In "Capitalism's Last Chance", Patrick Artus and Marie-Paule Virard readily admit: the conservative revolution initiated in the early 1980s by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan ended in the ashes of the Welfare State and of thought. Keynesian approach to the advent of neoliberal capitalism inspired by Milton Friedman and it is just as unmistakable as its brazen principles (trade liberalization, decline in the role of the state, relentless pursuit of de-unionization, intractable demand for high profitability capital, the sacrosanct primacy of the shareholder) quickly spread to become the doxa from which most of the planet's decision-makers, whatever their sensibilities or their persuasions, no longer dare to deviate. The famous "There is no alternative" of the Iron Lady is now so well engraved in the collective psyche that the employees themselves have resigned themselves to being forgotten by the machine to create prosperity and hardly dare to claim any more. sharing the fruits of productivity gains with shareholders.
That neo-liberal capitalism reigns supreme is therefore obvious to many. However, at a time when it triumphs almost everywhere from one end of the planet to the other, its survival would become more and more doubtful. We could even see its collapse. At least this is the diagnosis established by the two authors of “Capitalism's Last Chance” for whom neoliberal capitalism failed to keep all the promises it made.
Is it possible to get out of this impasse? Can the Modern Monetary Theory promoted by Stephanie Kelton and that central banks (FED, ECB, BoJ) seem to have implicitly adopted be considered a credible alternative? Patrick Artus answers us.
Everything seems to come together for growth (education, research and development) and it is not there, productivity gains are leveling off, I quote, "there is a huge point of incomprehension"
Maybe the limits including the physical limits, quite simply?