Some parts of this analysis has value but when Mr Hickman goes to cash flows between nations he goes off track.. . "But cash flowed to the owners of the resource and high level manufacturers, who lived in rich nations. Thus workers got poorer and the rich got richer."

Well, no - one of the marked trends of the past couple of decades has been a massive shift in the number of people out of poverty, largely as a result of India and China adopting market policies. The shift in manufacturing he writes about is one of the contributing factors and shows a distinct cycle in Japan, then Korea and now in China.

All that said the world's financial problems (wouldn't call it a crisis) have proved odd, and intractable. But part of the problem is that advanced economies have proved reluctant to bite the bullet and stop the QE Hickman refers to, as well as the currency wars and it is difficult to know just where it will all end.

Whether this is a great collapse or a minor hiccup depends mainly on how politicians react to it. Central bankers have been flooring the accelerator, but politicians pursuing surpluses (or even smaller deficits) have their feet firmly on the brakes. Fixing this should not be a tough decision, though no doubt they'll regard it as one.

Syd Hickman seems to have failed to comprehend that although the vast majority of individual loans can be repaid (or at least serviced) it is essential that the total amount of gross debt keeps rising. Essentially if we get rid of debt, we get rid of money.

Yes Syd, and a clarion called for those, who like warm and comfortable frogs are being gradually boiled to death; and only take notice when it's far too late.

The elephant in the room is record foreign and domestic debt.

None of which are helped by our current trade deficit or terms of trade!

And as you say quantitative easing (borrowing against the future) has only made unaffordable housing more so!

We had little to do with the flood of derivatives tha created the GFC in the first place and we just can't allow ourselves to be made to pay for something we had no part in creating!

Nor can we allow ourselves to be steered in any direction we don't wish to steer, by the winds of imposed financial or Global imperatives. But rather steer our own course.

A good start would be genuine tax reform that simply eliminates all tax avoidance! And with all avoidance eliminated the tax burden on those currently shouldering the entire load can be quite massively reduced. If say I.e., an entirely unavoidable expenditure tax forced some marginal operators (the world owes me a living) out of business paving the way open for more success oriented entrepreneurs to succeed. that would be no bad thing!

To that end we need to quite massively reduce the cost of energy, even if that means resurrecting the publicly owned and operated, essential services model.

Albeit as competing for market share duopolies or trilogies or co-ops.

We don't need to become a tax haven, by reducing the necessary tax take?

Even so, if it is low enough to, along with the cheapest possible energy provision, encourage the high tech industries and cashed up self funded retirees to relocate here, lock stock and barrell.

That would be no bad thing and indeed our only possible future, along with investing in our own people and their better ideas, that doesn't include economic disaster?
Rhrosty.

Below relates to federal government taxes needed to pay for government expenditure, government using budget deficits scare stories to distract people from doing any constructive thinking. Setting people up to except a bad future.

I remember during the 1970s, when Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister 1975 to 1983. A high rate of inflation was being experienced by Australia and other capitalist world economies. The 1970s media constantly mentioned high inflation. High inflation, low economic growth, called Stagflation.
Guessing around 1976, Malcolm Fraser made a statement relating to Australia's limited supply of money in circulation. Malcolm compared a pie could only be cut up between a limited number of people. That as inflation continues, fewer employment opportunities will be available.

The Malcolm Fraser's pie theory seemed to have failed.

During years following 1965s, the post second world war baby boom generation were entering the work force. Few post first world war baby boom generation were retiring.
Capitalist supply and demand economic theory should have had higher unemployment competition for available employment reducing wages, deflation. Failure to have deflation during 1970s increasing work force, exposes printing money credits to inflate wages.

I assume during the 1970s, “we're all Keynsians now”, the work force would have doubled. The 1980s would have been the decade most post first world war babies would have retired.

In 1970, a reasonable adult weekly wage would have been $100. 1980 same working skill adult wage would have been $240. Add doubling the work force allows the pie theory to be pretty dumb. During all the growth, reported unemployment stayed around 10%.

For the same reason Australian Prime Minister statements are false. Money, no more the a token of exchange. Money was merely invented to suit planned increased wages expenditure. Australian inflation somewhat blamed on Prime Minister Whitlam and an OPEC price rise oil shock. Thereafter Whitlam, wage inflation excuses were blamed on worker's accustom to yearly wage increases. I believe unions were taking blame for yearly wage increases imposed by the establishment.
Establishment controls unions. Union leaders don't get to be leaders unless the establishment allows people to stand for union positions.
Building industry ruff looking union leaders were blamed for building industry corruption and wage inflation during the 1970s and 1980s.

All western capitalism countries were undergoing high inflation.

Protestant religion developed land owner capitalism doesn't work in wealthy, predominately working class societies.

Capitalism works in rich class repressing working class wage societies.
Capitalism works in UK Downton Abbey pre-1914 country house societies.
Middle class town and city societies where a percentage of certified high education secure government bureaucratic employment system allows working class repressed wages to be affordable: house maids, low wage room and board; chimney sweeps; domestic and train transport coal fire coal mining; building trains, railways and train stations; small navy and Commonwealth commercial trade ship building. Transporting raw and manufactured materials consumed through the Commonwealth, using what may have been highly subsidised labour.

Post 1800s railways being completed. Year 1900 high unemployment leads to British government kick starting employment, in wanting commodity materials to build 1900-02 many British dreadnought war ships, consuming labours. Market traded capitalist companies provide management to build factories, hiring working class labour, producing machinery to build government financed war ships on grounds of defence, competing with Germany, who is also building dreadnoughts. Where capitalist private profits can't provide employment, government invents credits, allowing market investments to soak up spare money credits.

Placing taxes on rich class to pay for the many working class employment, merely reduces rich class's ability to hire and pay for working class services.

If left entirely to 10% of rich class to support 90% of working class workers. Once a rich class has satisfied their luxurious living environments as in 1780s France. High unemployment and long lists of recorded grievances leads to a French style revolution.