N. Carolina May Ban Tesla Sales To Prevent "Unfair Competition"

nametaken writes with this excerpt from Slate: "From the state that brought you the nation's first ban on climate science comes another legislative gem: a bill that would prohibit automakers from selling their cars in the state. The proposal, which the Raleigh News & Observer reports was unanimously approved by the state's Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, would apply to all car manufacturers, but the intended target is clear. It's aimed at Tesla, the only U.S. automaker whose business model relies on selling cars directly to consumers, rather than through a network of third-party dealerships. ... [The article adds] it's easy to understand why some car dealers might feel a little threatened: Tesla's Model S outsold the Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8 last quarter without any help from them. If its business model were to catch on, consumers might find that they don't need the middle-men as much as they thought." State laws imposing restrictions on manufacturers in favor of dealers aren't new, though; For more on ways that franchise operations have "used state regulations to protect their profits" long before Tesla was in the picture, check out this 2009 interview with Duke University's Michael Munger.

Comments

The best part of the article is at the bottom

[LNO]

It's just more money-in-politics. The sponsor is State Senator Tom Apodeca, who received the maximum amount allowed ($8000) in campaign contributions from the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association. Of course, they are AGHAST at the idea that they've got a financial stake in this...

Robert Glaser, president of the dealers association, told the News & Observer that the law prohibiting Tesla sales isn’t just about his industry’s self-interest. Pointing to the Tesla representatives at a recent hearing, he said, “You tell me they’re gonna support the little leagues and the YMCA?”

If that’s the real issue, then I may have some good news for all concerned: I asked O’Connell, and he assured me Tesla would be happy to support the little leagues and the YMCA if that’s what North Carolina requires in order to do business there. Problem solved! Right, Mr. Glaser?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[LordLimecat]

I have a feeling hes sincere, and really doesnt get that it is almost always better when money for that sort of stuff is spent directly by community members rather than indirectly through a middleman. What if someone buying a car doesnt want to support the YMCA?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[benjfowler]

Looks like a pretty blatant act of political corruption to me.

The only REAL problem here, is that in the US, this kind of corruption is perfectly legal.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[zmaragdus]

This shouldn't be any surprise. It happens all the time in politics across the nation (heck, across the globe). This is yet another prime example of the perversion of impartiality through the channel of lobbying. I certainly agree that such tactics are underhanded. Perhaps we should change the term "lobbying" to "legalized bribery"

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[TWiTfan]

blatant act of political corruption

In the South, we just call that "politics."

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I really don't understand why we still allow campaign contributions to specific politicians. IMO, this is the single biggest flaw in our political system currently. All contributions should be pooled and divided equally among all candidates. This should have been dealt with decades ago..

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[ArcadeMan]

The word "lobbying" was created to replace "bribery".

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Holi]

You can support your candidate of choice by voting for them. I personally think all contributions should be banned and campaigns run via public funds. That way all candidates have a level playing field where their policies differentiate them.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Looks like a pretty blatant act of political corruption to me.

The only REAL problem here, is that in the US, this kind of corruption is perfectly legal.

It's a great pity. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act actually provides fairly robust(by the standards of white collar crime) penalties for companies that do business in the US and also engage in bribery in foreignistan or wherever.

The 'Domestic Corrupt Practices Act', by contrast, does not exist.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[drinkypoo]

A compromise system might be the best solution. When you contribute funds to a campaign, half of your contribution goes into the fund which is evenly distributed between all candidates with enough petition signatures or whatever to get on the ballot. Getting on the ballot is gamed as it is, but I'm not sure on what other basis you can reasonably and meaningfully disburse funds.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[GodfatherofSoul]

OK that sounds good at only the most cursory level. What happens when you've got Brad Pitt running against Igor in a world's sexiest man poll? Brad Pitt gets $1 million from giggling housewives and Igor gets $50 from his mom. Should both end up with equal financial backing? That's an invitation for any yahoo who can get their 10K signatures to ask for a cut of the pie.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

You support your candidate by voting for him.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[tlhIngan]

I really don't understand why we still allow campaign contributions to specific politicians. IMO, this is the single biggest flaw in our political system currently. All contributions should be pooled and divided equally among all candidates. This should have been dealt with decades ago..

Actually, what would help is removing tax incentives for donations for political purposes. So whether it's a campaign contribution or whatever, it's paid with after tax dollars like you would buy any other thing.

In fact, the tax code is complex enough that in some cases, it's more beneficial to give $10 to a political party (or person) than it is to give that same $10 to a charity! This is direct tax benefits, not just indirect benefits, at that.

Oh, and for a time, Canada had that system - every party had a fixed amount of money which went to each party (something like $1.25 per vote). The Harper Government got rid of it for two reasons - 1) because people don't want to support something they didn't vote for, and 2) government shouldn't be wasting tax money.

1) is obviously false because they voted for them, so it's obvious they wanted to support the party. Your vote is paid for by your taxes so regardless of who you voted for, you're paying for that through your taxes. The only person who would complain is those that didn't vote, which is their fault, really.

2) Well, the real case is "keep the Conservatives in power" because they failed to bring in any other measures like well, get rid of tax incentives (would hurt them), or reduce the donation limit from $5000 per person to $1000 per person (again, would hurt them).

So really, in the end, it's seen as a political ploy.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[benjfowler]

I think saying that something unethical and clearly criminal in nature shouldn't be illegal, because it's hard to detect and prosecute, is a bit like putting a cart before the horse. You don't respond by making it legal: you keep it illegal and prosecute it vigourously, but you also look at how the incentives work, and fix those.

There are approaches to fighting corruption which work: Singapore is a model case of clean government, in a part of the world absolutely rotten with corruption. The trouble here is that paying politicians and public servants properly would be vulnerable to attack by populist political movements, who are ignorant of the way the real world works -- some politicians have as much responsibility, and far more accountability than C-suite executives in the private sector, but get paid nowhere near as much.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[trum4n]

When that yahoo would be a welcome replacement, yea it's fair. I'd take the naked cowboy from NYC over guys like Mitt Romney.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[ShanghaiBill]

You can support your candidate of choice by voting for them. I personally think all contributions should be banned and campaigns run via public funds. That way all candidates have a level playing field where their policies differentiate them.

Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents. It takes more money and publicity to mount a challenge than to defend an incumbency. Even the current limits on campaign contributions have greatly increased the percentage of politicians that get re-elected, while also greatly increasing the number of millionaires in congress, since they can just use their own money. This is not necessarily all bad, since rich people may be less corruptible, since they don't need the money.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[organgtool]

I really don't understand why we still allow campaign contributions to specific politicians

I really don't understand why we still allow campaign contributions to anyone. You are right in that this is the biggest issue in this country right now because the effect of this is the complete subversion of the democratic process - politicians are creating laws that favor a minority of special interest groups at the detriment of all of the citizens those "public servants" are supposed to represent. This systemic form of bribery taints the vote of every piece of legislation that comes up which is why changing this needs to be our top priority. However, it is not an easy problem to solve since the only way to end private campaign contributions is to pass new legislation, which can only be done by politicians who have won and continue to win elections thanks to private campaign contributions. At this point, I think the only peaceful way to force this change is either directly through the use of a referendum or indirectly via a petition that a majority of the people sign that promises to vote out the current politicians unless they pass legislation that bans all forms of private campaign contributions. For the latter, you could either vote for the "other guy" during the election or vote out the current politician during the primary. One thing is for certain, though: they aren't going to fix this without extreme pressure from the voters.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[organgtool]

Support the candidate you believe in with your mouth and with your vote. As soon as you bring money into the picture, you are introducing corruption that violates the purpose of democratic elections in the first place.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[drakaan]

...You mean "government never spends its own money", I think. Government spends the money of its citizens and businesses operating within its boundaries after collecting it via taxes.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[desdinova 216]

blatant act of political corruption

In the US, we just call that "politics."

FTFAccuracy

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[WGFCrafty]

This is not necessarily all bad, since rich people may be less corruptible, since they don't need the money.

Uh, what?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[chemicaldave]

In the US they also have the ability to sue the government if they believe it's unconstitutional.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Lumpy]

"The only REAL problem here, is that in the US, this kind of corruption is perfectly legal."

only because Americans are far too lazy to form an angry mob, go to his home and tar and feather the scumbag. Politicians would actually work for the people if they were assaulted regularly for being dirty.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Mysticalfruit]

I'd be much more okay with it if they were forced to wear a jumpsuit ala Nascar style with all their sponsors on it. The big patch across the back... that's 100k sponsor... the small 5" x 5" patch... that's 5k... etc.

Then by just looking at their jumpsuit we'd know immediately where their allegiances lie.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[tnk1]

Which would just encourage more corruption by making sure that the representative required protection from various interests who could send over some protection to make sure that the angry mob was opposed and dispersed.

Sometimes representatives can do things in completely good faith that others will form a mob and go after them for. Suggesting mob justice is just pushing those representatives into the hands of people who can protect them from that. That, or only the representatives who already have the ability to protect themselves will be able to work in government.

I'm not fond of corruption, but at least the dependence of the representatives is not overtly represented by teams of paid retainers or bodyguards.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[pnutjam]

I hope you are helping with the solution: https://movetoamend.org/

Money is not speech, corporations are not people.

Right now it's like we are electing whoever can hit one of those bell ringing carnival games the hardest...

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[pnutjam]

Do you seriously believe that? Want is much more dangerous then need. I've seen principled people turn away from need.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[jader3rd]

Looks like a pretty blatant act of political corruption to me.

The only REAL problem here, is that in the US, this kind of corruption is perfectly legal.

Not in this case. This is a case of "What else can a state do?" States have limited options on how to encourage business in their state. Generally 'job creating' measures really mean 'taking jobs from other states'. The net jobs created in the US are 0, and the different states fight over some job relocations. In this instance the state legislature is trying to look good to their local small businesses (ie car dealerships) by enacting protectionist legislation. Even if they didn't get any campaign donations, they can use this act at "I protect local businesses" in their next campaign.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I hope for his sake that he's just a lying fuckwad; because if he said that sincerely, then he's dumber than a sack of hammers...

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[VIPERsssss]

“You tell me they’re gonna support the little leagues and the YMCA?”

Sorry, not bootstrappy enough comrade Glaser.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[mrchaotica]

What happens when you've got Brad Pitt running against Igor in a world's sexiest man poll? Brad Pitt gets $1 million from giggling housewives and Igor gets $50 from his mom. Should both end up with equal financial backing?

Maybe Igor's mom is a billionaire, and gives him $50 million dollars instead. Does that still sound like a good plan?

(Replace "Igor" with any actual politician and "Igor's mom" with any special interest group as necessary.)

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

I think by New York or New Jersey standards, Southern corruption is quaint and gentlemanly.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[interval1066]

The number of lawmakers in California who have interests in car dealerships is staggering. I'd be truly surprised if the number is less in the Carolinas.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[fl!ptop]

Money is not speech

Perhaps, but my freedom to spend my money as i see fit, on the candidate or candidates of my choosing, is protected under the 1st Amendment.

corporations are not people

True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[bugs2squash]

Or at least have the US house and Senate host websites with a web service that lists sponsors and amounts for each member (and maybe even each candidate for election). That way instead of just seeing "Bob Fart (D, SC)" in a news story we can see the top few sponsors or more if we follow a link. Make it a felony not to update it within 48 hours.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[interval1066]

It might help if politicians didn't have commercial insterest in bills that are before them. I really don't see the worth of have a pack of bosses who have car dealerships vote on anything that has to do with car dealerships. Of course they're going to vote status quo.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[gorzek]

It's bad because rich people are inclined to only look out for their fellow rich people. No "corruption" is required there, just self-interest.

What I find even worse is that over a third of the House and over half the Senate are made up of lawyers. So, here you have people who practiced law for a living, got into Congress to make laws, then will get out and practice law some more. Gee, it's hard to imagine how any conflicts of interest might arise there.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

My concern with that amendment is that I don't understand how it protects newspapers and other traditional media outlets. It seems like the government could go after the free press using that amendment.

