Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 215

On May 09 2020 00:49 Spitfiree wrote: Whats the point of passing a cap? So that companies won't abuse the situation for profit? They could've just capped it per km distance or like not allow increasement of service price by more than X % compared to the previous 18 months or something like that, why would they pass a hard cap how fucking stupid are they lol

You aren't being just as obtuse and them exactly in the same way, the price will regulate through competition, not through bureaucratic regulations that will be either exploited, or fall short for many hard to foresee situations, let the free market do its fucking job.

"let the free market do its job", the modern version of "let God's Will be done". No less secular of course, just a different faith.

I guess if you're a politician that's deluded enough to think that the job of the free market is to provide public services at a loss then you're just as likely to see that come to fruition as you are to have a divine being answer your prayers

https://www.ktnv.com/news/coronavirus...ts-petition-to-recall-las-vegas-mayor
Doug Polk publicity stuntin'
thoughts ?

On May 09 2020 03:11 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 09 2020 00:49 Spitfiree wrote: Whats the point of passing a cap? So that companies won't abuse the situation for profit? They could've just capped it per km distance or like not allow increasement of service price by more than X % compared to the previous 18 months or something like that, why would they pass a hard cap how fucking stupid are they lol You aren't being just as obtuse and them exactly in the same way, the price will regulate through competition, not through bureaucratic regulations that will be either exploited, or fall short for many hard to foresee situations, let the free market do its fucking job.

I forgot you're a free-market fierce believer. The fact is, situations like this one need regulation. Capitalism doesn't care about moral values, if you start going through the learning materials for CFA, for example, they have an 'ethics' portion and the ethics considered 'good' there are far from what is good for everyone. That being said, if businesses can exploit the situation and gain more profit out of it they will (especially if a giant company like Uber can virtually swallow everyone on the market). Competition might drive prices down, except you're forgetting about the 'time' factor. We don't have time here, reactions to the pandemic have to be well measured and swift. If a regulation ends up hurting the businesses, they should just re-evaluate and update it asap. I'm assuming laws like those ones are passed after a think tank has gone through all types of possible situations (well guess they sucked badly in this one) of how this could end up hurting the public, thus in theory the "hard to foresee situations" should be Black Swans

TLDR:

Free market heavily tilts towards businesses so they would abuse the public
Full regulation heavily tilts towards the public, making the businesses fail

Solution:
- Do both?


The free market belief is basically the belief of "greed is good" and I simply can't understand why people follow it.

USA 2020 - the battle of the predators, except one of them at least pays for the services while the other pretends that nothing has happened


I thought what you posted is edited Loco... turns out it isn't, holy crap

On May 09 2020 06:14 Loco wrote: "let the free market do its job", the modern version of "let God's Will be done". No less secular of course, just a different faith.

Great comment when its being demonstrated the failure of an intervention dumbass.


"This time we won starve millions to death" that requires a special kind of faith.

On May 10 2020 00:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 09 2020 06:14 Loco wrote: "let the free market do its job", the modern version of "let God's Will be done". No less secular of course, just a different faith. Great comment when its being demonstrated the failure of an intervention dumbass. "This time we won starve millions to death" that requires a special kind of faith.

your demonstrating one example of regulatory failure, and there are many far worse ones from markets. A lot of market induced famines out there, especially in India through the 18th-19th century.

The dependency of poor countries on food supplies is caused by market reform in the 1980's, that's been one of the main causal effects of food shortages ever since, including the one that is happening now. Of course these are not entirely caused by markets, there are rich countries subsidizing agriculture as well. That's one of the worst examples of state intervention. But they are definitely caused by the fanatcism of free market fundamentalism, as those are the priests that essentially push for this system.

Need i go on to global warming? The fact is you ignore market failure and focus on regulatory failure, which is what makes you very religious.
Citing millions of deaths from a regime that loco clearly states over and over again that he doesn't support is another example of your piety. The course of action is to recognize both systems create famines and support a third alternative one, that is more democratic and more decentralized, which is what many socialists, including myself, support.

