First, I do appreciate such a thoughtful response. I like engaging in reasonable discourse. I agree that, in the context of the given approaches to the governance of society when it comes to the economy and its outcomes for society, there is way too little attempt to 'meet in the middle'.

We disagree on what Milei means when he uses the word 'socialism'. If I understand you correctly--no sure thing--we seem to agree that the best system, as things stand these days, is that of Norway, etc.

I have developed a revolutionary--but not radical-- change that can be implemented within the existing economic system. (For the record, I do have an M.A. in economics.) In the larger scheme of possibilities it is right down the middle: people on the 'left' deem is to be a "libertarian fever dream" (as one put it) and people on the 'right' deem it to be "socialism."

It is, of course, neither. It is non-ideological.

It features a minimum guaranteed income (sufficient to live on) that would be funded by money created for that purpose--without involving debt in any way. It would end unemployment and poverty; at the same time, it would provide the means to eliminate taxation (by also creating money as needed for that purpose), and if that were done it would make the economy self-regulating. It would increase sustainability. There are built-in protections against inflation. Any nation could adopt it--'overnight', with a single legislative Act.

if curious: "Economic System Not the Problem" (here in Medium, but not behind the paywall)