many and stands as a key driver of our economic troubles.
However, modern economists and political commentators often overlook the concepts of distribution and inequality in their narrative.
Such a consistent misdiagnosis is expected, akin to treating a patient with cancer but failing to acknowledge the existence of the disease.
Ultimately, the real problem isn’t solely Labour, the Conservatives, or Trump. It reflects a broader failure among Western intellectuals to identify the underlying issues affecting our society.
While Stevenson’s observations may seem simple, they hold undeniable significance.
His aspirations in politics are noteworthy, as highlighted in The Guardian:
…he is fully focused on the political arena. “Andrew Tate recognizes the same issues I do. Politics is waning,” he claims. “The far-right understands its agenda: anti-immigration is central, portraying Muslims negatively, and tariffs are in play. There’s a clash of ideologies in society, specifically on the left. I’m highlighting inequality, advocating for taxing the wealthy, and I plan to leverage YouTube for this message. Although ambitious, what other path do I have?”
Wait, does he genuinely aspire to be prime minister? “It’s a straightforward premise: neglecting inequality will only worsen our situation, leading to declining living standards. This is a collective concern. I aim to ignite enthusiasm among the people.”
Reiterating clear concepts continually can be a potent means of persuasion. Stevenson appears to be on the right track with his clear, enduring message, which is essential to challenge the pervasive TINA mindset among the Western populace.
Democrats Exploring Options Besides Economic Populism
After Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the June New York City mayoral primary, there was a glimmer of hope for those wishing to dismantle the TINA neoliberal stronghold in American politics.
Instead, we have witnessed a series of Democratic politicians and commentators scrambling to try everything except economic populism, mistakenly convinced that TINA is their only recourse.
I’ve covered Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s dismal “Abundance” pitch, which resulted in Klein resorting to praising Charlie Kirk’s politics, platforming Ben Shapiro, and suggesting Democrats back anti-abortion candidates in regions where abortion rights prevail.
I’ve also discussed the “Dark Woke” faction led by California Governor Gavin Newsom and Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett who opted for provocative language and trolling over engaging with economic populism due to their adherence to TINA.
I didn’t comment on Vice-President Kamala Harris, who claimed that with more time, she could have defeated Trump. This, despite her failure to propose significant policy differences from President Biden, even as she overlooks the unpopularity of genocide.
One situation I haven’t covered is Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s decision to approve Blackrock’s takeover of a major utility (due to TINA), though David Sirota has considered it.
I’ve even mentioned former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his insistence that his approach is somehow different this time, naturally due to TINA.
Additionally, Emanuel’s billionaire brother Ari serves as a key adviser to David Ellison at Paramount and is a prominent insider within Trump’s circle.
Conversely, Trump recently announced Ari Emanuel’s UFC will host a birthday celebration at the White House next June.
I have yet to comment on Ari Emanuel’s recent “The Weekend” gathering in Aspen, Colorado, where Rahm was present alongside Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro—another hopeful in the Democratic primary—and Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, alongside Republican Governor Spencer Cox and prominent business figures like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.
It seems clear that economic populism was likely not on the agenda in Aspen, a well-known hub of TINA ideology.
I haven’t addressed the latest Democratic hopeful, Texas State Rep. James Talarico, who is contending for the U.S. Senate nomination.
If Talarico secures the nomination, he may contend against MAGA Attorney General Ken “Often Indicted, Never Convicted” Paxton, who stands a good chance of disposing of the insipid RINO, TINA advocate John Cornyn.
Notably, The New York Times highlighted Talarico’s effective appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience and, more importantly, his remarkable grassroots fundraising capabilities:
In the initial three weeks of Talarico’s Senate bid, he reportedly raised over $6 million from more than 125,000 individual donors. In contrast, Beto O’Rourke raised $2.2 million over 45 days in 2018, which the Texas Tribune deemed a significant accomplishment.
While Talarico has pledged to reject AIPAC funding for his Senate campaign (despite previously accepting $59,000 from Miriam Adelson in his last State Representative campaign) and criticizes unnamed billionaires, The Times emphasizes his vocal religiosity as a potential key to his appeal:
Talarico is an underdog in the Texas Senate Democratic primary, where he currently trails Colin Allred, who faced Senator Ted Cruz in 2024. However, as voters become more familiar with Talarico, that gap may close; a September Public Policy Polling survey indicated he led by a remarkable 50 points among those who held a favorable view of both him and Allred.
A 36-year-old former middle-school teacher and current Texas House member, Talarico is generating excitement that surpasses his political prospects. His social media content, where he challenges Republican narratives from a Christian perspective, often goes viral. In July, Rogan invited him to his podcast, one of the most coveted platforms in American politics, where Rogan encouraged him to contemplate a presidential run. Politico recently noted that Barack Obama has been engaging with the party’s rising talents, including Mamdani and Talarico, who impressed the former president with his leadership during Texas’ recent redistricting efforts.
Rob Flaherty, Kamala Harris’s former deputy campaign manager, remarked on X after Talarico declared his Senate run that he represents “the future of the party.” When I sought clarification, he explained, “Democrats are faltering as we’ve lost our ability to connect with those disenchanted with the system. Talarico embodies the kind of hopeful populism essential for our resurgence—while naturally capturing and maintaining attention.”
…
This enthusiasm could partially stem from desperation: Democrats find themselves in a wilderness, eager to grasp any inspiring figure that could lead them out. However, it fundamentally highlights the unexpected potency of Talarico’s straightforward message, merging anger at the oligarchs with a recognition of the spiritual malaise prevalent in the country.
