With protest over police abuse (whether true or not) and the new digital age of spying and data collection, now is a good time for professional rating agencies that has real power to rate law enforcement.  Every citizen would declare what rating agency they trust and that trust gives real power to the rating agency inspectors to dig deep into what law enforcement is doing. 
  At certain levels of abuse, they, the Oversight Board, would have real power to change internal affairs personnel or bring additional people in with real power to make changes.  These inspectors would be highly trained and need to have law enforcement experiences with excellent reputations.  These inspectors, with this great power, would need high ratings on themselves to ensure great professionalism and root out corruption. 
Data collection is becoming a major privacy issue and needs to be controlled.  Rating agencies will have major power and the highest levels of authority to dig deep into everything law enforcement is doing.  Private law enforcement companies will also be greatly monitored by rating agencies as well.  With great ability to gather information on people, rating agencies, would need to keep a constant watch to ensure lines are not crossed
There are certainly legitimate uses for data collection.  In the great balance between allowing a guilty person to be set free and convicting an innocent person, it is vital that we give law enforcement plenty of tools to ensure the correct person is convict of a heinous crime.  We do not want a murderer to be set free to murder again or an innocent person to pay the price of a crime they did not commit.  The more information available, the less errors will occur.
Rating agencies official inspectors will have the real power to put in measures to ensure the best practices in stopping abuses and allowing information and data collection to be used wisely.  The very real and serious choice every citizen has in determining what rating agency they trust, will give that rating agency more power in these areas.    


In lieu of tax supported welfare, people will be mandated to donate to charities. People will likely choose Charitable Distribution Associations (CDAs) they agree with and has high ratings.  CDA’s ratings will reflect the ratings of the charities they fund. 

There are many ways of looking at how well a charity does with the money they spend.  Some just look at percentages of administrative cost verse aid given out.  I do not think that is nearly dynamic enough. Some administrators do a lot of work in the field and a simple percentage does not capture the true help.  Others give out a high percentage in aid, however that aid is not the most productive in achieving the stated goals.
Some charities goals requires little oversight and most can go out in just aid as in funding cancer research, where others, the aid is very labor intensive as in running a homeless shelter. Other issues complicate the matter.  Is the administrators of the cancer research facility factored in to administrative cost of the charity, or should it be.  How is it determined whether the aid is ‘doing the most good’?
Are high percentages of advertising worth it if the ads bring in more money and give a higher dollar amount to the people in need? The dynamic of determining a good rating is very high.  All these questions among many more will be answered in many different ways by different people and groups.  The structure of the rating system requires many rating agencies each with a different way or philosophy of determining worth, value, and even what is desired.   

Volunteer Hours  

Volunteer Hours will be rated.  When many people hear about volunteer hours they might envision 15 highly trained professionals standing behind a table ladling soup to 4 homeless men.  Not only would that be foolish and unproductive it would certainly receive very low ratings.
While there would be a minimum rating, the likelihood would be advances in productivity of the volunteer hours. Many people would work extra hours in the regular job without pay to meet the volunteer hour requirements while others would just pay the $1,500 a year.  The beauty of these plan is that once someone begins ‘doing good’ they are more likely to give even more hours than required.      
Assessor's Organizations
Assessor Organizations will be critical in rating.  These are people that specialize in determining a person’s or family’s needs.  They examine when help becomes enabling and when those receiving aid needs to give additional volunteer hours.  These people would be experts at bringing able-bodied people out poverty and those challenged with aid and the self-worth of working where they can.   

People when determining where to give there charity money or their volunteer hours would look at the rating agencies they trust and look at the philosophy of the CDA and charity and will make their choice of how they will help those in need.
The simple answer is that the only items mandated to be rated by law are items that are currently regulated.  If government is going to stop ensuring standards by regulating businesses, the consumers will need a way determine what standard a business is using.
While it would be very likely that many rating systems would emerge on their own, I believe the structure used in this rating system would allow a wide variety of rating systems with many models.  This structure creates some standardizations and ensures that every business would have a ratings. 

