That things as complex as macroeconomic systems can't be described in comment threads on internet forums.
As an analogy and an extreme example, pretend there is an evolutionary biologist among a group that believes in creationism.
The creationist has a very simple narrative, only takes a few words. The evolutionary biologist has a much bigger task at hand. They're starting not from an ideology but from a discipline of analysis.
That's the struggle. The neoliberal models are extremely simple to explain, they are taught to elementary school children who all understand the logic of it.
But the anthropologists and economic historians of the world have a different story to tell and they cannot be similarly summarized.
They require careful study and reflection like learning any type of discipline, such as a new programming paradigm or the implications of a new kind of data structure.
And that's my true takeaway here, the answers to your questions are as deep and rich as any other modern school of thought and like any other accurate depiction of reality, say modern physics, chemistry, or biology, there's simply no way to stuff it into 1-2 minutes of casual reading on a social news site.
I guess that's it actually. Instead of starting from an ideology we start from a discipline of analysis. Any summary I can give here will only be totalling ideology, which is what we need to get away from. People presume that any critique of the system have an alternative sweeping simplistic all-encompassing dogmatic ideology.
So this is a bad form for that kind of learning.
---
As an aside that's a major breakthrough in a problem I've been struggling with for over a decade. "this is a bad form for that kind of learning." I'm going to print that out to remember it.