The harm goes well beyond market failures. A market can be a moral failure before it can become an economic failure. Just the notion that market value should dominate life is absurd and, dare I say, evil. If you're a being without a 'skill' to produce something deemed valuable for humans, or be a product with your own body, your life is considered worthless, if not "in the way of progress" and needing to be eradicated. And even when you are useful and necessary for the economy, you are treated as an expandable resource. Beyond humans, the number of animals that have been killed/tortured/left to die horrible deaths and the intensity of their suffering due to this logic defies comprehension.

Even today, just look at what "regulated" industries are allowed to do to animals and imagine what they'd do if they weren't. It is nightmare fuel. Well, you don't need to imagine, you can have a look. Birds for instance, including parrots who can literally understand the language you speak and speak back to you, and experience traumas that are very similar to us, still have no legal protection in the US, they were excluded from the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and it has yet to be amended to take them into account. You can torture them for a lifetime as much as you want if you run a breeding and selling business-- and people do, and they deny that this is what they are doing. "surplus" birds are often put in a freezer to die slowly or left to starve in isolation instead of euthanized because their lives are worth less than the cost of the euthanasia. This is standard practice in the pet industry. I'm not even going to get into how much of them end up neglected, abused and abandoned because of the way this very profitable industry markets them.

Here's a right-wing website that looks at parrot intelligence:

"Some parrots are more intelligent than humans, on average."

"parrots demonstrate sophisticated problem solving abilities, they can communicate their desires, they can count, add and subtract, and remarkably, they even understand the concept of zero (more here and here). Other studies of cockatoos have established that they make and use their own tools (more here). Throughout the animal kingdom, parrots’ cognitive abilities and intellectual talents are only matched by corvids and primates."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscie...-parrots-so-intelligent/#3650e98c34e6

On May 10 2020 01:28 Stroggoz wrote: your demonstrating one example of regulatory failure, and there are many far worse ones from markets. A lot of market induced famines out there, especially in India through the 18th-19th century. The dependency of poor countries on food supplies is caused by market reform in the 1980's, that's been one of the main causal effects of food shortages ever since, including the one that is happening now. Of course these are not entirely caused by markets, there are rich countries subsidizing agriculture as well. That's one of the worst examples of state intervention. But they are definitely caused by the fanatcism of free market fundamentalism, as those are the priests that essentially push for this system. Need i go on to global warming? The fact is you ignore market failure and focus on regulatory failure, which is what makes you very religious. Citing millions of deaths from a regime that loco clearly states over and over again that he doesn't support is another example of your piety. The course of action is to recognize both systems create famines and support a third alternative one, that is more democratic and more decentralized, which is what many socialists, including myself, support.

I agree that both systems while in practice are very flawed and I also want a more democratic and decentrlized system, democratic in terms of true say in matters through purchase choice and also self-imposed localism, all these through voluntarism and not through cohersion by an individual or a mob.


Socialists don't get to call other systems "pipe dreams that in practice don't work" I mean, how on earth do you people not realize the irony?, so no you don't get to disociate from the failures of socialism in the last century, you eat them with a big spoon and then we can talk about the failures and realities of applied free-market systems.

On May 10 2020 11:26 Loco wrote: The harm goes well beyond market failures. A market can be a moral failure before it can become an economic failure. Just the notion that market value should dominate life is absurd and, dare I say, evil. If you're a being without a 'skill' to produce something deemed valuable for humans, or be a product with your own body, your life is considered worthless, if not "in the way of progress" and needing to be eradicated. And even when you are useful and necessary for the economy, you are treated as an expandable resource. Beyond humans, the number of animals that have been killed/tortured/left to die horrible deaths and the intensity of their suffering due to this logic defies comprehension. Even today, just look at what "regulated" industries are allowed to do to animals and imagine what they'd do if they weren't. It is nightmare fuel. Well, you don't need to imagine, you can have a look. Birds for instance, including parrots who can literally understand the language you speak and speak back to you, and experience traumas that are very similar to us, still have no legal protection in the US, they were excluded from the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and it has yet to be amended to take them into account. You can torture them for a lifetime as much as you want if you run a breeding and selling business-- and people do, and they deny that this is what they are doing. "surplus" birds are often put in a freezer to die slowly or left to starve in isolation instead of euthanized because their lives are worth less than the cost of the euthanasia. This is standard practice in the pet industry. I'm not even going to get into how much of them end up neglected, abused and abandoned because of the way this very profitable industry markets them. Here's a right-wing website that looks at parrot intelligence: "Some parrots are more intelligent than humans, on average." "parrots demonstrate sophisticated problem solving abilities, they can communicate their desires, they can count, add and subtract, and remarkably, they even understand the concept of zero (more here and here). Other studies of cockatoos have established that they make and use their own tools (more here). Throughout the animal kingdom, parrots’ cognitive abilities and intellectual talents are only matched by corvids and primates." https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscie...-parrots-so-intelligent/#3650e98c34e6

Are you in fact a parrot or a cockatoo? that would explain a lot.

