Boeing effectively lobbied to regulate others out of existence. Bought off who they could, then won grants and contracts because there was no one else.

Can you elaborate? How was Boeing subsidized in this instance and SpaceX not? It's my understanding that it was closer to the other way around. Both Boeing and SpaceX won commercial crew contracts, but Boeing (at the time) had a stronger track record. It was a strategic move by NASA to not put all their eggs in one basket and it worked out well by subsidizing the early dark horse (SpaceX).

Are we going to pretend 737MAX wasn't grounded for a year and half after 2 devastating crashes killing 346 people? I think a world without Boeing would have been clearly better?

I seriously think you should consider reading the history of air travel, they don't say "regulations are written down in blood" for no reason. There's been many an accident due to a mechanical fault that's eventually remedied.

Its a tragedy but you seriously have to take a breath and think a little. If you want to get into a pissing contest over aircraft manufacturers, the air France 447 (airbus plane) crash was largely caused by the inputs being averaged together. On a Boeing plane, the inputs are synced (one side pushes down, the other side goes down as well). Maybe we should eliminate airbus as well.

You can't call Airbus's design decision to average the inputs a "mechanical fault", somehow that got approved by regulators.

You are damning Airbus with the same attack you are aiming at Boeing.

The 737-MAX crashes are absolutely horrific and how the FAA responded was terrible. The design was shit and should have had better review, same for Airbus and what caused France 447.