I don't think that's the most generous paraphrasing. I think the framing the article is putting forward (right or wrong) is: The "first generation" of US antit

I don't think that's the most generous paraphrasing. I think the framing the article is putting forward (right or wrong) is: The "first generation" of US antitrust rules were built around emergent giant of those times. Oil and it's transportation. Shiping. Infrastructure. Big, megalithic chunks of a maturing manufacturing economy, especially bottlenecks. New era of commerce, new "trusts." New concentrations of influence that change the rules of the game in a corrupting way. IDK if I'd frame it exactly the same way. Personally, I don't think we did the best job on the last generation of trusts. Data is referred to a bit to vaguely for my taste. I agree with you that working with a concept (trusts) that's nt ideal in the first place. But it's not a nonsense argument.