You call your inabilty to focus on one subject (the EC) is thinking for yourself?
Somehow you have now meandered from the popular vote to capitalism vs communism.
Oh look...a bird.
Unlike you, I understand how all of this stuff weaves together to impact a society (indeed, including its future prospects). The economy is inextricably linked to the prevailing political philosophy. Lets face it, you don't intervene in the markets (or, as do you, advocate for intervention in the markets) because you want to "help" them. You aren't advocating for auto company bailouts because there are people who want to buy cars who can't seem to find any to buy. You admit freely that your support for the bail out of the auto companies was about keeping people from losing their jobs, a political aim which, of course, hinders the markets ability to align the supply of cars with current levels of demand. Nor do you advocate for bank bailouts because people can't find anyplace to store their excess cash. You admit freely that the reason you supported those was to keep people from losing their investments in bank stocks, a purely political objective because, in so doing, you insure that other more profitable investments will not be made.
So if these bail outs that you love are aimed at political outcomes and not made for the specific purpose of helping the markets work, why on earth would you expect them to produce a robust, sustainable economic recovery? And, of course, they did not:
Yet you insist the economy was completely incapable on its own of turning in a better recovery without these interventions that are implemented precisely for the purpose of distorting the markets. Which, of course, is completely absurd!