Trusts in particular (cooperation agreements between competitors) were entirely a fad of businesses in the 1800s, particularly amongst more progressive-leaning Chairman. It is doubtful they would have had long term success even without government intervention.
We also know that things like predatory pricing and trying to undercut businesses to acquire them was somewhat of a myth. If Standard oil sold for less than you, it was because their operation costs were lower because they were bigger.
The enforcement of the Anti-trust act mostly relied on companies suing each other for grievances. But most companies never brought grievances about being acquired.
Fair enough. If the claim is that antitrust measures were in the long run ineffective, not that they were dishonestly pursued, you have solid ground to stand on.
https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2...
We also know that things like predatory pricing and trying to undercut businesses to acquire them was somewhat of a myth. If Standard oil sold for less than you, it was because their operation costs were lower because they were bigger.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE200...
The enforcement of the Anti-trust act mostly relied on companies suing each other for grievances. But most companies never brought grievances about being acquired.
It was a PR campaign! But for protective tariffs: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1890/10/01/103... Sherman himself was pretty open that he wanted to blame rising costs on businesses when a new round of tariffs was passed into law.