I'd be curious to know which conclusions you think the author has reached.

And you're probably being downvoted because your criticism is neither specific nor substantiated, and fairly snide besides.

It's rather selective in what it doesn't consider, namely nations and culture. To oppose neo-liberal policies with Keynesian economics doesn't get you very far in explaining the state of things. Was Bill Clinton a Hayekian who rejected the "dashing and socially connected" Keynes? Slight of hand.

But I liked the article overall and think it's a good starting point for discussion.

The entire thing reads like a bad case of sour grapes. Thatcher and Hayek didn't dehumanise the world, buddy.