It's in the article though.
...
The possible solution and what the U.S. could've done. It's said there that there are other countries that have done better during the pandemic in which focusing on those three parts of the system. Since it's not the case, high unemployment and stagnant demand in the economy has happened, hence stagflation.
Yea, but we shouldn't just take what the scholar said without fair criticism. IMO it's more like a political statement than about economics. When the stagflation is imminent, the solution presented here is too far ahead of the problem and too general. It seems like "everything" can be solved with green energy, better infrastructure, education, and the healthcare system.
Green energy, especially, switching now will only add costs with no tangible benefit in the economic sense.