I'm just 6 minutes in (and I plan to continue), but I already see that some of this "history of neoliberalism" (etc.) is a contrived Just-So story that misses a lot (e.g., the massive role of the state between 1947 and the 1980s, which led to the *backlash* of Reagan and Thatcher). I am sure there's more to say about the rest, but please don't swallow this without more context and thought. (I'm a fan of the Doughnut analogy.)
Recommended by a fried. But I didn't find it very interesting. Partially, it just doesn't add anything to the economics she alleges aren't fit to describe (modern) reality. I think the charges that it can't deal with factors like (limited) natural resources or byproducts like waste, pollution, etc, aren't very strong. In fact, this doesn't sound like economics at all, it doesn't help us understand the economy. It sounds like political activism, i.e. "We should pay more attention to problems like climate change, waste, pollution." Partially, because it just sounds like naive, Utopian fantasy. And blind to the huge positives that would be associated with further growth.
I strongly recommend reading her book, taking note of specific (optimistic) suggestions for practices that are acutely different to what we are generally doing at the moment.
