It feels like there's a strong thesis and well-reasoned argument here, but it's hidden within a forest of flashbacks and flowery metaphors. Very core to the au

It feels like there's a strong thesis and well-reasoned argument here, but it's hidden within a forest of flashbacks and flowery metaphors. Very core to the author's argument, it seems, is the idea that the Reagan and Clinton administrations caused the proliferation of modern monopolies, but no more than a few paragraphs is spent discussing this. I think this article would have benefited from more detailed research into the effects of their economic policies, and less detailed research on King James I.