The article provides historical context and a framework to think about the question. I think it does a better job answering the question than your last 2 paragraphs.
After finishing it, I'm almost certain the author just produced a shorter more accessible version of the argument from "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey. It's basically a Marxian interpretation of the issue.
The article tries to backdoor an emotionally resonant populist political view in the guise of concern. If you think it does a good job answering the question, that probably just means that you have a converging viewpoint.
Yeah, nothing is persuasive. Everything simply confirms or disconfirms what you already know. There is no learning. I will die knowing what I knew yesterday.