While we're monkeying around with corporate personage, I think we should probably reform the concept of limited liability. Maybe not for passive investors, but certainly for the people actively making decisions.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Antipater]

Quaint and gentlemanly? Louisiana would like a word with you.

Louisiana had the highest murder rate of any state in 2010 (11.2 murders per 100,000) which marked the 22nd consecutive year (1989–2010) that Louisiana has posted the highest per-capita murder rate of any U.S. state. Louisiana is also the only state with an average per capita murder rate (14.5 per 100,000) at least twice as high as the U.S. average (6.9 per 100,000) during that period according to Bureau of Justice Statistics from FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The Chicago Tribune reports that Louisiana is the most corrupt state in the United States.[75]

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[venom85]

The Chicago Tribune

This message brought to you by the hometown newspaper for what is usually considered one of the more politically corrupt cities in the country.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[cayenne8]

You know...I've never really understood the dealership model at all...at least, not in this day in age.

Why don't manufacturers just set up their own storefronts, with a few models to try, and let you just do build to order. Seems like this model would save them money on inventory, etc...?

I understand the dealership model in years gone by...but with todays tech and internet savvy mkt, why haven't they abandoned this in favor of a more streamlined, direct to consumer marketing/sales strategy?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[dywolf]

if the yahoo is worth anything he's no longer a yahoo.
if he isnt, he wont get past the primary.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[jbmartin6]

Then who decides who receives these funds, or who is allowed to enter the race?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[jellomizer]

It isn't nearly always better to buy directly.
When you buy directly the cost savings of middle man usually goes to the producing company. As the Price the customer pays is often based on Supply and Demand.

Also selling directly without using local vendors, you will need to expand your sales force to cover all the areas, and have to deal with a B2C model vs a B2B model. So your increase your own staff, which then will make your product much closer to the initial cost of selling to an other business at a discount and they mark it up by 10-20%

For example Sun Microsystems, use to sell to vendors who then resold their products often with some sort of value add. Sun Got very popular by the late 90's and Early 2000's so they decided to expand their direct sells, often competing with their own vendors. To get the little extra margin per unit. But what Sun didn't realize was that a lot of the customers were comfortable dealing with the vendors (smaller companies felt like bigger fish, medium to large companies could almost control these guys) So with the Vendors getting hurt by Sun, they changed their tactics to other systems such a Linux or Windows NT as a viable alternative. By just changing their marketing from Suns Balanced TCO vs. Showing how cheaper hardware and OS can lead to faster systems with a different TCO calculation. So Sun popularity began to drop.

I don't see Tesla as being unfair competition with other auto makers for selling directly, it is just their business model they will have to deal with the trade-offs and rewards for their choice. It isn't like the other companies who have independent dealers are suffering from it, as Tesla cars are not super cheap to be hijacking the market.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Medievalist]

Yeah, you're right, but don't forget Pennsylvania, where a crooked state senator supposedly tried to run over a drug-addled supreme court justice right in the middle of Philadephia.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[bkaul01]

There are a few problems with that idea, the most obvious being constitutional protection of free speech, free association, etc. More fundamentally, you can't ban involvement in the political process and still maintain a free, democratic government.

The only effective way to get money out of politics would be to get everyone in our culture to stop watching TV and become impervious to advertising. The reason campaigns cost as much as they do is that TV advertising is incredibly expensive, and that is because it works. You can't constitutionally prevent people from being involved in spreading the message of their choice, so the only way to cut down on the money involved in doing so is to reduce the cost of transmission. Sadly, that will never happen.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious.

Your take when it's an (R), "I have a feeling he's sincere. Think of the children!"

When it's a (D), "what a corrupt bastard. We need to get money out of politics! Government shouldn't be regulating anything; let the free market work it out!"

You, "sir", are a hypocrite of the highest order.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[j00r0m4nc3r]

you dont know shit about me, my beliefs, what i support, or my political alignment. all you can infer from my comment is that i don't support campaign contributions because they lead to corruption.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[dywolf]

its really simple: the only contributions allowed are individual contributions to specific canidates (not to parties), capped at some low level that puts Shantiqua the Maid on an even contributing field with Rupert Murdoch. Say, $50 per adult person per candidate.

no contributions frm companies.
no contributions from superpacs.
no public funds spent on campaigns.
no personal funds spent on campaigns by millionaires (they can only contribute to themselves the same amount as anyone can contribute)

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[KingMotley]

Are you suggesting that having people that understand the law making laws is a bad thing? So your solution is to... Have people that don't understand law at all be the ones responsible for making our laws?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[FhnuZoag]

If the First Amendment is broken, and commonly abused to create a government alienated from the needs and wishes of the people, then it needs to be fixed. I can never comprehend the US trend of continuing to allow the letter of laws pervert their intent.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[cayenne8]

Louisiana had the highest murder rate of any state in 2010 (11.2 murders per 100,000) which marked the 22nd consecutive year (1989â"2010) that Louisiana has posted the highest per-capita murder rate of any U.S. state. Louisiana is also the only state with an average per capita murder rate (14.5 per 100,000) at least twice as high as the U.S. average (6.9 per 100,000) during that period according to Bureau of Justice Statistics from FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The Chicago Tribune reports that Louisiana is the most corrupt state in the United States.[75]

Well, truth be known....

As long as you aren't in the projects buying crack, you're likely to be pretty safe.

I've lived in New Orleans almost a couple of decades now, and I don't have any worries.

And, while I don't know what corruption and murder rates have to do with each other....we've definitely been cleaning up the corruption in a BIG way, especially since Katrina. We've been putting away politicians that abuse power (most recently Jefferson Parish President during Katrina Aaron Broussard, remember the guy that cried about his Mom being in trouble on national tv and turned out to be a lie?).

There has been,, in the last year or so, a couple of disturbing trends where shooting crimes have occurred in the more public areas (Quarter, etc), like on the past Halloween night.

But overall, especially considering how we have so many events going on year round with hundreds of thousands in crowds (Mardi Gras, French Quarter Fest, JazzFest, etc, etc, etc) which usually all involve a great deal of booze flowing, we get along amazingly well with amazingly little violence.

In other cities, when they win a super bowl or have some type of huge gathering (and they don't allow open alcohol containers there like we do here)...you often see riots, and people setting cars on fire, etc.

We just party and get along for the most part.

Katrina did the city a big favor by flushing out a lot of the trash...some of it is coming back and hence the violence increase, but overall, we replaced a lot of lost population (elderly and criminal types), with a much younger and more educated demographic, and it really shows in the city and area here with the jobs market and real estate numers we've seen since the storm.

The NOLA area actually has been largely shielded from the recession that most other parts of the country have experience the past years.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[gorzek]

Do you not see a potential problem in having lawyers be the only people who understand the law?

How can everyone follow the law if no one but lawyers can understand it?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

The trouble is that some politians are more equal than others.

For instance some of the right wing crazies will apply to get Fedral campaign funds and be funded with as many dollars as the major parties.

Maybe a portionament needs to be done on measured support from voters, oh wait that will lock in entrenched idiots.

There has to be something in between to weed out the crazies early so we don't waste time and our money.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[jandrese]

rich people may be less corruptible, since they don't need the money

You may not want to look too closely into how many of them got rich in the first place.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[jitterman]

Your support is called a "vote." I'd think a ganja dude would be "cool, brah," with not giving dirty money to dirty people.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[johnmoe]

Is it OK to talk about a candidate you support? A letter to the editor? How about putting up a sign in your yard? A tweet? A blog post? A website? A billboard? A radio ad? A tv ad? Where do you draw the line? I'm not trying to say that I think drawing a line is impossible, I am just not sure where one would draw it.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Nemyst]

Private funding tends to heavily bias parties that support corporations (at the detriment of consumers), since they have the larger pockets. It should come as no surprise that the US is becoming a corporatist's heaven. Public funding can be balanced to minimize bias, at least, whereas private funding is much harder to balance.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[OS24Ever]

What really bemuses me as a resident of the state is that this is the GOP who runs on 'no government intrusion' and then adds this to the list of things the government says you can't do and somehow, some way, it's small government platform they run on.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[_xeno_]

At this point, I think the only peaceful way to force this change is either directly through the use of a referendum or indirectly via a petition that a majority of the people sign that promises to vote out the current politicians unless they pass legislation that bans all forms of private campaign contributions.

It's worse than that - thanks to Citizen's United, the only way you can possibly legislate campaign contributions is with a constitutional amendment. Since campaign contributions count as political speech, they can't be regulated otherwise.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[cayenne8]

If the First Amendment is broken, and commonly abused to create a government alienated from the needs and wishes of the people, then it needs to be fixed. I can never comprehend the US trend of continuing to allow the letter of laws pervert their intent.

Being that this is likely the single most important right we have here in the US, I'm prone to be extremely hesitant to monkey with it.

That being said...what would you propose for changes to this? Please enumerate the perceived consequences of each change you make too....

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Raistlin77]

blatant act of political corruption

On this planet, we just call that "politics."

FTFAccuracy

FTFTruth

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Rob Riggs]

This message brought to you by the hometown newspaper for what is usually considered one of the more politically corrupt cities in the country.

Politically?? My Dear Sir, we do not limit our corruption to just government and politics in this fine city. What do you take us for? Amateurs?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's hard to corrupt that which is already corrupted. Bill's actually on to something...

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[venom85]

True, true. My mistake. The article was about politics though, so that seemed the most relevant at the time.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[marcosdumay]

When you buy directly the cost savings of middle man usually goes to the producing company.

If there are any savings (not a given, like you said), their distribution is a bit more complex than that. Changing the structure of a market changes the supply and demand curves, changing the price point.

Normaly, if there is just one suplier (or a few, with well differentiated products) selling directly, he gets nearly all of the savings. But as more suppliers start doing that, competition forces the price down.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Remus Shepherd]

Also selling directly without using local vendors, you will need to expand your sales force to cover all the areas, and have to deal with a B2C model vs a B2B model. So your increase your own staff, which then will make your product much closer to the initial cost of selling to an other business at a discount and they mark it up by 10-20%

They're selling their cars over the internet. There is no sales force, there are no vendors. The entire nationwide sales operation could be run by one guy with a php script. (But hopefully they have a bit more than that.) Welcome to the future.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[bill_mcgonigle]

Money is not speech

Hey, SCOTUS said it is. So that makes taxation a 1st Amendment violation, right?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[cayenne8]

For instance some of the right wing crazies will apply to get Fedral campaign funds and be funded with as many dollars as the major parties.

I'm guessing you'd be JUST as apprehensive for the left wing crazies getting federal campaign funds and be funded with as many dollars as the major parties too, eh?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[BasilBrush]

why? why should I not be allowed to support the candidate I believe in?

You are. You have any number of ways of saying "I support you". You can even volunteer.

why should my money be pooled and given to politicians I dont agree with??

Ah, now you're not taking about supporting, you're talking about bribing.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[superdave80]

But who qualifies as a 'candidate'?

I think a better solutions is to have all contributions go to an independent entity that then distributes that money to the candidate specified by the donor. That way, the candidate no longer knows who has provided the money, but the donor is still helping to get their candidate elected.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[ebno-10db]

Someone mentions Louisiana and you talk about New Orleans? I don't think they have much to do with each other.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[BasilBrush]

That would widen the number of candidates that can realistically become candidates. But it would do little to stop the bribery element of campaign donations. 50%+ is still going to the candidate that's being bribed.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

Fumo is awesome. He also held up a dune-building project where he has a beach house in Margate, NJ. Sandy did a lot more damage then it would have without Mr. Fumo's influence. So he has the distinction of crapping all over at least two states.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Sloppy]

why should I not be allowed to support the candidate I believe in?

