I do appreciate the alternative narrative, and I find most articles on economics and international politics from most places equally poor for the same reasons. Definitely no debating that.

I don't know much about economics but I do know that something isn't right just because it sounds plausible. This goes for economics, it goes for physics, it goes for chemistry, it goes for biology, it goes for psychology, it goes for anything. There's usually more than one equally plausible explanation for any given occurrence, and I'd say this applies here. This narrative doesn't strike me as any more plausible than the typical narrative presented by most mainstream sources. Humans failing to accurately predict human behavior and set up appropriate monetary systems and safeguards to account for human behavior seems just as plausible to me as "an elaborate Kabuki theater run by international financiers and globalists" in order to trick the global public into supporting their end goals. The only way to decide which is more likely to be true to reality is, as you said, to check the facts presented and to question the logic of the arguments presented.

I just wish this article presented more facts and more arguments. The ideas are interesting and compelling, but so is the idea that aliens helped ancient Egyptians construct the pyramids.