Sure there's been a move towards economic liberalisation over that time. It's a massive social phenomenon that went hand in hand with liberalisation of social attitudes, the swinging 60s, the permissive society, baby boomers and so forth, and much more recently the belief that it's OK to be obscenely rich. A lot of ink has been spilled on this very complicated subject and reducing it to a bizarre plot to get some twitter likes isn't worth anyone's attention.
That doesn't make sense. The swinging 60s and permissive 70s were accompanied by the precise opposite economic tendency that you claim. Labour were returned to power in the UK after a long period of Tory hegemony and socialism was popular again. In the USA the 60s were dominated by the Democrat presidencies of civil rights-loving JFK and then LBJ with a vastly increased government role in public services and alleviating poverty. Australia got its most left wing government ever, before or since, led by Whitlam in 1972.
By contrast, the economic liberalism which as we know it really took over from the 1980s under Thatcher and Reagan worked hand in glove with reactionary social forces. Thatcher opposing section 28 and defending apartheid; the Christian right in America selling capitalist self-reliance as part-and-parcel with God, the family and American apple pie; Farage et. al. steering us out of the E.U. so we can go back to a vision of a white 1950s Britain where you could call a black man a n*** and not have to worry about the "woke brigade" sticking their noses in.
'Twas ever thus. Economic liberalism and social conservatism are constant happy bedfellows, because the latter provides a comforting mythology of belonging (through unquestioned cultural understandings and "family values") to compensate for the economic security that the former takes away.