You talking about Buzzfeed/play being the home of intellectually lightweight "listsicles"? Or the lack of any mandate in the Constitution that we have to use any particular economic system?

The first would be a waste of your time, and I'd hate to distract you with it. The second, though, is an interesting and worthy inquiry. Beyond the absence of a directive in the Constitution, the times in which it was written was a fascinating period of intellectual ferment. Adam Smith published the "bible of capitalism", The Wealth of Nations, in 1775, so his observations would have been talked about (much like the new guy Piketty's economics book today), but would still have been somewhat controversial. It wouild have been too soon to write them into the Constitution. But at the same time, you can see that the Founders knew about Smith's observations by 1787 or so, because Alexander Hamilton in particular seems to be advocating for elite capitalism in The Federalist Papers.

It struck me that in WoN, Smith was entirely descriptive, and never prescriptive. He just documented how people had been engaging in commerce for forever, unlike Karl Marx, who 75 years later did nothing but prescribe how we ought to do things. So it could be that in the late 18th century, people didn't feel any need to write a law mandating capitalism, when it just seemed like the natural order of things. So maybe the Constitution's silence on economics isn't a sign of the wisdom of the Founders, but maybe instead it was a sign of a blind spot.

As far as the question about economics on that test, upon reflection I think it was just sloppy scholarship and not political bias. Maybe the writer did what I speculated that Founders might have done, taken capitalism for granted as the natural order of things. A mistake, but a benign one.

Lemme know what you turn up, Jody.