Nobody's suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to do that. The proposal is that you shouldn't be able to do commercial business with them, within the narrow context of the re-election business specifically. Support them in all politically-imaginable ways, and even form a corporation with them to sell cars, if you wish. We just want to point a gun at your face and say "stop giving them money." We want elections to become political instead of commercial.

Consider some so-called politician that you happen to hate. (Please don't tell me you're the one person in this country who doesn't hate anyone.) (Obama? GWB? Reed? Boener?) Now admit it: you don't really think of that person as truly political, do you? You could respect a true sincere adversary, but this guy, he's not quite that. He didn't win over his supporters by showing he knows how to make wise decisions; he used expensive media advertisements to trick a bunch of fools into supporting him, right?

If only Obama were the actual socialist that a certain media company says he is, you might actually hate him less. But he's not: the bastard is corruptly selling his DoJ to the highest bidder in a way that would horrify Marx and Engels. If only GWB were the conservative he ran as, you would hate him less, but at least your cold uncaring government would be cheap. But he wasn't: somehow the dimwit managed to commit to more spending of public funds than LBJ and FDR combined, funnelling it into contractors' pockets at everyone's expense.

Where's the political philosophy?

If only those people actually had to sink or swim on their actual political merits or lack thereof, then maybe your guys would finally crush that party, once and for all, and the country could get back on track. Or at least you'd finally get that fair fight you've always wanted but the country never really has, and then if you lost, well, that opposing philosophy isn't all bad. Even Marx's|Rand's society would have a few nice things about it, as stupid as it would be.

But instead those people buy slick ads, and the sheep in That Other Party keep falling for it, believing the ads and voting for the slickness instead of the politics. And the reason those other people aren't merely polically wrong (if only that were their failing!) is that the ads they use to buy the foolish voters are expensive, so they owe favors. Thus, their misguided conservative|liberal foolishness, goes beyond wrong, into corrupt.

Regulating the election business is one proposed solution to that, for allowing things to get back to politics and allowing democracy, instead of media ad budgets, decide our fate.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[jfengel]

So whether it's a campaign contribution or whatever, it's paid with after tax dollars like you would buy any other thing.

I thought that was the case already. As I understand it, donations to 501(c)4 and 527 groups aren't tax deductible. Donations to 501(c)3 groups are, but they're not allowed to do political campaigning.

(501(c)4 groups are supposed to do only a little political campaigning, which is at the center of the current IRS kerfluffle: they investigated what are almost certainly political groups, who were supposed to file as 527s [whose donor lists are not secret]. But since many of these were conservative political groups, who all sprang into existence at the same time, Obama bad and Sarah Palin gets to be President. or some such.)

There's also more concern about churches, who are 501(c)3 and therefore have tax-deductible donations, who are explicitly doing political campaigning. But since it's a church-state matter, the IRS is reluctant to call them on it.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

They wear it on their shirt sleeves. When you go into a Ward or Parish or whatever office for a construction permit, they ask you if you are a registered Democrat before anything else. Perhaps "gentlemanly" is too strong, but it sounded funny.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

The cool thing about NO is that you could pick it up out of Louisiana and put it down anywhere else in the entire world, and it would be just as out of place as it is right now.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[ebno-10db]

Are you suggesting that having people that understand the law making laws is a bad thing?

Lawyers deal with the details of laws, but congress deals with something much more critical: policy. Having people who know about economics, science, technology, agriculture, education, foreign relations, etc. is much more important than having people who can regurgitate a little bad Latin.

BTW, the bills that get passed around congress are generally not written in legalese. They're written in "plain" English. Congressional staffs later translate it into legal gibberish.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[BasilBrush]

Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents.

Strong is your subjective judgement. But I'll accept there would be a bias towards incumbents. But is that a bad thing? If there's little to choose between two candidates, why not keep the one who's already gone through through the learning curve.

Odd that you see a bias towards incumbents as a bad thing, but are OK with a bias towards rich people. Sounds very self serving. Are you a Republican thinking about an incumbent Democrat at the moment? Try to lift yourself above your contemporaneous desires and think more long term and generically.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[danlip]

This is not necessarily all bad, since rich people may be less corruptible, since they don't need the money.

How do you think they got rich in the first place? Yes, I know a few people got rich by some combination of hard work, smarts, and luck, but in general those people aren't going to go into politics (they've got better things to do). Some people get rich by inheritance, and they often go into politics, but are generally entitled out-of-touch shits with no idea how to govern or do anything else worthwhile. And then there are all the people who got rich by some form of swindling or corruption, and they love to go into politics (if not already there).

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[bkmoore]

I think by New York or New Jersey standards, Southern corruption is quaint and gentlemanly.

A dueling in New Jersey's a lot less gentlemanly than in Monticello. But Aaron Burr might disagree.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[alexander_686]

Here’s a link to a good story.http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes

It auto makers were being launched today we might see something different, but you have 80 years’ worth of entrenched law that needs to be changed.

The short answer is politics. Back when cars were first being introduced, there was a big power difference between the auto makers and the auto dealers. Auto makers would bully, threaten, and coheres the small business owners, so they struck back, and wrote state laws that tipped the power balance back to the auto dealers.

Auto dealers are a lot like Real Estate agents, small family owned companies deeply embedded in the community and thus in politics. To get the laws changed you are going to need to convince the entrenched power that be to give up their power.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Reverand Dave]

Looking at it like this could mean that Tesla is out to eliminate the unctuous feeling of dealing with car salesman, used or otherwise, face to face. This might put a lot of shady scumbags out of a job. There are only so many seats in congress so not all of them will be readily employable again.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Immerman]

Ah, but the beauty of SuperPACs is that, by and large they don't make contributions, and thus are completely unfettered by any political contribution limits. Instead they simply exercise their budgets to directly fund the sort of advertising, etc. that the politician would have spent the money on if they had received it.

Much like the file-sharing networks a decade ago the wealthy just keep creating new tools that are more resistant to legal attempts to shut them down. We can crack down on the begavior and funding of political candidates as a sort of "rules of the game" move, but how do we crack down on an anonymous association of private citizens who have banded together to fund an independent publicity campaign without running afoul of 1st Amendment issues? Of course it would be a major issue if they *weren't* operating independently from the political campaign, but it's damnably hard to prove wink and a nod collusion.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[bkmoore]

Do casualties from dueling figure into the statistics?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Immerman]

The way it's currently done in the US is that a candidate needs to get at least X% (5? 10? I forget) of the vote this time around in order for their party to be eligible for public funding in the next election. Hence the reason to vote for third-party candidates even if they have no hope of winning - you're not voting for the candidate so much as you're voting for their party to be a more credible contender in the next election.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[alexander_686]

They have showrooms so people can take a look and have a test drive. I assume they would also help you fill out the paperwork to buy one. (Except for Texas, according to the article.) I would also assume they have some type of repair shop – based on the assumption that the comer garage does not know how to work on these cars yet.

So, yes, they have overhead costs. Probably a lot lower than the majors, but still.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Microlith]

You don't have to alter the First Amendment. What you need to do is fix Corporate Law that explicitly identifies them as not being people. Then, you should grant corporations every right they have, rather than implicitly giving them every right that actual people have.

Entities whose existence is purely a result of government actions should not be able to pervert the course and actions of said same government. Otherwise you end up with the disaster we have now.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Reverand Dave]

This is not necessarily all bad, since rich people may be less corruptible, since they don't need the money.

. Watch this. Your post was so idiotic, it may have given me cancer. You need to preface shit like that with Please Don't Read.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Immerman]

True, though you do need to get the federal government's permission before you can sue it.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Immerman]

But what about assaulting an HONEST politi... oh wait, nevermind.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[msobkow]

I wonder whether Tesla negotiates on a per-unit basis like a local dealer does, or whether they follow the old Saturn model of one price for everybody. If the latter, what does the middle man really add to the bargain?

Especially seeing as Tesla has to send out technicians to do any repairs, or have the vehicle shipped back to the factory for repairs.

Besides, don't most of the "exotic" small-hand-build car lines sell directly?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[voidptr]

It's fine if you want franchise laws to protect existing dealers from their manufacturers. There's nothing wrong with a guarantee that after Bob's Dodge dealership spends a decade investing in the local market that Chrysler doesn't just move in next door and undercut him.

Tesla however doesn't have any existing dealers to screw over, and making them sell through other brand's established dealers is a horrible conflict of interest. The legacy brands made their bed and need to lie in it, but they shouldn't be able to force the upstart to deal with the mess their competitors made.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Reverand Dave]

Something very similar happened here when they banned smoking. Smoking was banned in public buildings, but not bars or (now this is the kicker) bowling alleys. Now as a smoker at the time I was pleased but a little surprised for the odd exemption. I couldn't smoke at the horse track, but I could at the bowling alley. Why was that? Well one of the city councilmen owned a bowling alley and slipped it in. Eventually that part of the ban was fixed to only be bars exclusively but it took a few years.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[tgd]

Actually, the best part of the article was the comment Timothy added.

It was relevant, useful and accurate. Almost like he was playing at being an editor!

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Money is not speech

Perhaps, but my freedom to spend my money as i see fit, on the candidate or candidates of my choosing, is protected under the 1st Amendment.

So then I see no problem with having a "discussion" with the cop giving me a speeding ticket, or "speaking" to the detective investigating a string of robberies in my neighborhood. After all, it's not bribery, it's just an exercise of my 1st amendment rights, right?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Immerman]

Only if the federal governement decides it has an interest in it. They reserve the right to pass legislation that trumps state law if they can somehow leverage "Interstate Commerce" to do so, and are willing to resort to some pretty convoluted chains of reasoning to get that leverage when they want it. But until their interest is piqued it's an interstate free-for-all. In this case I believe the legislation doesn't even explicitly address interstate issues - it's simply regulates the sale of vehicles *within the state*, which just happens to include mail-order and online purchases (you do pay all your legally required local sales taxes on your online purchases, right?).

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

or crazier than a barrel of frogs..

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Immerman]

Right, right. Tyranny is vastly superior, while settle for some theoretical impoverishment when you can have abject subjugation instead.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MysteriousPreacher]

Small government is like freedom of religion. Just as freedom of religion is often freedom for a specific religion, small government obviously doesn't apply when it'd hinder one's business interests.

I wonder why they haven't banned the Internet? Surely the scourge of freely available Internet delivered news is as much a threat to publishers and paperboys as Tesla is to the car dealership cartel?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Reverand Dave]

Your analogy is not properly supported by the facts. Based solely on the merits of Brad Pitt being a sexy man with or without the money. It would be more appropriate if you used Steve Buscemi and William H. Macy. They start on a level playing field of both being incredibly unsexy, then the advantage goes to the person with the most money. As currently stated, your analogy would be better served swapping the roles since currently we have big money and bad ideas in politics because that is what makes money for the corporate donors while the good ideas don't get the backing from AT&T and others with deep pockets since they would be more beneficial to everyone instead of just the upper 1%.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[OS24Ever]

They keep trying, the affiliate programs have been dead for years. There were a few small businesses that lost over $300K in revenue and moved out of state they got just from affiliate links to Amazon supposedly.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Renstar]

True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.

You start from the incorrect premise. You assume that non-natural persons, or corporations from here on, have an inherent right to exist. They do not. They are convenient legal fictions, meant to simplify the relationships between allied actors.

Corporations exist exclusively because we the people, through the government, allow them to. The government issues a charter, and thus has the inherent right to regulate them, however it is seen fit. The corporation that is beyond the rule of national law is a relatively new, and dangerous, concept that is sadly propagating because people don't seem to understand that corporations are a legal convenience and have no inherent right to exist.

If the government didn't provide for the corporate charter, people would still be free to associate and to spend money together to produce goods and services. The corporate charter is a convenience that allows more structured laws surrounding the formation, operations, taxation, liability, and dissolution of these alliances of people. It also makes resolving disputes between interested parties a little easier. But because people choose to obtain a corporate charter, for the favorable tax status and liability status, for example, they absolutely are agreeing to be regulated by the chartering entity. And that regulation can, and should, include restrictions on spending money for political purposes, an activity that should be retained exclusively by natural persons. The natural persons who freely entered into such convenient alliances are (and should always remain) free to speak at will.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Reverand Dave]

And the government has a right to dismiss any lawsuit against it that it feels is "frivolous." Why we let the gov't decide that is beyond me...

