> Though there may be examples of opportunistic or anti-competitive behaviour, the effects are unlikely to have been material.
So, there is prove that it is anti-competitive behavior. There is prove that all big corporations should be split in pieces. But The Economist decides to ignore that.
The Economist is not that bad. At least, it presents the data. Big monopolies are the source of inflation, the lack of competition is the source of inflation. But it always falls short to get to any reasonable conclusion, and decides to ignore its own data. That's a shame.
"material" means "having real importance or great consequences".
So the Economist is directly stating the opposite of your conclusion: the opportunistic and anti-competitive behavior, if any, is unlikely to have been a significant source of inflation.
Same. I don't read them anymore, but I used to subscribe. Much of what they do is worthwhile, but there's the occasional bad take. But same goes for New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
So, there is prove that it is anti-competitive behavior. There is prove that all big corporations should be split in pieces. But The Economist decides to ignore that.
The Economist is not that bad. At least, it presents the data. Big monopolies are the source of inflation, the lack of competition is the source of inflation. But it always falls short to get to any reasonable conclusion, and decides to ignore its own data. That's a shame.