[mighty_bander]

It's interesting seeing the American perspective on this. The perpetual mistrust of government would, I think, be warranted were that government not elected by the populace. As it is, I am a little confused why the same skepticism is not directed at the for-profit entities now operating the credit scoring system.

[maehwasu]

The government is elected by about a quarter of the populace, and even the winning quarter is often dissatisfied at the lack of control it exerts over its representatives.

Democratic representation is one of the leakiest abstractions ever devised.

[mxcrossb]

The main goal of restricting a governments power isn’t to stop corruption, but to prevent tyranny of the majority [1]. A government elected by the populace is little comfort to minorities.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[pinneycolton]

Remember that half the population loves the government, half hates it, and they think both one another are evil incarnate. Logic breaks down a bit when that kind of irrational vitriol enters the equation.

[guerrilla]

> As it is, I am a little confused why the same skepticism is not directed at the for-profit entities now operating the credit scoring system.

Effective PR?

[pilsetnieks]

It's also interesting seeing the American perspective arguing about who is allowed to do credit ratings and who isn't, and why.

Why not do away with the whole concept of credit rating entirely? In Europe we have government (or government adjacent entities) run credit report systems but the only data they get and you get out of them is if you've ever been delinquent (thanks to the GDPR - before that they shared more info.) And even then you have to be a registered financial institution to even be able to ask for the info. There's no scoring or rating based on how well you've performed as a consumer with your credit cards or whatnot, just a red flag in case you're a serious risk of nonpayment.

[danShumway]

It's not really surprising considering how many people dislike the current administration.

People don't trust credit industries or the government. But with the stories popping around ICE, with the history of government registries like the no-fly list and the terrorism watch list that just got declared unconstitutional after over a decade...

Right or wrong, I think some people believe that government corruption is more dangerous than industry corruption. You have to put all of Bernie's policies into the context of, "Trump probably wasn't an aberration, and we probably will get another administration like this at some point in the future, even if it's a decade from now." American politics are pretty predictable over the long run: we have regular party swaps, and occasionally they line up so one party controls both the presidency and Congress. The wild card there is the Supreme Court, but (packing debates aside) that's likely going to remain Republican-controlled for a reasonably long time.

So odds are pretty good that anything we build now is something that Trump v2 will some day get to control.

With that in mind, remember that we've pretty recently had debates about whether or not the census was going to include a citizenship question, and whether or not the trademark office could ask for green cards. For all of Equifax's (many) faults, it's not as trivial for an administration to get to start actively disenfranchising immigrants.

People do want the credit industry to be regulated, and they want the ability to opt-out of at least some credit reporting. But they're also nervous about building a system where the people who decide the rules are the same people who run the system. The ability to apply for credit is so ridiculously important for so many people. It would give Trump v2 a lot of additional power to target unpopular groups.