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Reverand Dave]

represented by teams of paid retainers or bodyguards.

It's called "The Secret Service".

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MysteriousPreacher]

I love that idea. Posting on websites is all good and well but nowhere near as visible as it needs to be.

Another option is to require them to prefix all statements in either houses (or whatever they call them in the U.S) with disclosure of all donations of a certain amount received during their current term. "This statement brought to you by .

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[pnutjam]

Go look up any article, does it say written by xyz corp, or does it say written by joe smith? In every instance I can think of, when a reporter lies they are held accountable. The company they work for fires them and pleads ignorance. (well, maybe not fox)

Our current corporate structure is not capitalism, it is managementism. Who makes the decisions? It's certainly not the people putting up the money. We are deluged with tales of risk takers who deserve to be compensated. Meanwhile small business fail in droves and people who took the risk of getting a stable corporate job and kissing ass, or being born into a favorable social group, are making bank.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

when I was buying a car (toyota) I was very frustrated by the fact that local dealers: didn't have the model/trim I wanted, and ordering the exact car I wanted would take months (and cost an arm and a leg). Why can I go to Dell's website and order $50k worth of equipment and have it setup exactly how I want and delivered to me asap....and I can't do that with a car?

I think dealers are killing the industry. The haggling over price is just stupid. Unless you do it, you get ripped off. If you do it, it's frustrating (unless you enjoy that sorta thing). I should know *exactly* what the price of the car is when I buy it, and I shouldn't need to haggle the price downwards.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Mike Van Pelt]

Where do you draw the line? What constitutes a contribution? If someone wants to independently speak up in favor of a candidate, is that a contribution? If a newspaper or other media outlet wants to endorse a candidate, is that a contribution? If a labor union wants to rally its members to walk precincts and campaign for a candidate, is that a contribution? If you personally pay to create a web page to support one candidate or attack another, is that a contribution? Does the rule change if you happen to be a business owner? If so, why? If you and some friends and other like-minded people get together to pool resources to get the word out for or against particular candidates, is that a contribution? If that's OK... congratulations. You've just re-invented the PAC.

It's a general rule that when people start drawing these lines, the line is quite clearly drawn between "People likely to agree with me can do whatever they want; people likely to disagree with me must be shut down.

Where do you draw the line?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[bitt3n]

This is not necessarily all bad, since rich people may be less corruptible, since they don't need the money.

Uh, what?

less corruptible != more moral

if you're worth $50 million, you're much less likely to risk your career over a $100K bribe than if $100K constitutes your after-tax salary.

If anything, I would argue for drastically increasing the salaries of politicians, in the manner of Singapore, where the president earns 5X Obama's salary. This would make them more difficult to corrupt, and also likely increase the pool of high-quality candidates willing to run for public office. (If you can make 10X more in the private sector, politics is going to be a hard sell.)

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[alexander_686]

Heck, I am fine with Tesla not having a franchise system – just explaining how things are.

I am also o.k. with legislation that redresses the balance of power in theory – but it does tend to entrench the existing powers against upstarts – and I do think system is skewed towards the auto dealer’s today.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[drinkypoo]

That would widen the number of candidates that can realistically become candidates. But it would do little to stop the bribery element of campaign donations.

Au contraire; the former is the cure for the latter. The choice between the congressman from Exxon and the congressman from BP is the primary problem today.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[lgw]

Given freedom of the press, you have to draw it where it's drawn now, I think.

No one technically "gives money to a politician" - you give to a fund which will pay for political speech on your behalf.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[jbengt]

True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.

Corporations can't speak, though the people associating through them do have a First Amendment right that they can exercise through the corporation..
Those people do not have an inherent right to limit their liability to the assets of the corporation, though. So I suggest that they give up limited liability if they want to use the corporation to make campaign contributions.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[dywolf]

the first amendment is not broken.

the interpretation of financial/political contributions as unlimited speech is what is broken.

being unlimited means people with more of it effectively have a bigger voice, allowing a few to dominate the entire market.

contributions should go back to being limited, and limited severely.
50$ per person per candidate.
no corporate/pac donations.
no self-funded millionaires (self-contributions limited to the same amount as everyone else)

Force candidates to get contributions based on merit, and appeal. the risk is going too far the other direction (less oligarchy and corporate bought votes, more tyranny of the fickle, uneducated majority), but we have to do something to start moving the situation back to the middle of the spectrum.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[lgw]

Simply put: do you believe I should be able to give money to a fund which will pay for political speech on my behalf?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[BasilBrush]

It might make you feel good to have the guy from the OilCompaniesAreEvil party as a candidate. But he won't get elected.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[lightBearer]

This.
The idea of giving money to another person for the sake of receiving some sort of benefit or consideration is as old as the hills. If we're going to outlaw some forms of it but not all, things get sticky. It gets worse when we rename the exceptions so as to obfuscate their intent. Lobbying is just giving someone something in exchange for them giving you some additional consideration in their decision making process.
I bet if I "lobbied" the police department in my town so as to have them decide not to ticket me the next time I was late for work I'd be accused of bribery. If I "lobby" a politician so that they make decisions that benefit me it's not? I fail to see the difference.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[LordLimecat]

Your take when it's an (R), "I have a feeling he's sincere. Think of the children!"

Er, that actually sounded like a (D) position, and when I posted I was unaware that he was a republican.

I also dont believe Ive ever called a Dem a corrupt bastard, ever. In fact if you go through my post history, I have tried to be fair to dems, and avoid resorting to ad hominems.

Seriously, wtf?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[XcepticZP]

I'm not well versed with American laws... You said the "1st Amendment". Is that that law that says whoever has the most money is the one that gets to pick who is elected by virtue of more advertising money? Well, gee gosh darn it, that doesn't sound very democratic of you. You sure you're a democracy? One person, one vote, right?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Musc]

I'd say the line is when you commit bribery by handing money over.
If you want to spend your own money to broadcast your own speech over the tv in an ad, that should be legal.
But if you pay the politician a donation so they can ostensibly run those same ads but in reality pocket some of the cash, that is bribery and should not be considered speech.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[aztracker1]

And NY/NJ don't have anything on Chicago or Detroit in terms of corruption... The irony is that they're so corrupt, stuff actually gets done.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Gr33nJ3ll0]

Honestly, I don't think there's anything on the books to prevent a company from opening a store that directly competes with an indie that used to sell their product. So why should the car dealerships be any different? If the car company thinks they can do a better job that way, and I agree, I spend my money with them, if not I spent it with the dealership. That's capitalism, which is what really bothers me about this, is that it reveals the hypocrisy of the Republican claims to be against regulations that stifle business.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MitchDev]

Yes, helps cut down on the corruption.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[aztracker1]

Corporations are *NOT* people.... if the owner of a company wants to donate campaign funds.. awesome.. companies shouldn't... if they have the money for charity and political contributions... that should just be redistributed back as investor dividends, and those *people* can make their own contributions.

Corporations are artificial entities created and allowed by the government to allow people to pool funds for business purposes... they should not be allowed a *voice* and in some cases their officers should definitively be criminally charged in some cases.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Hatta]

Perhaps, but my freedom to spend my money as i see fit, on the candidate or candidates of my choosing, is protected under the 1st Amendment.

The first amendment only guarantees that the government will not interfere with your speech. It does not guarantee that the government will assist your speech by making legal entities such as corporations available to you.

True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.

No, a corporation is a fictional entity, it has no rights. Only individual human beings have the right to free speech.

So by all means you are free to speak. You are free to pay others to speak for you. You are free to pool your money and use that to pay others to speak for you. But if you want recognition from the government in the form of incorporation, there's nothing forcing the government to give that to you. Nothing, except an extremely corrupt SCOTUS that is.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Remus Shepherd]

In TFA: [Tesla] has plans to build its first showroom in the state next year.

In North Carolina they've got nothing, just a web presence. No overhead. Whether that means they're competing unfairly or not is for the capitalists and their lawyers to work out.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[R3d M3rcury]

as Tesla cars are not super cheap to be hijacking the market.

Depends on your definition of "the market."

If you mean the whole market for automobiles, Tesla is barely a blip. If you mean the market for high-end luxury vehicles, it appears that Tesla is doing quite well. Add to that these higher-end vehicles tend to have nice margins and it's even worse for these dealers because they'll make more selling one A8 than they will selling three A3s.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[pipatron]

I'm sure that's where we're heading, but slowly. But there are some drawbacks selling directly to customers.

Dealing with whiny and irrational end customers can be a horrible experience. A company that can get away with it while still making money may very well feel that it's better to pay the overhead of a middleman. You also take a risk with your brand, if you don't spend enough on customer support, your brand is tarnished by that, even if your cars are solid.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[professionalfurryele]

No, and neither would you, because the US doesn't have a left wing crazy with any hope of winning. The left in the US has some real idiots (Hi everyone who graduated from Berkeley!) but you go ahead and try to tell me that there will ever be a member of the US senate who could be described as communist the way some of the senate could be described as corporatist or fascist. The US has a stupid left, and the stupid portions of the left in the US spend most of their time attacking each other so that they don't get in, it doesn't have a effective radical left like say Italy or France.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[CrimsonAvenger]

Auto makers would bully, threaten, and coheres the small business owners

Coheres?

So, the automakers would bully, threaten and be logically consistent the small business?

Or the automakers would bully, threaten make a whole the small businesses?

I suspect you meant "coerce"...

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Acron]

You aren't parsing the original statement right, it devolves into two sentences.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

Is actually "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" and "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of the press". I think you are trying to read it as "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech of the press". But that ignores the comma I think.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Darinbob]

Also many of those dealers are not at all independent.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[ThePeices]

In my first world western democratic country, we call that illegal corruption, and will prosecute that politician to the fullest extent of the law. ( and have done so in the past, hence this country has one of the lowest levels of corruption in the world )

Just because you are used to corruption in the USA, doesn't mean its like that the world over.

You actually *dont* have to put up with political corruption and bribery in America. It is actually OK to protest against corruption. Seriously. ( im not trolling )

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[alexander_686]

All states, as far as I know, have a host of franchise and bad faith laws that would limit a company from coming in a competing with its own franchises, which I think is the important point.

So, for example, Ford could not go into NC and compete with their indie franchises – that would be unfair to the franchises who had spent all of that time and effort to build up Ford’s brand and market. All major car companies operate this way.

Until Tesla, who has no franchises and want none – tipping over the old apple cart if you know what I mean – and the current powers that be don’t like apple carts to be tipped over.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[alexander_686]

I thought you were talking about Tesla in general - where they do have showrooms (dozens) and a sales force - not about N.C. specifically.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[suutar]

corporations are not people

True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.

Why? I mean, I know of the general assertion that "an association of people must have the same rights as each individual" but I'm not sure I agree, as long as the individuals are not losing any rights in the process. The shareholders and employees of ABC can contribute funds as they wish to further ABC's interests; why does ABC itself also need to be able to, except that it can use more money that way? Five thousand individuals can donate more than me, and I'm fine with that; 5000 people should have more political clout than just me. But should one 'person' have more clout than 5000 people, just because it has a bigger bank account?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[dotar]

Really? Hey, everyone is making a political donation to x, we're paying for you. Hey, would you mind donating money to this guy? I'll give you the $50.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[mattack2]

Heck, GM tried to do that originally with the Saturn. Fixed price.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[mattack2]

Why couldn't I support them by MORE than voting for them? If I wanted to give money to them, why is that not a free speech matter?

I think there should be far *fewer* campaign finance laws, not more. However, *ALL* donations should be made public.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[HornWumpus]

WooHoo. I've always been underfunded. I'm running for president.

