For those of us who've read The Economist for two or three or four decades, perhaps more, "rethinking economics" is a reliably recurring evergreen which gets trotted out at times of crisis. When the paper is feeling merely foreward, a possibility that Keynes may not have been completely wrong is broached. In periods of sheer desperation, a hesitant suggestion that subscribers might read (but never follow) Marx is hauled from the deepest rhetorical powder magazines.

But that's about the limit of it.

The one change I have noted is that where the tactic was invoked only once or twice a decade, its use now seems far more frequent, every few years in the aughts, now only months apart. A search of the paper's archives, or external Web search, largely confirms this:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rethinking+(macroeconomics%7Cmicro...

Whilst I'm strongly convinced that economic orthodoxy is sharply flawed, monetarism a stunted model like its progenitor, Keynes was insightful, and that Marx's class-consciousness has merits, full understanding and remedy for present concerns must look further afield.

MMT, W. Brian Arthur's complexity economics, and Steve Keen's work unifying capital, labour, class, and energy would be a good start.