On May 11 2020 01:15 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 10 2020 01:28 Stroggoz wrote: your demonstrating one example of regulatory failure, and there are many far worse ones from markets. A lot of market induced famines out there, especially in India through the 18th-19th century. The dependency of poor countries on food supplies is caused by market reform in the 1980's, that's been one of the main causal effects of food shortages ever since, including the one that is happening now. Of course these are not entirely caused by markets, there are rich countries subsidizing agriculture as well. That's one of the worst examples of state intervention. But they are definitely caused by the fanatcism of free market fundamentalism, as those are the priests that essentially push for this system. Need i go on to global warming? The fact is you ignore market failure and focus on regulatory failure, which is what makes you very religious. Citing millions of deaths from a regime that loco clearly states over and over again that he doesn't support is another example of your piety. The course of action is to recognize both systems create famines and support a third alternative one, that is more democratic and more decentralized, which is what many socialists, including myself, support. I agree that both systems while in practice are very flawed and I also want a more democratic and decentrlized system, democratic in terms of true say in matters through purchase choice and also self-imposed localism, all these through voluntarism and not through cohersion by an individual or a mob. Socialists don't get to call other systems "pipe dreams that in practice don't work" I mean, how on earth do you people not realize the irony?, so no you don't get to disociate from the failures of socialism in the last century, you eat them with a big spoon and then we can talk about the failures and realities of applied free-market systems.

You're not even beginning to address the argument that Stroggoz made. You just reverted back to the same old tired appeal to hypocrisy fallacy instead of addressing his actual criticism of the things that you do.

There is no equivalence between what Stroggoz and I are advocating and what you are advocating, because you continually avoiding dealing with the structural issues that are logical consequences of the system that you promote. You actively downplay them, ignore them, and think that "consumer power" can modify them, against all logic and evidence to the contrary. If I similarly believed and advocate for Marxist-Leninist or Maoist regimes, and refused to look at their contradictions, then your point would absolutely be valid.

But it isn't. The reason we promote a "third way" is because we actually do deal with those issues by studying and acknowledging the problems that have come from trying to move away from capitalism in those past regimes, both in theory and practice. I am also willing to deal with the arguments that pertain to human nature standing in the way of the realization of a classless society. I'm not a blind believer in the goodness of humans being. I am also not a historical materialist who thinks it's just a matter of time before socialism/communism wins out; I critique absolutely all of the dogmatic ideas I come across, whether they relate to capitalism or socialism.

The only reason you believe that we are "trying to dissociate ourselves from the horrors of socialism" is because you have no understanding of the various socialistic schools of thought and where some of them went wrong, and where others did not. It all comes down to your own refusal or inability to differentiate between them due to your lack of knowledge. You are prejudiced and egoically attached to the idea that they all amount to the same thing in the end, so you shouldn't put any effort in understanding them.

In fact, all of the regimes that you consider socialist or communist were not considered by Marx to be either of those things, and Marx predicted that they would fail at bringing about socialism/communism (both of which are understood in Marx's work to be moneyless and classless societies.) Marx stated that, since capital was a global force, socialism could only be a result of a global movement as well. Without this, there was no possibility of truly revolutionary forces, only reactionary ones.

So yes, it is a pipe dream to think socialism can happen by revolt in only one place in the world and as a result of strong state centralization. It is a pipe dream to think that there is a nation/country that is socialist today or that they are on their way to be so, under the definition given by Marx. There is no argument here. It's a boogeyman that you keep attacking in order to avoid having to think. It's too much hard work for you to deal with the real difficulties of political philosophy.