Vote: Monster Raving Looney party line.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

I've heard that of Chicago, but Detroit is a total basket case.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

Go look up any article, does it say written by xyz corp, or does it say written by joe smith?

To your point, sure, it gives the reporter's name if you are already reading the NY Times and it's an in-house reporter. But otherwise, it will say AP or Reuters.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Teancum]

Heck, GM tried to do that originally with the Saturn. Fixed price.

And GM got killed by the same dealership laws.... where GM was in a larger pile of smelly stuff by virtue of the fact that it had existing dealerships in the same areas it tried to sell those Saturn automobiles.

The dealers eventually won in the case of Saturn, and there was little GM could do to even stop them. It was a nice try though.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Teancum]

I wonder whether Tesla negotiates on a per-unit basis like a local dealer does, or whether they follow the old Saturn model of one price for everybody. If the latter, what does the middle man really add to the bargain?

Especially seeing as Tesla has to send out technicians to do any repairs, or have the vehicle shipped back to the factory for repairs.

Besides, don't most of the "exotic" small-hand-build car lines sell directly?

Tesla negotiates with pull down menus on its web page. All their sales force does is simply hold your hand through the process or even just clicks on the buttons for you if you want to arrive at a price for the Tesla vehicle and hate to use a web page. They don't dicker on the price except if you are trying to do some sort of fleet sales contract in volume. They've made some concessions for service and other features, but those are on a case by case basis and not typical.

As for small hand-build car lines, most of those get around the dealership requirements by either selling kits or forcing you to come to their factory for delivery.... so you are in effect buying from the "dealer" anyway and that local auto manufacturer is a member of the local chamber of commerce too. The kits get around the hand-build rules because you aren't really buying an automobile, just a kit.... which either you or a skilled mechanic puts together for you separately that bypasses the dealer laws as well.

This really is all about major auto dealer companies who own major blocks of a great many auto franchises that wants to force Tesla to give them a cut of the money. It certainly has nothing at all to do with protecting mom & pop start up auto dealerships working with just one brand.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Skrapion]

Huh, I had no idea franchise laws like this existed.

I'm no supporter of laissez-faire capitalism, but it really seems like dealers should be able to get this protection via contractual stipulations rather than laws.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[nametaken]

If only Obama were the actual socialist that a certain media company says he is, you might actually hate him less. But he's not: the bastard is corruptly selling his DoJ to the highest bidder in a way that would horrify Marx and Engels. If only GWB were the conservative he ran as, you would hate him less, but at least your cold uncaring government would be cheap. But he wasn't: somehow the dimwit managed to commit to more spending of public funds than LBJ and FDR combined, funnelling it into contractors' pockets at everyone's expense.

Shit man, I'm totally going to steal this paragraph from you, intact. That was a great way to illustrate what a lot of us have been saying for a long time... politics is bullshit.

Nicely done. Really.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[pnutjam]

No, my point is that a corporation does not have a right to speak. What is confusing.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[AthanasiusKircher]

You don't have to alter the First Amendment. What you need to do is fix Corporate Law that explicitly identifies them as not being people. Then, you should grant corporations every right they have, rather than implicitly giving them every right that actual people have.

Yeah, this idea that "corporations are persons" is the reason why they have free-speech rights has received a lot of press in the past couple years.

But this has nothing to do with the actual text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please note that there is no mention of "people" or of a "person" until the last 1/3 of the text. It simply says that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." The source of that "speech" is not specified.

The reason why corporations have free speech is because the First Amendment says Congress can't make laws restricting free speech, not because of anything in the definition of what a corporation is, "person" or otherwise.

You would in fact have to change the text of the First Amendment to make the distinction you're trying to make clear. The Supreme Court previously had actually carved out a specific exception to the First Amendment (like the "incitement to lawless action" exception) to prevent corporations from having free political speech. They then recently decided that that exception had some problems and should be removed.

I'm not saying that corporations should have unlimited powers or unlimited free speech. But the First Amendment doesn't say what you think it does.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[pnutjam]

Shut your straw mouth!

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[pnutjam]

Well someone up thread pointed out that the actual amendment specifically prevents "infringing on the freedom of the press", so your worry should not be an issue.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[alexander_686]

It partly about addressing a power imbalance, it is partly setting up norms so it is easier to set up the contracts but even then there can be some interesting court cases.

Normally what happens is that you have a long established franchise and the parent company decides to sack them. The will franchise operations just outside the exclusive zone in the contract – or try selling the product via mail order or the internet. Most contracts state that the franchise must keep up to certain standards, so the parent company starts reviewing every dotted i and crossed t. Or they will crank up the cost of goods sold to the franchise which they have to buy – such as logoed cups and such. Or maybe you have a franchise which is being run by a grandson and is doing the bare minimum (or less), ridding on the parent's coattails.

NASCAR has a policy of keeping their contracts to under a page – if partner’s can't trust each other and need massive contracts, why bother? I don't think we could extend that to everybody, but it is an important factor to remember, good will and trust are just as important as a good contract.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[CapOblivious2010]

Wow, a corrupt government... what to do?... I know, let's give them even more power over us! Surely the thieving bastards that run the government will turn into saints if we just give them enough power!

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[ganjadude]

has nothing to do with bribing. If I dnate to a campaign I donate a few hundred bucks. I think ive gotten a lapel pin from my donations. If I could bribe them with my votes pot would be legal.

some people are easily bribed, and those people tend to get in politics. Ive always been of the mind that anyone who wants to be in politics, should be disqualified.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Lumpy]

In the 1800's this did not happen and dirty politicians were regularly taught a lesson here in the states. Texas was actually brutal to them, many politicians found themselves hanged when they returned home for their actions in office in the early years of the union, even into the 1900's this was happening.

I can not explain away these men's actions are pure stupidity, I do not think there are that many stupid people being elected. Therefore it is pure greed and malice based on them being bribed and paid off. Sadly they are not afraid of prison because they go to a special one that is comfortable, and many never ever go to prison because the system to convict them is as dirty as they are. It's an old boys club, and they got each others back.

Congress should be afraid of the american people as a whole, but today we are not a threat at all to the career of a dirty politician. We care more about dancing with the stars and some roch woman cutting off her boobs than we do about anything else.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[stenvar]

You said the "1st Amendment". Is that that law that says whoever has the most money is the one that gets to pick who is elected by virtue of more advertising money?

As opposed to other nations where whoever runs the media and the schools gets to pick who is elected by virtue of manipulating people from childhood onward? Where the people and parties in power get to rewrite history and spread their propaganda to keep themselves in power? Systems that have brought fascists and communists to power?

Even if in the US, the most advertising money would win elections, that would still be preferable to any of those other systems. Of course, in the real world, election outcomes are largely independent of how much money people spend.

And it's no wonder that you're so anti-American: you're apparently a product of one of those systems, and the people who raised you and shaped you fear nothing more than a free press and free elections.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[chrismcb]

I'd be willing to bet that the little leagues and the YMCA could have used $8,000 more than Tom Apodeca could.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

That's good, but I don't know how they can define "press" without leaving a huge freaking loophole.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

This is why it is so hard to have adult conversations.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[pnutjam]

I'm talking about the actual first amendment. Here is the actual proposal for a 28th amendment, https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[MightyYar]

Yes, so section one of the text that you linked to specifically separates entities like the NY Times from any constitutional protection.

Section 2 could easily be used to stop people from spending money on, say, running their printing presses. How do you have freedom of the press without freedom to spend money to publish? After all, the President might read the New York Times rather than other papers with a smaller budget, giving them unique access expressly forbidden under section 2. All that money gives them a serious advantage.

I don't think anyone would go after the "Times", but I'm using that extreme case to illustrate how this might have unintended consequences. Money will always buy more access, and I don't think that can be controlled - but certainly you can make certain that it is all out in the open.

Anyway, I kind of think that we shouldn't need to change our constitution just to work around the corporate problem. Just reform corporations instead - get rid of the limited liability for people directly involved in the operation of the company. Don't levy fines against just "corporations", but also against people: if I'm personally responsible for the pollution of a river, sue me - don't let me hide behind a corporation. Don't tax "corporations", tax the salaries and incomes of the employees and owners: why should we let corporate owners get super-low tax rates and then complain of "double taxation"? If we want corporations to look less like people, let's do it right. Don't let a "corporation" engage in any non-business activity - make it an economic entity only. Since commercial speech is regulated, political speech doesn't even become an issue. If someone wants to lobby, then they can open up their own checkbook and pay some lobbyists - leave the corporate bank account out of it.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[bkaul01]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If Congress passes a law to prohibit people from spending money to advertise their ideas, you are abridging both the people's freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. The alternative is that the government can prevent political discourse of which it does not approve ...

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Grishnakh]

Besides, don't most of the "exotic" small-hand-build car lines sell directly?

I'm pretty sure they do. You can't go to some local dealership and buy a Panoz.

Especially seeing as Tesla has to send out technicians to do any repairs, or have the vehicle shipped back to the factory for repairs.

Yes, but when does that ever happen? These are electric cars; there's not much to fail in them, unlike cars with incredibly complex gasoline engines. Go to a Tesla showroom sometime; many of them have the stripped-down chassis so you can see everything inside: the suspension, motors, steering, etc. Most of the parts are pretty standard: R&P steering rack (with electric assist), ABS modulator, etc. The only things that are going to go wrong on these cars are the typical things that fail after 100,000 or more miles: brake master cylinders, wheel bearings, etc. Those things can be fixed by any regular mechanic. The only thing the regular mechanic can't handle (yet) is the battery and electric motor part, and that's probably the most reliable part of the whole car. The only other thing likely to fail early is parts of the interior (i.e., rattles and squeaks).

I wonder whether Tesla negotiates on a per-unit basis like a local dealer does, or whether they follow the old Saturn model of one price for everybody. If the latter, what does the middle man really add to the bargain?

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure after what Tesla representatives have said to me at the mall showrooms is their pricing is standard (the "old" Saturn model, strange how you call a single price for a product, rather than requiring everyone to haggle, "old"). Nothing about Tesla, from a business perspective, resembles the traditional ("old") way of selling cars, I'm sure their pricing isn't either. As for middle men, they don't add squat to the bargain. They just add more cost, so some slimy dirtbag salesman can get a giant unearned commission for doing no work at all, and instead telling you lies about the product he's selling (such as that the car's air conditioning uses "compressed CO2"--a salesman really told me that once).

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[BasilBrush]

If I dnate to a campaign I donate a few hundred bucks. I think ive gotten a lapel pin from my donations. If I could bribe them with my votes pot would be legal.

By now, it's possibly the situation that the majority of voters are in favour of decriminalising pot. However, most vocal supporters of pot don't give a few hundred bucks to any politician. Amongst the people that do donate to politicians, probably most of them are still opposed to pot.

So the reason your bribe don't work is that you've been out-bribed. And the democracy truly responded to peoples wishes, pot might be decriminalised already.

I see it's starting down the road to decriminalisation in a few states. Which even as a non-American I'm almost as happy about as you probably are. Are these Blue States by any chance?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[backwardsposter]

"Perhaps, but my freedom to spend my money as i see fit, on the candidate or candidates of my choosing, is protected under the 1st Amendment." I'll explain that to the next judge I try to 'contribute' to. I'm only exaggerating a little. Bribery is still bribery. And I'm not sure I see enough of a difference between bribing those who make the laws, those who interpret, and those who enforce.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[vandamme]

I prefer to vote for engineers, if possible.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[l2718]

So the right to free speech doesn't include the right to speak together with other people, unless you grant me that right? That's downright offensive. I have a right to free speech — including the right to band together with other people and speak jointly.

Specifically, do you think the ACLU and the NAACP (both of which are corporations) have a right to free speech? What about the AFL-CIO? Of do you think that it's OK for the governmet to limit what the ACLU can say on the theory that it's a corporation, not a person?