Talarico’s campaign announcement included some compelling rhetoric, albeit lacking specific economic proposals:
America is suffering.
Our economy is ailing. Our politics are failing. Even our interpersonal relationships seem fractured.
This state of affairs serves the interests of the powerful.
The deepest divide in our society isn’t between left and right, but top and bottom. The wealthy want us to direct our ire at one another instead of at them.
The elites diligently sow division among us—by party, race, gender, and religion—so we disregard their defunding of schools, dismantling of healthcare, and tax cuts for themselves and their wealthy allies. This is an ancient tactic: divide and conquer.
Time will reveal whether Talarico is a significant player. I anticipate he will outperform the uninspiring Allred, whose sole talent lies in coaxing substantial donations from wealthy benefactors. Allred is certainly a TINA politician; whether Talarico is remains to be seen.
For what it’s worth, TINA adherent Josh Barro considers Talarico disqualified based on some remarks regarding transgender issues. However, Barro is frequently mistaken in his assessments, so opinions may vary.
I also haven’t addressed Congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, who have been plagued by poor media performances and social media missteps, leading at least one major electoral analyst to call for their resignations.
These individuals are astonishing in their performance, and neither has ventured to advocate for economic populism, again due to TINA:
HAKEEM JEFFRIES: “We hope and expect that Republicans will do the right thing” pic.twitter.com/QZcyF2pBuK
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) September 29, 2025
Chuck Schumer says “even though Democrats’ numbers are low,” that’s fine because they’re still higher than that of Republicans.
“In a couple of the races where we have the two candidates, we win!” pic.twitter.com/aQxNuBFDRQ
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) September 24, 2025
Here’s what Ettingermentum suggests regarding the Democrats’ TINA dilemma ahead of the 2026 midterms:
For Democrats this year, their fundamental issue is their complete inaction following Biden’s lackluster presidency. This inaction resonates starkly as the party’s congressional leaders, Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, remain in power.
…
The most troubling aspect is that it’s challenging to argue that voters are mistaken. Certainly, while Trump’s current administration, amidst rising inflation, is disconcerting, Schumer oversaw four years when the cost-of-living crisis initially emerged. During that period, Schumer and his party claimed either the inflation was under control or had already been resolved. They’ve shown no response to voter discontent and still lack one. This is not merely a communication issue; Schumer isn’t just struggling for new ideas—he has none. Voters can see this.
…
Replacing Schumer and Jeffries with new establishment figures will not remedy the credibility crisis. It has become evident that simply rebranding the same message in a new format will not suffice. For the public to cease viewing Democrats as an extension of a disliked Biden administration, the party must embark on a true, meaningful departure from the status quo.
On a brighter note, The New York Times recently commenced a mini-series on those challenging for influence within the Democratic Party, starting with historian Timothy Shenk’s analysis, which breaks free from the TINA mindset:
A cloud of denial—and lately, panic—has covered discussions around what lies ahead. While it’s simple to advocate for drastic reform, there’s no consensus on the specific form these reforms should take. Essentially, the party establishment is doing what it typically does: it hopes the opposition crumbles, allowing it to regain power with minimal changes.
This strategy would be more tenable if Democrats could confidently dismiss Trumpism as a passing phase. However, recent years have contradicted this notion, with declining populations in blue states, a troubling decrease in Democratic voter registration, and grim prospects for a Senate comeback, compounded by significant numbers of voters who feel disconnected from the party.
…
A few campaigns have defied these trends, though ironically, the strongest examples emerge from candidates running against the Democratic Party.Consider Dan Osborn, a 50-year-old industrial mechanic and Navy veteran making his second bid for the Nebraska Senate seat. In 2024, while Trump decisively defeated Kamala Harris by a 20-point margin, Mr. Osborn lost by merely seven points, marking the most favorable performance in line with partisan fundamentals among any Senate candidate.
Mr. Osborn’s advantage? Though somewhat reluctant in speech, he communicated a compelling message that resonated with Nebraska voters: a fierce critique of economic elites, a moderate stance on social issues, and a rejection of conventional political practices.
…
It’s a simple approach, really: a robust economic message delivered by political outsiders confronting the powerful. The antagonists in this narrative—crucial for any story—are the elites navigating a fractured system. Neither Mamdani nor Osborn overly emphasize cultural topics; instead, they prioritize discussions around wage increases and housing affordability. Although their core positions garner solid public approval, their platforms transcend mere opinion polls, offering a narrative that reframes the conversation, engaging voters in a conflict between the many and the few, with stakes meaningful to everyday life.This isn’t an echo of a progressive incarnation of Trumpism, but it taps into the frustrations that have propelled Trump to prominence. Paradoxically, adopting some tactics from MAGA may be the optimal route for Democrats to break its political dominance. Democrats need to pivot from a reflexive resistance to Trump toward a forward-thinking vision enriching the lives of working citizens.
To conclude, I’ll share a tweet from Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who appears to be attempting to elevate his profile and possibly diverge from TINA. In his tweet, he notes that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez remain the most favored political figures among Democratic voters who abstained from voting in 2024:
fwiw here’s a poll of the people who voted for Biden in 2020 and stayed home in 2024 (ie a big reason we lost). https://t.co/FCUcQl25EA pic.twitter.com/z7zbLRvVzD
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) October 3, 2025
As a final note, Basel Musharbash provides a brilliant critique of the legendary TINA legacy of President Bill Clinton in response to claims suggesting the Democrats require a new “Slick Willy.”