Everything that has been attempted, every society that had a goal towards socialism, did not benefit from international support. Some were hoping that they would, and thought they could stall until it happened, and some capitalized on the popularity of the ideology and perverted it for their own benefits. In the former case, hindsight is 20/20, they couldn't know and they weren't doing something morally wrong from my understanding; and in the later case, we should condemn it, and I do. I condemn Lenin, Stalin and Mao constantly, but you never condemn the Gates and Musk of this world, you are their apostle. You think billionaires and philanthropy are the answer to inequality despite being the primary engineer behind such inequality, and this is why your false equivalence between our attitudes is a joke.

On May 11 2020 01:21 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 10 2020 11:26 Loco wrote: The harm goes well beyond market failures. A market can be a moral failure before it can become an economic failure. Just the notion that market value should dominate life is absurd and, dare I say, evil. If you're a being without a 'skill' to produce something deemed valuable for humans, or be a product with your own body, your life is considered worthless, if not "in the way of progress" and needing to be eradicated. And even when you are useful and necessary for the economy, you are treated as an expandable resource. Beyond humans, the number of animals that have been killed/tortured/left to die horrible deaths and the intensity of their suffering due to this logic defies comprehension. Even today, just look at what "regulated" industries are allowed to do to animals and imagine what they'd do if they weren't. It is nightmare fuel. Well, you don't need to imagine, you can have a look. Birds for instance, including parrots who can literally understand the language you speak and speak back to you, and experience traumas that are very similar to us, still have no legal protection in the US, they were excluded from the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and it has yet to be amended to take them into account. You can torture them for a lifetime as much as you want if you run a breeding and selling business-- and people do, and they deny that this is what they are doing. "surplus" birds are often put in a freezer to die slowly or left to starve in isolation instead of euthanized because their lives are worth less than the cost of the euthanasia. This is standard practice in the pet industry. I'm not even going to get into how much of them end up neglected, abused and abandoned because of the way this very profitable industry markets them. Here's a right-wing website that looks at parrot intelligence: "Some parrots are more intelligent than humans, on average." "parrots demonstrate sophisticated problem solving abilities, they can communicate their desires, they can count, add and subtract, and remarkably, they even understand the concept of zero (more here and here). Other studies of cockatoos have established that they make and use their own tools (more here). Throughout the animal kingdom, parrots’ cognitive abilities and intellectual talents are only matched by corvids and primates." https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscie...-parrots-so-intelligent/#3650e98c34e6 Are you in fact a parrot or a cockatoo? that would explain a lot.

Just another one of the many examples of you downplaying/ignoring the harms of unregulated capitalism. The general message of your life philosophy: as long as it doesn't affect me, it's okay, or it's a non-issue.

The belief that you are fundamentally different from other animals, and that this imagined difference justifies your dominion over them, is also a belief that has its roots in religious thinking. It is best exemplified by the Judeo-Christian tradition:

"And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl in the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth..."

On May 11 2020 01:15 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 10 2020 01:28 Stroggoz wrote: your demonstrating one example of regulatory failure, and there are many far worse ones from markets. A lot of market induced famines out there, especially in India through the 18th-19th century. The dependency of poor countries on food supplies is caused by market reform in the 1980's, that's been one of the main causal effects of food shortages ever since, including the one that is happening now. Of course these are not entirely caused by markets, there are rich countries subsidizing agriculture as well. That's one of the worst examples of state intervention. But they are definitely caused by the fanatcism of free market fundamentalism, as those are the priests that essentially push for this system. Need i go on to global warming? The fact is you ignore market failure and focus on regulatory failure, which is what makes you very religious. Citing millions of deaths from a regime that loco clearly states over and over again that he doesn't support is another example of your piety. The course of action is to recognize both systems create famines and support a third alternative one, that is more democratic and more decentralized, which is what many socialists, including myself, support. I agree that both systems while in practice are very flawed and I also want a more democratic and decentrlized system, democratic in terms of true say in matters through purchase choice and also self-imposed localism, all these through voluntarism and not through cohersion by an individual or a mob. Socialists don't get to call other systems "pipe dreams that in practice don't work" I mean, how on earth do you people not realize the irony?, so no you don't get to disociate from the failures of socialism in the last century, you eat them with a big spoon and then we can talk about the failures and realities of applied free-market systems.

relying on individual research into what people buy is a big inefficiency imo, I know very few people that looked into say the global supply chains of their copper wiring on the micro-processors in their computers, and it's very time consuming to do that, then you have to do it for every product you buy. If they did do that, they'd find the australian MNC Rio Tinto funding state violence in melanesia. Ok so like 0.1% of the population does know this. People could be informed by the media, but that almost necessarily requires going against the religion that markets know best, since no market based media would survive if they covered stories like this on a daily basis.