Currently customer service or ‘a good job’ is not ensured by government regulations, these are taking care of by Angie’s list, Yelp, ‘the best of’, Zagat among others.  While these might dynamically be included in the ratings of the Haley2024 rating system, the mandate is to only rate what is no longer regulated by government.  
I do not intend to diminish any current rating organizations, many are well meaning and try to give real, valid and serious feedback about businesses and organizations.  Trust is hard to build up and among many rating organizations that are created or co-opted by a business for the sole purpose to giving the business awards or cover for some practices.  The Better Business Bureau (BBB) is a good example of an organization that people trust and one of the few that would likely transition to a CRA organizations that handle many sectors.

Anecdotal can be just fine however it is limited to the customer’s experience.  The Ratings system will use the very important customer feedback however will go deeper. Few agencies put procedures in place to only get real feedback verses competitors lies, however most do not.  The Rating System will be well funded to have a very good system to capture real information.   

Confirmation Complications 
Anecdotal can be just fine however it is limited to the customer’s experience and the honesty of those give and collecting the data.  The Ratings system will use the very important customer feedback however will go deeper. Few agencies put procedures in place to only get real feedback verses competitor’s lies or cherry picked information, however most do not.  The Rating System will be well funded to have a very good system to capture real information.   

Many people have heard about a TV report showing one restaurant with issues and or someone’s complaint over an issue.  True or not, this often does not give a complete picture of the business.  There has never been a restaurant without an insect or rodent at one time or another.  The big issue is how many, where and for how long.  TV reporters often give a snapshot that can often be misleading by not putting everything into prospective with long term real evidence and comparisons.       

Companies will frequently advertise that they have high standards in one area as to improve their brand, thus sales.  This can give a very incomplete picture of the company.  The rating system looks at the company overall and across longer time frames.  

Notice, this sign does not site a website or a agency where customers can confirm the claim.

Externality Mitigation

There are certain sectors of our economy that are currently illegal or greatly curtailed by regulations.  They are trying to prohibit an activity that does harm.  Often these regulations or prohibitions do more harm than good.  The crime surrounding the evasion of the laws bring to affect others. 
When people break these laws they bring negative consequences to the society at large. There are two common ways to deal with these issues, to prohibit or to allow.  However, I propose a third way, opening up a wide variety of methods to deal with this issue.  All companies wanting to do activity that harms the person doing that activity or the general public, needs to have a certain rating on externality mitigation.
 First Competitive Regulatory Agencies and the Rating system would need to be in place.  The claim and evidence needs to be submitted to the rating system, that actions are harming the people in the transaction or society at large.  If the evidence is strong enough, people or business doing the transactions would have to pay for mitigation.  
Whether it is side effects of drugs, pollution, gambling, drinking, extreme sports, among others that negative externalities, programs would need to be funded such as A.A., gamblers anonymous, detox centers, or a medical fund to deal with injuries resulting from risky activity.  Each CRA would have to increase funding until a certain rating was achieved, thus motivating CRA’s to be very effective.     
Pollution and the environment can be more complicated, thus not conducive to government regulatory control.  Manufacturing, farming among other businesses all have negative side effects on the environment.  The balance of whether it is ‘worth it’ is very subjective.   Having food, manufactured goods among others enrich our lives greatly, however have an effect.     
Competing rating agencies will look at EPA issues VERY differently.  Everyone puts their trust, thus their power in a rating agency.  The combined ratings will be powerful in the marketplace because people will shun low EPA rated products.  However, there would still need to be a fund for negative externality mitigation with low rated businesses paying higher amounts.  This fund would help clean up the environment.    
This rating would be very dynamic because it is very difficult to determined counterfactuals in an ever changing landscape.  Governments could set different ratings however realizing too high of a rating could become counterproductive.  Many states would experiment with different levels of mandated rating levels and that would be rated as well. 
Many who drink or do drugs desire to alter their mood and feel ‘light headed and forgetful’ as to take away their emotion pain.  Right or wrong, the desire is there and laws do not stop this.  Currently the FDA does not allow drugs just for this purpose.  

With the demand for mind altering drugs so high there would be many who would compete in creating a certain drug that achieves the desired effects with the lowest negative side effects possible and without addictions.  The competition would allow for safer drugs to emerge.

