This is all great stuff.
I guess after watching all of his films a few times and very closely one gets to know pretty well the techniques, and indeed 'trickery', that he uses to draw conclusions and narratives. Even so , they are worth it for artistic, creative, imaginative value and should be considered as such - this is not wooden Cinema Verite, try complaining to Herzog that his docos aren't 'real enough'.
The main critique everyone seems to have is that his films are conspirational propaganda. I would like to point out that he may not be the zealous propagandist he is made out to be here - rather his motivations for constructing these monumental narratives in history is spurred on by a need to dismantle the consensus narratives that we have been brain-numbingly conditioned to accept, beckoning the viewer to think for themselves and use the heuristic imagination to explore the real nature of power in the world.
All this said - my main qualms with the first episode was that yea, Greenspan, Silicon Valley guys and economists in general were into Rand but - surely the 'self interest' game was not entirely original to her - it's really the whole essence of Rightist economics innit, and this goes back to Adam Smith and forward to the whole Austria/Chicago axis and, a lot of Curtis other films (Century of the Self, The Trap, The Living Dead etc) explore this material, hardly any of them mentioning Rand (though perhaps R.A.N.D...)
But that's the point - he is not trying to proclaim that Rand caused the Asian economic crisis as some Guardian reviewer proclaimed (anymore than he was making a serious suggestion that the song 'Baby it's Cold Outside' caused 9/11) - he's just exploring all these connections and historical events in the light of a psychological lens and a bit of humour, and in this case the dismantling effect that the all-to-human forces of Love and Power have on monumental, yet naive, attempts to attain transcendent states of harmony and order in a chaotic world.
It's always the ability to break down biased consensus, see connections where they might otherwise not be apparent and moreover draw non-imaginary meaningful conclusions out of reems of historical data that make brilliant political thinkers, the Chomskys and Vidals of this world. Also despite all the arguments here I still think that his analysis has a sufficient degree of impartiality about it - despite the fact that yes, the man does have an opinion and he appears to have a clear aim and project about what he's doing. I think that after viewing his films, due to his technique and filmmaking style, one is left, or at least I am left, feeling bewildered by the perception of an impartial narrative carved out of an ocean of historical chaos, a historical chaos that we are so used to seeing skewed and manipulated by those with invested power interests, etc etc.