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, but that idea would only keep politics restricted to rich, well-connected people, no different than it is now. Otherwise, how are you going to determine which candidates qualify for being part of this pool? What's to keep 100 million regular Joes and Janes from deciding they want to run for President, and thus should be entitled to a share of this campaign money pool? Are we going to have a government agency which approves political candidates? That's not very democratic, in fact it sounds a whole lot like China's system.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[tnk1]

This isn't 19th Century Texas. In fact, Texas isn't 19th Century Texas, even. There's a reason for that.

And don't tell me that dirty politicians got run out on a rail everywhere back then either. They were rampant. Sure, if you happened to piss off the wrong mob in the wrong place, the FBI or State Police wasn't there to pull you out of the mess (because they didn't exist then), but there were very powerful "machine" bosses who were celebrated for their ability to give out patronage to those who would see things their way. You'd never touch them, because they had constituencies who could protect them.

This isn't the Old West. Physical threats to a representative today are a pipe dream and not even a really good one.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[Sloppy]

politics is bullshit.

No, "nicely done" to you, because you know just how to push my buttons, proving you to be a better troll than I. It's not POLITICS!

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[athenaprime]

It wouldn't be that hard. The FCC already mandates a certain amount of air time for political broadcasting like the debates. They just need to extend it to say X, Y, and Z broadcast time must be set aside for local, state, and national candidates per day between the *very limited* months of August through October, and with no more than V ads per hour of programming. A savvier law would divide that time between fewer ad spots and more actual issue debates, q-and-a bits, and substance programming (thus dragging TV America into the political process by their teeth if necessary). Include the cable and satellite networks because quite a lot of their infrastructure is owned by We the People, so in exchange, they can give up a little time during "Duck Dynasty" or something.

You can't ban involvement, but you sure as hell can limit it to individual citizens (not corporate 'persons'), as nature and the Constitution intended.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[athenaprime]

For instance some of the right wing crazies will apply to get Fedral campaign funds and be funded with as many dollars as the major parties.

I'm guessing you'd be JUST as apprehensive for the left wing crazies getting federal campaign funds and be funded with as many dollars as the major parties too, eh?

Not quite as much. Left-wing crazies are notoriously bad at filling out paperwork... ;)

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[athenaprime]

Lawyers deal with the details of laws, but congress deals with something much more critical: policy. Having people who know about economics, science, technology, agriculture, education, foreign relations, etc. is much more important than having people who can regurgitate a little bad Latin.

I don't think anyone currently in congress understands any of those things right now. Except maybe regurgitation (and not of Latin, either!). They certainly don't act like it. In fact, they don't act like they understand some basic Kindergarten stuff.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[randyleepublic]

"use their own money" Hello! Of course that must be banned as well. Duh.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[randyleepublic]

somehow the sharpie managed to commit to more spending of public funds than LBJ and FDR combined, funnelling it into contractors' pockets at everyone's expense.

ftfy

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[tjstork]

Because anyone good enough to convince you to buy a car is someone who is by definition entreprenuial and doesn't want to be a schmoe in a chain.

Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom

[jwhitener]

I think most people that want the system changed see a hybrid, regulated finance system. This starts with banning political advertisements that are not financed by the campaigns themselves. That would be hardest hurdle to overcome both legally and politically.

After that is done, it is pretty simple:
Get X signatures, you get on the ballot and are given some TV/radio time, are in all the debates, and get some amount of money to spend as you see fit. In addition, you can accept small (50-100 dollar donations) from individuals prior and during the campaign, with no limit. No personal money can be spent.

If your ideas are appealing, you'll get your small donations from the people, get your signatures, get on the ballot, and be given money, air time, and allowed in the debates.

And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[Foske]

I would be happy to buy my car at a company which actually wants me to be a happy owner of that car, not a company which wants to make as much as profit from selling as many cars as possible.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[phantomfive]

I just had a vision of being able to buy a car at a fair price without having to negotiate. How amazing this could be.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[TWiTfan]

I don't understand how they're going to stop it anyway. Unless this law makes it illegal for an individual to buy a car from an out-of-state individual, how are they going to stop me from buying a Tesla (or any other new or used car) from any legal out-of-state vendor or individual? Are they going to stop me at the state line and slap the cuffs on me? Refuse to license any car in the state unless I can prove it was bought from an in-state dealer?

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[Nidi62]

I just had a vision of being able to buy a car at a fair price without having to negotiate. How amazing this could be.

Auto auctions. Either go to them yourself, or find a broker that will do it for you (as some only allow "dealers" at auctions). We have gotten several cars at auction well below dealer price, and we told our guy what our price was, what colors/amenities we wanted. He would only bid on the combinations we wanted, and would stop at our price point. Might take a few trips, but it is worth it. Even with the broker fee (our guy only charges about 1500), we got cars $5-7k cheaper than what you would get from a dealer, and they came more "loaded" than other cars would for that price.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[DuckDodgers]

Either way there's profit involved, the question is whether the car dealership is an independent entity that gets a cut of the process or owned by the car manufacturer. I would rather deal with just one company than two that are constantly in conflict over who gets what share of the profits from sales and maintenance of vehicles.

I don't understand the dealership model anyway - when you're the only Toyota dealer in a fifty mile radius and Toyota is having a banner year, you're all set. But if Toyota dealerships open all around you, then what? Or say you're a Saturn dealership, and then General Motors closes the brand. Or you're a Lincoln dealership, and Lincoln demands that you pay for a multi-million dollar remodel of your showrooms at your own expense. Or you're a Nissan dealership, and they release a run of shoddy products nobody wants to buy (for the sake of argument - I have nothing against Nissan). I guess it makes sense if you're already wealthy - open franchises for six different brands at once, and unless the economy tanks any losses in one place might be offset by gains elsewhere. But for someone launching an individual franchise? You are at the mercy of the manufacturer, choose carefully.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That's crazy talk! How are you going to replicate the experience of good, honest, high-pressure salesmanship in a browser window? Or prevent the consumer from opening a second tab for comparison shopping purposes?

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[Skater]

In return for opening the dealership with a brand, you are the exclusive dealer and service center for that brand within a certain distance. If you have a Ford dealer, I can't open another Ford dealer next door. You're relying on Ford to enforce that provision, but they know what would happen if they screwed over their dealers - lawsuits, and suddenly no one to sell your cars any more.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[jader3rd]

I don't understand the dealership model anyway

It's basically a legalized pyramid scheme, that was created in the hopes of ensuring that the local municipality has some "good" jobs. Episode 435: Why Buying A Car Is So Awful is a very informative listen.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[mindmaster064]

Moreover, you win nothing but a higher cost with that middleman. The further you are removed from the supply chain the more something is marked up. Understand that most items in the USA that you can buy are marked up on each phase of the distribution. The manufacturer sells to a distributor who doubles it, and that guy goes to someone who represents a retailer or a group of them and they do the same thing. So something that costs $5 to make (with profit mind you) ends up being $20-30. Cars are no different -- the manufacturer price is much less than the 'invoice' cost which is just a number these dealers cook up but they are marked up less than other items due to the smaller supply chain -- usually being manufacturer to dealer vs there being another couple of parties -- if you add importers and such into the pile you can see why foreign cars with dealerships cannot compete with Tesla. Tesla can sell a car for the exact same price as these guys and make way more money doing it. Bravo -- you are winning at business!

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[jbmartin6]

Why not? This has already been done with cold medicine and liquor.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[dywolf]

cause you didnt buy it from a licensed dealer.
this will also stop person to person cragislist car sales.
now you need a dealer for that too.
we must close this auto show loophole!
and national instant background check to make sure you are of a fit mind and abaility to operate a vehicle *
for the children!

(* satire aside, thats actually probably a good idea)

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[steelfood]

Javascript.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[bishopBelloc]

I expect you would be taxed in both the state you bought the car and the state you registered the car in. And the tax on a car is not a small amount.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[femtobyte]

They probably can't stop people from going out-of-state to do so --- but that's quite a lot of time/work. If you're really already fully committed to getting a Tesla regardless of hassles, then you'll find a way to get one. But Tesla presumably wants to sell even more cars, to the folks browsing around the high-dollar BMW, Audi, etc. showrooms in the trendy part of town. More stores on the ground, offering instant gratification to cruise off the lot with your new toy, means more sales that would otherwise go to other luxury car dealers who can locate nearer where the disposable income is.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[azadrozny]

The law will change pretty quick when they realize that they are not getting sales tax revenue on $100k cars.

I found it interesting that the article referenced a similar bill in Texas, which seems all but dead. One thing I have realized about bicameral legislatures is that frequently one house takes up an issue, members thumping their chest about how badly this legislation in needed. Deep down they know it is not great for their constituents, but it drives in the campaign dollars and they know it is DOA in the other house. It is a win-win for them.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[businessnerd]

If you are a Costco member, this is the reality. Costco pre-negotiates prices with participating dealerships and the price is just a hair above invoice. There is no haggling, no back and forth. Just show your membership, then they go grab the Costco price, end of negotiation*. Even if you're not a Costco member, the internet has made negotiating new car prices much easier with sites like TrueCar.com. They publish what people actually paid for new cars and give you a guide to what is a a good deal (this is how I knew the Costco price was a really good deal). You may still have to do some theatrics like walking out and saying your going to see what the dealership across town has to say, but you have a lot more leverage then you had in the past.

* The negotiation on the sale price is done, but if you plan to finance, the negotiation of financing terms (length, interest, extra servces, etc.) begins and can still be a pretty slimy feeling experience. When it comes to financing, I feel like I never know how much I'm paying each month until I get the first bill.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[robot256]

The only reason franchised dealers were created in the first place was so manufacturers could "shift the responsibility for providing the land, buildings and inventory to dealers". The whole point of the franchise model is so manufacturers can screw their dealers whenever they like.

From the link, this hilarious quote: "Even a small dealership requires an investment of between $12 million and $16 million. ... No successful auto manufacturer could or would want to assume the financial burden of taking over those operational." (He then goes on to claim that dealerships magically produce tax money and jobs that somehow wouldn't exist in a company store or end up back in the consumers' pockets.)

So when a manufacturer comes along with a product that actually makes it cost-effective to properly invest in their customer experience, they get cut out simply because previous companies were too cheap to do it themselves.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[Mysticeti]

The law will change pretty quick when they realize that they are not getting sales tax revenue on $100k cars.

That would be a great point but many (most?) states collect sales tax when the vehicle is registered, not upon sale.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[Quila]

So you want me to buy from the local Nissan dealer, which survives pretty much only on good reputation and good customer service, and not directly from the Nissan Motor Company, which could care less about me and was the entity that tried to steal nissan.com from its rightful owner.

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[businessnerd]

My mileage did vary. Not sure what the % over invoice was, but it was right on the mark for the "Great Price" listed on TrueCar.com. While I did have to go to the dealership and find the exact car we were interested in before we got the price, they did allow me to contact a competing (non-Costco) dealership to counter the offer. At this point I was not under any obligation to accept the Costco price. In fact the competing dealership matched the offer, however they could not match the additional $500 Costco gift card that was being offered (limited time offer after completing a survey). The competing dealershiop gave up the sale at that point and then we signed for the car with the Costco dealership. Only dealer incentives going on were for interest rates, but not for the specific model I wanted. I was able to get that interest rate, though, when negotiating with the finance manager. Each dealership may be different and if there are limited time dealership incentives, then yes, you may be able to get a better/different deal. I guess it still goes back to how hard you negotiate, even with the Costco pricing (maybe I just contradicted my original point).

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[mathfeel]

It is not going to stop that. But the additional work required to do that means only enthusiast (like yourself, perhaps?) will go out of his/her own way to own one. Creating sufficient friction for entrance is often enough to protect established players from competition. It also gives politicians an excuse to say: I am not against your freedom to buy a Tesla, I am just for a little more freedom for our local, lovable, car dealerships. FREEDOM!

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[XcepticZP]

Are these auto auctions for second hand cars?

Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed.