However, a fund will be set up to treat people harmed.  The lowest rated business will have to pay larger percentages.  Gambling, pornography, prostitution and among others would all fall under CRA’s and would need high ratings of mitigating negative externalities.     

Many policies currently regulated related to campaigns can be regulated by campaign Competitive Regulatory Agencies.  Rating all the issues related to openness, limits and whom can contribute among others would be critical for voters to have information and analyzing from rating agencies that you trust.  Corruption and the appearance of impropriety would also be rated.
Click to watch the 60 minutes story
There are those that are well read; they study a lot.  However, without massive amounts of hours of digging deep into Target and all the others, they have little idea whether Target's identity security is more or less than Walmart, Sears, Kmart, or others.  Many that pay close attention to the news have come to  distrust the news for accurate information.  Sometimes the information is accurate, however stated in such a way that is highly unfair.  

Every restaurant will have an occasional ant, bug or rodent issue.  Having a reporter only give his or her audience a list of bugs of a non-advertising restaurant and not of a friend's restaurant can be totally truthful, however very misleading.  

A news reporter could come on TV and state truthfully that there has been an explosion on the sun so big that it would swallow the entire state of Texas.  He could further state that the scientist claim the effects of that explosion will reach earth in 8 minutes.  He could give the amount of heat and the different forms it will take.  He could be totally truthful and without giving context, he could cause a panic.  My point is, media can take things way out of context.
While we currently have 3 big firms analyzing, they are heavily controlled by the government.
Giving truthful information is only half of the story.  Carefully analyzing the data is highly important and very powerful.  Different people have different thoughts on how things need to be analyzed, therefore many different groups will analyze the data and rate.  Everyone will pick which group they choose to trust. Haley2024 rating agencies only answer to those that give them their trust. 

How well do these rating really tell a consumer about the business they are considering visiting?  While it would be difficult for a lousy company to win this award, there are real issues here.  
The competition for these awards shows that businesses will compete for reputation. 


How does someone win?  First, businesses have considerable campaigns for people to vote for them.  There is Facebook with links, email, ads, posters and other innovative methods to try to get the votes.  Does the business with the best campaign wins or the one with the most satisfied customers?

When someone votes, how in-depth are they researching?  Mostly skin deep.  How well do they know worker safety, HR issues, environmental protection, food safety, levels of insurance, levels of ethics, and a whole host of other concerns.  These items are currently very hard to determine, not just with the company you know, but also their competition.  Many will claim that much of this is not their business, that they just want the product or service.  However, if people knew that employees worked in a dangerous environment, animals were routinely harmed, the disabled were not even given a chance, unnecessary polluting was not corrected or a host of other ills unseen by the consumer, many would choose another business that had better records on these issues.  
The structure of the system currently is that information is highly valuable to consumers however seldom collected and analyzed properly. My rating system creates valuable knowledge that is easily disseminated widely.  With mandated signs and cell phone apps all business could scrutinize every decision; currently the knowledge that would affect their overall rating is hidden.  Every business will be in competition for the best rating on all the sectors of the business and will soon realize that there would have to discount their prices to compensate for lower ratings.
Rating agencies and consumers would keep CRA's in check.  If a regulatory agencies cuts corners on standards, the ratings would reflect that quickly and consumers would respond with less business to those businesses.  Those business seeing a loss of business would put pressure to increase the standards back up to regain the business. 
Every business would have the right to change CRA’s to match their desire and business needs.   No business or CRA would have the ability to go to the rating agency to lobby or bribe for better ratings because there would be too many rating agencies to deal with.  Rating agencies would be working for those people that give them their ‘trust’ and the more people giving trust brings in more money for the rating agency.   

Many liberals would be completely opposed and rate very low people allowed to eat rare animals, however some could rate it high if the population of these animals grow to meet the demand.  Each person makes their decision educated by the rating agency they trust.

This is a major issue showing the why there needs to competing rating agencies. 

    Bill Haley

      Bill Haley started Haley2024 in the spring of 2013 in an effort to his part in restoring freedom to America.


    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014