we may never fully know how the economy could have recovered on its own without government interference
This represents both the 'unseen' and the 'unrealized' effects of government intervention (the subject of last week's reading assignment). The sad result of this reality is that people strongly in favor of government bailouts can 'see' the positive result they want to see; similarly, those strongly opposed to such bailouts will 'see' the negative results they expect to see.
Such is the nature of government policies at the federal level. It is nearly impossible to objectively assess whether a given federal policy was or is 'good' or 'bad'.
That is why I emphasized in class a couple weeks ago the need for a return to federalism, where the vast majority of all government policy-making (and legislation) occurs at the state level.
That way, if a state enacts bad policies, there's a good chance that other states have enacted different policies, and we are much more likely to be able to assess what's 'good' versus what's 'bad'. Furthermore, there will be some policies that are 'good for me' but 'bad for you' and vice versa. Federalism allows me to migrate to the state where policies are 'good for me' and you to do the same (i.e. different states, vastly different policies, both citizens happy).
Heavy-handed actions by the federal government are a recipe for disaster, sooner or later, imho. (And, again, disaster for me might be the opposite of disaster for you. However, sometimes 'my people' will be in control of the federal government and sometimes 'your people' will be in control. Thus, on net, heavy-handed federal actions are eventually a disaster no matter what policies one favors.)