So on the one hand, economics is something that the average person can't realistically be an expert in yet is forced to be via our voting system, and this leads to non-optimal economic and policy decisions. But at the same time we make a million decisions a year with our dollar in things we aren't expert in yet this is somehow optimal.

Doesn't this demonstrate a hole in this argument? I don't, can't, dispute that a capitalist model efficiently allocates capital and leads to growth, innovation and clear improvements in living standards across the board. But a lot of this debate focuses on finding examples of situations where capitalism free markets aren't optimal and it seems to me the asymmetry of information in a world with products of growing complexity will lead to greater suboptimal decision making which will eventually reach a point whereby it is no longer efficient and the standard argument of corporate greed and companies having both a huge incentive and an easy opportunity to effectively mis-sell and deceive consumers leading to poor products, less innovation and therefore inefficiency.

This kind of ties in with my completely unfounded theory that capitalism and free ish markets ate optimal for a while but eventually need to be replaced with something that protects the public from powerful corporations and the harm their self interest will cause.