"There may be too many tough choices for humans to handle wisely."
No, only for those who "chose to serve" as our executive.
You have to ask a simple but very valid question,
"Are the lunatics running the asylum?"
That is in a "free market economy" where success is based only on the amassing of wealth, those who's only interest in doing this are most likley to succeed.
In essence the greater the risks you take the greater are the rewards, but so are the failiers. It's effectivly a multiplayer zero sum game or if you prefer a "Pyramid Selling Scam".
However to "realy succeed" your mentality must be such that you can compleatly disrigard the downside that for every major success there are multiple failiers of varying degrees.
That is the mentality required for success in a free market economy is getting on for socio/psycopath.
And this has been (to a limited extent) been confirmd.
Now as we know due to other human failings wealth buys influence and power. That is those "who chose to serve" have a different set of skills which are only marginaly rewarding (ie ego food). There a number of them who are therefor quite happy to accumulate wealth by renting out their skills to those who wish to influence them.
Now it does not matter what you chose to call it (lobbying / cash for honours / sleeze / pick your own name) it is basicaly detrimental to the welfare of the general populus.
However without a suitable reward system inovation generaly tends to fall by the wayside. Put simply the easiiest way to get a dog to do tricks is with food treats.
Humans being (supposadly) more complex creatures have a whole range of reward systems available to them.
However those who's sole purpose in life is to accumulate wealth only understand the monetary reward system. And importantly they only respect people who are only interested in that reward system.
Unfortunatly they regard all other reward systems as being something they can convert to their reward system at an advantage to themselves. Simple examples of this are "empty job titles", and asigning people work spaces adjacent to windows etc.
When another reward system gains prominance such that it "can't be bought" or traded trouble starts. For instance look at Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer's assertions that open source practitioners are "cancers" "communists" etc.
When ridicule fails they then turn to those who "can be bought" to get their world view impossed on to those with the differing world view. Step up to the plate those "who chose to serve" with the most negotiable morals...
Eventually the pedulum swings to far in the direction of those who chose to buy / influance politicians to get their world view enforced on an unwilling populas.
However the degree to which it can swing is bassed on how well they can carry the populus along by guile or misdirection. The better they are at it the further the pendulum moves in their favour. But in the end either society changes or the pendulum comes back...
When it does come back you get an "economic readjustment" as a result. Unfortunatly the further the pedulum has swung away from the real societal norms the further and faster it comes back and the more the transition looks like a blood bath.