Yup, that's about right, I'd say.
It's disgusting, too. Every time "the experiment" is run, we find that "the returns" from preventing excessive concentration of wealth VASTLY exceed any claimed benefits of allowing individuals and individual families to limitlessly accrue. VASTLY exceed, not merely economically, but all the way "down to" things like human well-being (and lack thereof: suffering). I.e., down to the roots of strong societies, communities, and ultimately COUNTRIES.
Consequently, those with an insatiable "need to hoard" know that they need to convince those with power (which, in the US, is The People [to some degree]) to believe in the opposite of the evidence. Unfortunately, of course, this is all too easy. While some degree of "representational democracy" and "mass media" and "universal public education"* increases the challenge, the class warfare continues. Some among the "upper class", in particular, engage in it very actively and intentionally, quite secure in the knowledge that terms like "data", and "evidence", and, even moreso, "statistics" / "economics", are meaningless / of little direct concern to most people. All you really need is "marketing".
So, really, all you do is - keep telling people that (OUR - i.e., The People's) "government doesn't work", keep telling them it's "corrupt", etc. (fostering conditions for degrees of self-fulfilling prophecy). Remove civics classes from schools. Tell them that the government just exists to perpetuate itself and to grow unchecked ... try to get people to forget, as much as possible, how self-governing is supposed to look ... what it grew out of, how we basically self-organized, quite effectively, through decades and then centuries worth of work (and quite radical ideas ... including at least two or three periods of significant upending of feudalistic components of the economy, often involving efforts of "enlightened" "class traitors"**). Ask them if, given all of this - that "we all know" that "government doesn't work", "people in government are corrupt self-dealers", "government can't be trusted" ... they'd like to keep some more of "THEIR" money each month, which, obviously, THEY are more QUALIFIED to spend. And, of course, as politics becomes more debased and less serious - driven by actual facts and what works vs. appeals to feelings and rhetoric [marketing] - slap a pretty face on it (Reagan).
Then, just rinse and repeat.
Pretty soon, so many people have a solid internal wall preventing any serious consideration of appropriate taxation to pay for services far more valuable than an extra night out at a restaurant every once in a while, this modified regime is quite entrenched and resistant to movement back towards more progressive ideas. All the while, you can keep marketing more and more extreme ideas ... like, oh I don't know, "maybe we need to reevaluate that whole 'Civil Rights Act' deal...".
The ideals and optimism etc. that propelled people to make changes good for themselves (in a broad sense, not narrow in time and space like greed) and society exist on the fringes - utterly extinguished in the center. Not given any serious consideration any longer.
You, yourself, provide an example: "But everyone knows from the last half century of globalization that taking win-win-lose and turning it into win-win-win is a false promise that won't pan out." And, you provide it in the right context, I'd say: "The problem with US political-economics right now". It's an important point - it doesn't have to be like this. The "disruptors" of systems who have marketed against ideas like "The New Deal" have worked for decades to get us to the point we're at now. I'd say, as usual, it will take enough people getting upset enough to create the conditions in which we can have a lurch back in the other direction.
The story of the 50+ years has involved a trade between "left" and "right". The left-of-center ideas have dominated on the social side of things, while the right-of-center ideas have dominated on the economic side. Seems like conditions are ripe for something of a reversal - the 10+ year ascent of "the culture war(s)" (as a more intentional and even engineered effort on the right [in part driven by being "out of actual ideas" {that are practical}] on the economic policy side for probably 2 decades or more) are evidence and fertile ground for reversal ... combined with heightened economic insecurity ONCE AGAIN. But, we'll have to wait to find out just how pissed off people really are ... and, if they can find their way back to the best lever US citizens get for pushing the system the way it needs to be pushed - the "voting booth 'lever'".***
* Thomas Jefferson was quite the "disruptor", pushing for universal education as early as he did (he was a complex person - my knowledge is fairly limited, but my general impression is that he would have fit in rather well with the subpopulation of "baby boomers" who experimented with radical "hippie" ideas in the 60s. Plenty in this generation, after this brief "Rumspringa", turned around, moved to suburbia, became part of the system they experimented with fighting, voted for a "pretty face" and "pretty words" wrapped around ideas they generally found repulsive only a decade or two earlier [Reagan], etc. That should not be taken to diminish Jefferson in any way - not my intention. And, he did much that was positive, but also, plenty that wasn't. My sense is that he's somewhat more difficult to judge / analyze than someone like Washington, who was very principled, "virtuous" [in a sort of "honesty internally" &/ of core character], consistent, etc. Who, interestingly, had a life more akin to the self-made immigrants who came through Ellis Island, say, raising his station up through life from a really low rung among the gentry class, all the way through leader of a nation he helped found.)
** People who go into history books as "Great", and certainly tend to be recognized for "virtue", "humanity", and "equity" and such - who REALLY embraced the idea "All men are created equal..." (where "men" is understood variously, of course, but, in an arc / from principles that only concludes in a meaning of "All people"). I.e., Washington et al., Lincoln et al., FDR et al. ... while others like "the Mercers"**** lurk in the shadows and work to dismantle the deservedly popular and virtuous work that brought such benefit to individuals AND the nation as a whole (aside from the grievances of the wealth and power hoarders).
*** What an anachronism, now, eh? ... Anyway, the change in voting patterns among other factors suggest political pressure is really starting to ramp up. ... Lastly, this comment is absolutely absurd in length - apologies and apologies for likely mistakes, can't really look it over right now, time has grown tight.
**** Also around in the time of Washington - the ancestry isn't simple, various Mercers weren't uniform in Loyalist sympathies, and, AFAIK, the current extreme right-wing Robert Mercer's direct ancestors didn't arrive in the colonial era, but, this family is comparatively visible right now and can be viewed within that sort of model (association of a give family with a particular member and their views, e.g., George Washington)