I think the article is much more concerned with the fact that, for about 13 years now ("since" the great financial crisis, but starting before it) we have been

I think the article is much more concerned with the fact that, for about 13 years now ("since" the great financial crisis, but starting before it) we have been running economic policy that would have been seen as lunacy in 2000 by ... well, by everyone. In fact, it pretty much still is. Free money is to capitalism what "let's just use a random function as a cost function" is to a neural network. It takes away the intelligence, the adaptation. It will explode, slowly. It does not make much sense, however, that the economy takes/took this long to crash as a result. We should (and do, according to quite a few economic journals, and that's in a way also what this article is complaining about) have an economy that doesn't make sense given the world we live in. That the connection between reality and our economic system acting on reality is getting looser and looser. There must come a point where it suddenly, violently stops working and vast shortages suddenly manifest everywhere. Just like any learning algorithm when you take away it's direction: it goes insane, and not in a way you can debate whether it's insane. Think epileptic seizure, not general weirdness.