The other comment i've already addressed. Im fine with any free marketer saying that free markets have never existed (fully), because that is quite true given the interdependence of the economic system, and the huge state intervention in favour of big companies. What im against is when they cheerlead something like globalization, and say, ignore the whole free market mantra is based on a hypocrisy. That's what made milton friedman a commissar. Though it's impossible to empirically test what a laissie faire market system would be like, it's pretty easy to poke holes in it.

[

On May 11 2020 07:57 Loco wrote: *The same backwards arguments he keeps repeating*

- You keep insisting that the free market can't improve, it will inevitably end in this crony corporatism or even worse, people cannot change to be more consciouis of their purchases, while at the same time supporting the notion that people will change drastically leave egotism behind and clean toilets for free and that "tAth waSn'T rEaL SoCialiSM"

So small changes in behaviour to a system that in practice works (suboptimally) cannot be done... however major changes in behavriour to a system that in practice has resulted in the starvation of millions now that can be done... lol ok buddy.

On May 11 2020 07:57 Loco wrote: Just another one of the many examples of you downplaying/ignoring the harms of unregulated capitalism. The general message of your life philosophy: as long as it doesn't affect me, it's okay, or it's a non-issue. The belief that you are fundamentally different from other animals, and that this imagined difference justifies your dominion over them, is also a belief that has its roots in religious thinking. It is best exemplified by the Judeo-Christian tradition: "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl in the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth..."

- yeah, everybody is a psychopath who doesn't care about things that don't affect them, you are the only being capable of empathy oh wise master, please enlighten us.

- When have I stated that Im fundamentally different than other animals? I consider us a species of primates slightly more intelligente than th others.

- Oh... you got me, all these years of aggressive anti-theism while I'm in fact.. a Judeo-Christian, you moron. Also almost all religions in the world consume animals, except veganism (maximum trolling.jpg)



In fact I've said before that I mostly agree with your moral positions regarding animals, but these things fly over your head as I've been saying these years, you don't argue against me, you argue against some kind of straw-man of myself, its bizarre.

I mocked your post because we are talking about capitalism and you jump to "oh capitalism bad because it kills cockatoos", such a ridiculous thing to do unless you were a cockatoo, and I'm starting to believe thats your furry persona, do you know who ate a lot of animals? the soviets, oh right, "not real socialism" well guess who was a vegetarian? yeah you know, now shut the fuck up with these ridiculous "all evil comes from capitalism" arguments, we get more than enough of our dose of these stupid takes with RiKD thank you.

On May 11 2020 08:58 Stroggoz wrote: relying on individual research into what people buy is a big inefficiency imo, I know very few people that looked into say the global supply chains of their copper wiring on the micro-processors in their computers, and it's very time consuming to do that, then you have to do it for every product you buy. If they did do that, they'd find the australian MNC Rio Tinto funding state violence in melanesia. Ok so like 0.1% of the population does know this. People could be informed by the media, but that almost necessarily requires going against the religion that markets know best, since no market based media would survive if they covered stories like this on a daily basis. The other comment i've already addressed. Im fine with any free marketer saying that free markets have never existed (fully), because that is quite true given the interdependence of the economic system, and the huge state intervention in favour of big companies. What im against is when they cheerlead something like globalization, and say, ignore the whole free market mantra is based on a hypocrisy. That's what made milton friedman a commissar. Though it's impossible to empirically test what a laissie faire market system would be like, it's pretty easy to poke holes in it.

We currently have many rating systems that solve that problem that companies pay to have this approval even in the private sector, Kosher for food products, ISO for industries etc, these rating agencies will exist to provide the stamp of approval and will be far more resistant to corruption and bureocracy than the state ones (FDA, EPA etc).

If you are willing to say free market has never existed and can be pursued then I'm willing to say socialilsm has never existed and can be pursued and we can continue the discussion on that, but, if like Loco somebody says this is the inevitable form of the free market while at the same time disociating from the horrors of past attempts of socialism thats where I stop any further discussion because these people are clearly intellectually dishonest.