[DuckDodgers]

I just checked, and there are at least four each of Honda, Toyota, Ford, and Chevrolet dealerships within 20 miles of my house. So while none of them are next door, they are effectively all competing with dealers with the same manufacturer for customers.

No middle man

[ZeroNullVoid]

Why have a middle man if they cannot offer any better deals or services? I understand it artificially creates jobs, but that seems like a horrible thing to force.

This does not just apply to vehicles.

If there is no value added and only cost added, then it is pointless. If there is value added, then consumers should have a choice for it.
If the only value is creating jobs and expenses, then it is pointless and detrimental to progression, price, and capitalism.

Re:No middle man

[geekoid]

yep, the middle mans job is to offer a service that the manufacture can't or doesn't want to do. Usually due to cost.
If that cost goes away, so do middlemen.
From what I have read, manufacture owned dealers in the past were always better for consumers then private owned dealerships.

This is akin to not allowing digital books because they hurt book stores.

Re:No middle man

[TWiTfan]

This is akin to not allowing digital books because they hurt book stores.

Hush! Don't give them any ideas!

Re:No middle man

[Sockatume]

You may enjoy:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes

Basically, they've got too much political sway. Now, quite what political sway means in this context bemuses me. Yes, car dealers are big employers and provide a lot of tax revenue, but if you make them mad, what are they going to do? Move to the next state? Stop selling cars? Stop paying their taxes? They might, as a big employer, encourage their employees and customers to vote out the guy who had the temerity to challenge them, but is that really all it takes for a business to coax protectionism out of the government?

Re:No middle man

[srussia]

Why have a middle man if they cannot offer any better deals or services? I understand it artificially creates jobs, but that seems like a horrible thing to force.

This does not just apply to vehicles.

Government is the biggest middleman of them all.

Re:No middle man

[i kan reed]

Yes, that's all it takes. Politicians are terrified of direct blame. Indirect blame that can be shifted to "those other guys" or denied is fine in droves, but anything that seems like "You did X then somewhat related Y happened" is terrifying to them. Anyone who can leverage that: "You made [local sports team] leave" or "You shut down toxic waste dumping co." has complete control and can play the brinksmanship game as much as they please.

Re:No middle man

[Time_Ngler]

Stop donating to the politicians that cross them?

Re:No middle man

[alen]

for us peons that have to finance our cars a dealership is a place to
  look at the car,
sit inside,
play with the buttons,
  take a test drive
get a loan at better rates than most banks to finance the car. no bank other than the manufacturer's finance companies offers 0%, .9% or 1.9% for 5 years.

if smart people go to best buy to check out TV's then you have to be a moron to buy an $80,000 car just by visiting a web site to check the specs and pictures

Re:No middle man

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried this before... most famously with telephones. Shortly after their invention, a bill was introduced that would make self-dialable telephones illegal. Why? To protect the jobs of phone operators. It's ridiculous now, but it was a real issue back then. Similarly, in this case the wise aren't taking decades to see that this bill is ridiculous.

Re:No middle man

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Are they big employers? They are employers in big buildings alright but I don't think they employ that many staff. They do contribute a fair bit of VAT or sales tax or whatever though by adding an extra layer between the manufacturer and the customer.

Re:No middle man

[Hadlock]

Dealerships also create quite a bit of property tax at the city level and (I assume) commercial taxes for the state. When GM shut down something like 3,000 dealerships across the country during their restructuring, it crippled a lot of small towns who depended on that source of property tax income. In a rural, agricultural area that may have been the largest commercial source of property tax, equivalent to one city worker's salary in a town of 300.

Re:No middle man

[yurtinus]

This is the whole thing though - to sell cars the company is still going to have to open up stores. They will still need to open up service centers. There's still storefronts that will need to pay leases and taxes. The value to the state and community is practically identical whether the excess profits go to Tesla or to the one guy at the top, given the small part of the profits that would otherwise get skimmed off in-state.

The only difference is they aren't going through the current buddy club. This is all about competition, in that the dealer networks don't want any. It's pathetic that it's become normal to use the courts and legislature to create or maintain your business model.

Re:No middle man

[zlives]

IMHO people that are buying the Tesla (a decent car from all reports) are buying the car, not the direct to sale business model. They also happen to have the money... so that helps.
If other manufacturers had a vehicle that people actually wanted to buy... it normally sells regardless of dealer history.

Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[arcite]

Research Triangle area is practically the Silicon Valley of the south. ...and they're trying to Ban Tesla.

Re:Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[Tactical Bacon]

Who votes them in? The masses that go to the polls and vote for the guy that has the right letter after their name on the ballot or has the right opinion on a matter not up to a politician...

Re:Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[0racle]

What makes you think RTP holds any political power in the state? It's such a small part of anything.

Re:Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[b_dover]

The problem is that the Triange is only one small area represented by a few state legislators...The vast majority of NC is still very rural and mired in the old south's Good Old Boy way of thinking. There are two very different North Carolina's...urban and rural. Just look at the split on the voting on the gay marriage issue. The Charlotte and Triangle regions heavily against the gay marriage ban, but most other counties were heavily for it.

Re: Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[fartrader]

The state districts are gerrymandered to death - there is massive GOP over representation. The state is by popular vote teetering between democrat and GOP - moving inexorably to the former due to northern and external immigration.

Re:Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

There really is not much choice here. It is either money sucking dems or money sucking repubs. Both are equally guilty in doing this (I have seen many instances). It is one of the reasons I am considering leaving this state. Though it is not much better elsewhere from what I have seen. For as little as 1500 bucks you can get a bill introduced. Surprised these guys went 'max'.

NC has a *long* history of exclusionary behavior.

Not even sure why they are worried about Tesla. Tesla is in the high end field of car buyers here. If someone has the cash to buy a Tesla it not being in this state will matter very little to them. Someone dropping 100k+ on a car does not care if they have to travel a little to see one. A 4-8 hour trip is nothing... I know people who went to germany to pick up their cars...

Re:Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[i kan reed]

North Carolina has gone through some of the most awful gerrymandering in U.S. history in 2010, essentially letting the republican party have a super-majority of power in NC with either a scant plurality or outright minority of votes(depending on which election you're talking about).

They have been on a constant steamroll of attacking anything they imagine to be liberal through legislation. Electric cars are one of those things. The majority of North Carolinians don't even support this trash.

Re: Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[fartrader]

I'm sorry, what so you mean by "racially motivated"?

Re: Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's commonly used as a polite synonym for 'darkies voting'.

Re: Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[Pope]

Ah, yes, "this state." And which one is that?

Re:Who votes in those bozo politicicans?

[Firethorn]

Not even sure why they are worried about Tesla.

Because of Tesla's stated business plan? Start in the ultra-high end sports car market, move down to the luxury car market, using the larger profit margins that allows to eventually move down into the economy car market?

They see Tesla being competition eventually, and they want to protect their business model - which would be to force Tesla to hire them, at least some of them, to act as dealers, allowing them to continue their business as usual.

Ooh, this is compelling...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

So, shockingly enough, this gem of free-market-capitalism is being pushed by the state's auto-dealers cartel. Their argument concerning Tesla's menace to the public strikes me as totally compelling:

'Robert Glaser, president of the dealers association, told the News & Observer that the law prohibiting Tesla sales isn’t just about his industry’s self-interest. Pointing to the Tesla representatives at a recent hearing, he said, “You tell me they’re gonna support the little leagues and the YMCA?”'

A terrifying possibility, truly.

Re:Ooh, this is compelling...

[gtall]

There's no "gem of free-market-capitalism" here. It is simply what happens with politician meets money.

Re:Ooh, this is compelling...

[Chris Mattern]

It is good for the community to support each other instead of for instance going to walmart.

But it is *not* good for government to enforce this "support" by law.

Re:Ooh, this is compelling...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The issue, though, is that dealers aren't adding value, so there aren't 'profits made in NC'(if the complaint were 'buyers are test-driving at our dealership and then buying online', that would be a case of dealers offering a valuable service; but being unable to get paid for doing so.) This is simply an attempt to make it illegal to not hire a middleman to take his cut of what you pay for your car.

Essentially, NC car dealers are attempting to buy legislation that allows them to certain transactions undertaken by NC residents for their own benefit. If they were offering some sort of value(say, local repair capabilities, or the ability to buy a car without waiting for delivery), they wouldn't need to make their competitors illegal, because they'd have a selling point of their own.

Re:Ooh, this is compelling...

[yurtinus]

It's a spurious argument though. So a portion of the profits doesn't get skimmed by a local dealer. How bad does that really hurt the community when it's still going to be provided with local salespeople, managers, service techs, taxes on auto sales, property taxes for the storefronts that are owned by the manufacturer?

I'm not at all against buying local, but keep in mind those cars aren't produced locally. The vast majority of the money for that Ford or Chevy is going to other regions. Sure there are all sorts of manufacturer incentives and financing, but ultimately the dealer just buys the cars at one price, marks them up, and resells them to us. We would do far more for local business by switching to that local coffee shop down the street from Starbucks than we would by switching to direct auto sales.

The funny thing is

[arcite]

It's the Middle class that has traditionally had little choice in dealing the 'middle men', ie. salesmen, dealers, ect... Those of the 1% have their own private networks and make their purchases at or below cost. So much for consumer choice eh?

Re:The funny thing is

[wagnerrp]

Huh? Rich people have middle men too. They call them a concierge service.

Pesky free markets

[Hypotensive]

They're just not in the interest of right-thinking citizens!

Why cant Tesla create a dealership?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Creating a company costs some 150$ or so. Can Tesla Motor Corporation set up a wholly owned subsidiary Tesla Motor Sales and Service Corporation of North Carolina and sell it through them? Corporations are people, but it is lot harder (and more fun) to create real people than corporations.

Re:Why cant Tesla create a dealership?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sate laws dictating that car dealers cannot be owned by the manufacturer. Every state has them.

Re:Why cant Tesla create a dealership?

[Chris Mattern]

Creating a company costs some 150$ or so. Can Tesla Motor Corporation set up a wholly owned subsidiary Tesla Motor Sales and Service Corporation of North Carolina and sell it through them?

No, because the dealership laws require independent dealers--i.e., the manufacturer can't own any piece of them.

Re:Why cant Tesla create a dealership?

[alen]

so? find someone to open a dealership

in NY state there are lots of people who own dealerships from different manufacturers

Re:Why cant Tesla create a dealership?

[Rude Turnip]

Fuck that. No middlemen.

Re:Why cant Tesla create a dealership?

[citizenr]

It can be owned by Elon himself.

Re:Why cant Tesla create a dealership?

[Steve Hamlin]

Because the dealerships, by law, have to be independently owned - the idea being that somehow that was/is a check on the power of major automobile manufacturers. In reality, dealers are usually exclusive to, and financed by, the manufacturers, and bound by long-term and complex contracts the mostly erase any putative 'freer-market' gains from the independent dealership laws.

Won't happen

[koan]

Interferes with interstate commerce.

Re:Won't happen

[0racle]

Hasn't stopped any other franchise law.

Regulation Is Bad

[CMYKjunkie]

Remember kids: Government regulation is bad. Unless, of course, that regulation is to protect a cartel. Then, by golly, it's A-OK.

Re:Regulation Is Bad

[arcite]

Yup, and we all know that the BIG car dealers are the sacred cows. Tesla is up to the fight I wager....

Sign We the People Petition

[Tokolosh]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/overturn-franchise-laws-limit-auto-manufacturers-selling-their-vehicles-directly-consumers/rlShbLzr

Re:Sign We the People Petition

[Chris Mattern]

Let's get a boilerplate acknowledgement from the White House that doesn't accomplish anything at all! *That'll* show 'em!

Re:Sign We the People Petition

[slash.jit]

thanks for that.. just signed it

Re:Sign We the People Petition

[jandrese]

You're asking the federal government to solve a state government problem. While they theoretically have the power to enact a sweeping federal legislation banning these sorts of laws, there is absolutely no political will for it. Not unless Elon Musk gets his butt over to Washington DC and breaks out the checkbook.

