My favourite aunt said much of what you said. And I disagree with her. I guess you have to do that with your favourite reviewer as well :)
Your last paragraph anyway resolves my issues. If he isn't the Joker, and if he is merely a loser with a poor grasp of Economics (like the director), I simply don't see why it should be called the Joker. That's pure piggybacking on the popularity of the character without doing justice to it. And I bet if they made a similar film without calling it the Joker, I'd have raved at Phoenix's performance (Like Kritika Deval did with HER) and there would have been no comments at all in comments section because people simply don't care unless there's hype.
You know these naive, gullible and moneyed people who see the success of Arjun Reddy and think they've figured out the mantra of success: young people kissing and cussing. So you then see a spate of disturbingly bad films with teeny boppers doing questionable things with each other.
Likewise, you know these naive, gullible, more moneyed people who see the success of Bahubali and think they've figured out the mantra of success: big budgets, large scale stunts, and pan-Indian releases. So you then see a spate of wholly forgettable films with topline stars fighting and dancing on top....