Its not empirically impossible to test it, and these hole poking is mostly "would you be able to sell your slave-child organs?" which just picture a cartoonish world depict of any morality whatsoever, perhaps thats sadly how many leftits truly picture the individual in the absence of a state.

On May 14 2020 22:23 Baalim wrote: We currently have many rating systems that solve that problem that companies pay to have this approval even in the private sector, Kosher for food products, ISO for industries etc, these rating agencies will exist to provide the stamp of approval and will be far more resistant to corruption and bureocracy than the state ones (FDA, EPA etc).

How so exactly? If anything the existing banking system and rating system revolving finances is the best possible example of how semi-central point of authority agencies are complete dogshit. And I can only imagine how much worse would it get if that sector wasn't regulated.

You might argue that the existing 1% is using the government through bailouts etc to keep them there safely, which is true, except how would a completely free market be any different? People do NOT have the time to research every decision they make, they need to rely on authority, guess what would happen to those "authority figures"

On May 14 2020 22:23 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 11 2020 08:58 Stroggoz wrote: relying on individual research into what people buy is a big inefficiency imo, I know very few people that looked into say the global supply chains of their copper wiring on the micro-processors in their computers, and it's very time consuming to do that, then you have to do it for every product you buy. If they did do that, they'd find the australian MNC Rio Tinto funding state violence in melanesia. Ok so like 0.1% of the population does know this. People could be informed by the media, but that almost necessarily requires going against the religion that markets know best, since no market based media would survive if they covered stories like this on a daily basis. The other comment i've already addressed. Im fine with any free marketer saying that free markets have never existed (fully), because that is quite true given the interdependence of the economic system, and the huge state intervention in favour of big companies. What im against is when they cheerlead something like globalization, and say, ignore the whole free market mantra is based on a hypocrisy. That's what made milton friedman a commissar. Though it's impossible to empirically test what a laissie faire market system would be like, it's pretty easy to poke holes in it. We currently have many rating systems that solve that problem that companies pay to have this approval even in the private sector, Kosher for food products, ISO for industries etc, these rating agencies will exist to provide the stamp of approval and will be far more resistant to corruption and bureocracy than the state ones (FDA, EPA etc). If you are willing to say free market has never existed and can be pursued then I'm willing to say socialilsm has never existed and can be pursued and we can continue the discussion on that, but, if like Loco somebody says this is the inevitable form of the free market while at the same time disociating from the horrors of past attempts of socialism thats where I stop any further discussion because these people are clearly intellectually dishonest. Its not empirically impossible to test it, and these hole poking is mostly "would you be able to sell your slave-child organs?" which just picture a cartoonish world depict of any morality whatsoever, perhaps thats sadly how many leftits truly picture the individual in the absence of a state.

Shouldn't your intellectual honesty be independent of your perceived intellectual honesty of other posters?

On May 14 2020 23:58 Spitfiree wrote: How so exactly? If anything the existing banking system and rating system revolving finances is the best possible example of how semi-central point of authority agencies are complete dogshit. And I can only imagine how much worse would it get if that sector wasn't regulated. You might argue that the existing 1% is using the government through bailouts etc to keep them there safely, which is true, except how would a completely free market be any different? People do NOT have the time to research every decision they make, they need to rely on authority, guess what would happen to those "authority figures"

I mentioned two examples out of the top of my head and your counter is mentioning SEC controlled credit rating institutions? lol yeah banking is such a good example of free market.. except its exactly the opposite, also it doesn't have to be centralized, if Loco were to tell me that certain food is ethically sourced i'd believe him and it would save me a lot of trouble and that would be the least centralized method you can imagine.

In the free market its much more difficult to keep monopolies afloat, even with capital leverage the bigger an entity the more inefficient it becomes, inequality will still be a reality of course, but the game would be more fair and potential to create and lose wealth would be much higher.

Private rating agencies rely on their reputation, corruption would lead to the loss of this reputation and they would lose customers (companies paying for their seal of approval which now means less), so the company is economically incentivized to have a pristine reputation, unlike the FDA... if the FDA does something corrupt what is going to happen? nothing its a state monopoly with no accountability.