On 2 April, ten years passed since the beginning of the last crisis, when the most advanced countries began to plunge into the “economic slowdown”. Subsequently, a lot of financial institutions plummeted and it's been estimated that rich countries mobilized about 50 percent of their GDP to reactivate the economy. These sums have been earmarked for the rescue of banks, special loans have been granted to banks so that they can offer money, and, as if that were not enough, also for the purchase of polluting assets and new banks have been set up. In other words, money was used for policy in the early years of the slowdown, as economic orthodoxy requires, since any fiscal policy has been avoided.

It applied to everything, but if the economic system is based on growth, as is the capitalist system, and if that growth is very modest, it can be said that that economic policy has failed. And that's what happened between 2008 and 2010. In fact, it was thought that if financial stability were achieved, economic globalization would be guaranteed: free market and freedom of investment, which is what the father of neoliberalism, Chicago professor Milton Friedman, assures us. However, the GDP of the developed countries has been around 1.5%, China has been drastically reduced and Russia and Brazil have not had a better situation, with negative growth in many years.

As was clearly seen, neoliberalism suffered a great failure and more than one voice said that capitalism had collapsed: Nicolas Sarkozy himself stated that “capitalism had to be recast” or that it was capitalism, as Lawrence Summers acknowledged. Unexpectedly, several Keynesian economists became: A famous columnist from the neoliberal newspaper Financial Times, Martin Wolf, said that “we are all Keynesians now.” The apparent failure of neoliberalism. But no, I was still alive, because it has a lot of lives.

It is clear that capitalism has lost all attractiveness, because only growth does not bring well-being or create decent jobs. This situation has therefore led to the emergence of new approaches in which all responsibilities are attributed to globalisation and the free market, phenomena that have only increased poverty. Hence, the strengthening of isolation policies and the need to demand measures with immigrants: Donald Trump in the United States or Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and many more in the European Union.

At this socio-economic juncture, economic policy could take two paths: to turn to a better society through social spending, II. As it did after the World War or turning to a more right-wing, reinforcing nationalism. And the latter is the last road that the major Western leaders, including the Social Democrats, have embarked upon in their journey.

The policy that has been put in place has serious consequences, as demonstrated by the Scottish economist Marck Blyth, Austerity: History of a Dry Idea. In fact, every time the policy of austerity has been implemented, l. Just as when it was applied to Germany in the World War, Nazi fascism was promoted; today in Europe, starting with Greece, we are coming to the same conclusion, even in Poland or Hungary, not forgetting the Alternative being created in Germany, or rather the sad situation in Spain.

Care, therefore, with what can bring a policy of sustainable austerity. Instead of creating the prosperity they tell us, austerity has brought poverty, unemployment, marginalisation and an increase in economic aspects. And at the same time, the doors are being opened to fascism.