Re:Sign We the People Petition

[Tokolosh]

In response to others, I am under no illusion that the petition, currently with only 6,300 signatures, will make an iota of difference.

Re:Sign We the People Petition

[XcepticZP]

I'm probably not the first to say this, but... Fuck you, and your damn social contract. Claiming some over-arching "contract" that I never signed doesn't give you magical powers to force me to conform to whatever you deem is contained in this contract of yours.

Re:Sign We the People Petition

[utoddl]

It's a state politician screwing up a state law. Do you want federal politicians to be able to overturn state laws on a whim?

Since you mention it, the same Republican legislature (North Carolina) is pushing a proposal to repeal any local ordinances that go beyond federal regulations. This is their broad stroke approach to "doing away with anti-business regulation". This same bunch that's been screaming "states rights" for years is now doing just the opposite now that they've finally gained power.

Re:Sign We the People Petition

[rabbin]

It costs you a mere 10 seconds and 2 mouse clicks to sign a petition. The ability for the public to gauge the collective support behind an issue like this is worth that cost by itself (the corporate media sure as hell isn't going to channel such concerns). The possibility that the petition may "go viral" and gain enough signatures to make a politician a little less comfortable is only a bonus.

If you feel "cheated" by petitions, you were expecting too much in the first place--especially in the context of the US where what's in the public's interest is often in direct conflict with what gets a politician re-elected (money). They are not a substitute for other avenues of political activism, but they are certainly worth the almost nonexistent cost. You should be signing one every day.

Too bad

[Nidi62]

The problem with being the man in the middle is that, sooner or later, you are going to get cut out. All you are doing is adding costs to the customer and reducing profits for the manufacturer. You can't expect your free ride to go on forever, especially in the days of easy price comparison by consumers and profit maximization by manufacturers.

Re:Too bad

[jader3rd]

The problem with being the man in the middle is that, sooner or later, you are going to get cut out.

Except for in the case of dealerships where they've been able to get their backwards business model enshrined into the local laws of every state, county and city in the US.

Cherry-picking

[MachineShedFred]

So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?

When you outsell the 5-series, the E-class, and the Audi A6, then you'll have something to talk about, as all three manufacturers sell an order of magnitude more of those.

Re:Cherry-picking

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more fair to look at luxury vehicles in the same price range. The A6 can but up to half the cost of a Tesla.

Re:Cherry-picking

[drinkypoo]

When you outsell the 5-series, the E-class, and the Audi A6, then you'll have something to talk about, as all three manufacturers sell an order of magnitude more of those.

Well no, when they accomplish that then they won't need to say anything. But they have something to talk about now, because the Tesla vehicle is outselling its competition. They're not yet outselling cars out-of-class, but give them time.

Re:Cherry-picking

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, when Ferrari and Lamborghini outsell the 5-series and A6, then those companies will truly be something meaningful.

Re:Cherry-picking

[rgbrenner]

Q1 2013 - cars sold
    BMW Group (BMW + Mini + Rolls Royce): 448,200
    Audi: 369,500
    Mercedes: 341,511
    Tesla: 4,750

http://beta.fool.com/sarfarazis/2013/05/08/audi-vs-mercedes-who-is-winning/33384/
http://www.bmwblog.com/2013/05/02/bmw-group-reports-first-quarter-revenues/

Re:Cherry-picking

[ganjadude]

The tesla is in the price range of the higher class cars, which would explain comparing them

Re:Cherry-picking

[reebmmm]

Good thing that Tesla warrants it on unlimited mileage out to 8 years. (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-to-offer-eight-year-warranty-on-battery-pack/). Also, you can acquire the Tesla replacement battery packs for circa $12,000 (http://www.teslamotors.com/it_CH/forum/forums/battery-replacement-cost) today. Factor in that by the end of the 8 year warranty period, the cost will likely be lower, your argument holds no water.

Re:Cherry-picking

[catchblue22]

Give them time? You mean when all the batteries start their failure after 3 years, and no longer hold a decent charge? This is akin to your fuel tank shrinking each year and then costing thousands to replace.

People said that about the Toyota Prius. And yet, I recently talked to a taxi driver who drove his Prius for 500 000 miles with no problems other than regular maintenance such as brake replacement. The Prius electric motor takes the stress off the gasoline motor during startup, reducing wear. And the battery is aggressively kept at an optimal charge level (60 to 80% I think). BTW, I am also a Prius owner, and I like the car a lot.

Re:Cherry-picking

[bancho]

If I'm not mistaken, it outsold all of the 7 series, S-class and A8's *combined*. While still not bread and butter 5 series, E-class and A6 numbers, it's not bad.

Re:Cherry-picking

[organgtool]

So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?

The Model S is a top-end full-size full-luxury sedan. It makes complete sense to compare it to the top-end full-size full-luxury sedans of the incumbent manufacturers.

When you outsell the 5-series, the E-class, and the Audi A6, then you'll have something to talk about, as all three manufacturers sell an order of magnitude more of those.

The fact that they were able to outsell any manufacturers in any series during their first attempt at a car in this class still says a lot. Given that this is their second success (the first being the Roadster), and that each success is building on the last, I think that the future of Tesla Motors is very bright and judging by the stock price, so do many others.

Re:Cherry-picking

[CanHasDIY]

They're not yet outselling cars out-of-class, but give them time.

You mean, time for the 'OMG chek aut mah fancie not-so-green 'lectric supahcah!' fad to end?

Don't get me wrong, it's a testament to hipster-dom that the $110,000 Tesla Roadster is outselling its $80K direct rivals, but to even imagine that such a frivolity would have any notable effect on sales of nice cars that cost half as much? That's beyond unrealistic.

Re:Cherry-picking

[mrchaotica]

When Tesla makes a car in the same category as the 3-series, your statistic will become relevant.

Re:Cherry-picking

[femtobyte]

You mean, time for the 'OMG chek aut mah fancie not-so-green 'lectric supahcah!' fad to end?

That's definitely a fad doomed to end --- but it ends with ubiquitous <$25k electric cars, at which point just having an electric vehicle won't score many conspicuous-"green"-consumption bragging points, but EV manufacturers will still be doing just fine.

Re:Cherry-picking

[CanHasDIY]

Meh. I'll believe it when I see it.

Not that I have anything personal against electric cars - much to the contrary, despite the fact that battery production releases insane amounts of pollution (thereby effectively negating the "green" effect of electrics vs internal combustion), I think electric cars would be a great solution for overpopulated urban centers - less (localized) air and noise pollution, easier parking (EVs trend to the 'microcar' side of the scale), et. al.

However, considering the lack of supporting infrastructure, abysmal battery life, and crazy-huge charging times, I just don't see them being adopted en masse anytime soon, short of an unlikely, major technological breakthrough.

Re:Cherry-picking

[cplusplus]

If that's true, then it's a huge win. Those are the cars in their target market segment, and Tesla is outselling them. A Model S starts at $62K, you know.

Re:Cherry-picking

[45mm]

So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?

The Model S is a top-end full-size full-luxury sedan. It makes complete sense to compare it to the top-end full-size full-luxury sedans of the incumbent manufacturers.

Except the Model S' dimensions are closer to the 5-series, A6, or E-class - and the price is similar also. Just because it's the "top" of Tesla's line doesn't mean it compares to the "top" of the German lines (which are much bigger, and considerably more expensive). In fact, the Model S has been directly compared to the Audi S6 and BMW M5 in a number of magazines - and it's notable that the Model S was declared the winner in many (save for the range "issues").

Re:Cherry-picking

[femtobyte]

I'm not expecting a "major technological breakthrough" either; whether adoption is "anytime soon" is a matter of definition of "soon." Battery quality/capacity/charging-rate/cost is something that non-"breakthrough" advances have steadily increasing year to year; extrapolation of the slow-but-steady trend in battery technology makes it seem a near certainty that today's "daily commute only, no long road trips" range cars will, in a decade or two, be up to the full range of gas vehicles. Over the same time period, suitable infrastructure will get gradually rolled out into place. By the way, do you have any reference about battery production --- for the types going into current and near future electric cars --- being "insanely polluting," comparable to the insane level of pollution released over the lifetime of a gasoline car? I've seen various FUD articles trying to "prove" points like that, but nothing that actually stands up to much scrutiny.

Re:Cherry-picking

[tgd]

Yeah, when Ferrari and Lamborghini outsell the 5-series and A6, then those companies will truly be something meaningful.

Forget that. Clearly Elon is a failure until SpaceX sells more Dragon capsules than Hyundai Elantras!

Re:Cherry-picking

[CanHasDIY]

I'm not expecting a "major technological breakthrough" either; whether adoption is "anytime soon" is a matter of definition of "soon."

I figure 'soon' equates to 'when someone like my mom would buy one.' which means it has to be good for daily driving and the occasional 400-mile road trip to visit family across the state.

today's "daily commute only, no long road trips" range cars

Which cars are those? All the models I know of are capable of both (granted, due greatly in part to existing gasoline-based infrastructure). Anyway, a gasoline ForTwo can theoretically go from KC to STL on a single tank (71 MPG, 8.7 gal tank), whereas the electric model (84 mi on a full charge) would have to be charged at least 3 times one way, at 8 hours per charge.

will, in a decade or two, be up to the full range of gas vehicles.

"A decade or two" is a long friggin' time. Who knows what we'll come up with between now and then? (P.S. this is why I think futurists, AKA self-proclaimed oracles, are idiots).

Over the same time period, suitable infrastructure will get gradually rolled out into place.

Right... and in the 1960's, they were convinced that 20 years in the future we'd all have jetpacks and live on space colonies. Pure speculation, then and now.

 

By the way, do you have any reference about battery production --- for the types going into current and near future electric cars --- being "insanely polluting," comparable to the insane level of pollution released over the lifetime of a gasoline car? I've seen various FUD articles trying to "prove" points like that, but nothing that actually stands up to much scrutiny.

Funny, in my research I saw the opposite - various articles that tried to downplay the fact that hybrids and EVs pollute as much if not more than their gasoline or diesel counterparts. C'est la vie, eh, mon frere?

Anyway, here are some links:

http://www.auto123.com/en/news/hybrid-and-ev-production-pollutes-more-than-gas-cars-but?artid=132278

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/04/electric-cars-may-pollute-more-than-gas-models-study.html

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-electric-cars-are-more-polluting-than-gas-guzzlers-at-least-in-china/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm

Cheers.

Re:Cherry-picking

[drinkypoo]

So they get to pick and choose what models are their competitors? I thought that'd be decided more by things like size and features.

They are. Performance is a feature. The Model S makes five series cry.

Re:Cherry-picking

[SIGBUS]

Does that include a discount for the spent batteries (useful for recycling), or is that the price of a new battery pack without turning in an existing one?

Re:Cherry-picking

[Immerman]

True that the current battery production is not exactly green, but hopefully some of the competing technologies will make it out of the lab before mass adoption sets in. As for the lack of infrastructure, what do you expect? It's a major technological shift and there's always a chicken-and-egg problem there. I think they're actually doing pretty well, getting quick-charge stations built along all the major routes their customers are likely to travel. Not nearly as convenient as gas stations yet, but then gas stations have had the better part of a century to get built up everywhere, and have a MUCH larger customer base. Not to mention that for the most common use case of most electric vehicles - commuting and driving around town, the battery packs are generally sufficient to allow overnight home charging, drastically limiting the need for quick-charging. In fact I see that as one of the major limiting factors which will probably keep charging stations from ever becoming as ubiquitous as gas stations are now: every driver needs gas on a regular basis, but most EV drivers will only need charging stations during atypical usage.

Where I'm actually more interested in EVs is as the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle during the energy transition we need to be doing this century. Most people don't drive new cars - it's a horribly wasteful economic investment unless you have a pretty high income. And an old gas car will only ever efficiently burn gas. An old EV though, aftermarket mods that replace most the batteries with a small natural gas generator, or Mr. Fusion, or whatever the compact electric generating system du-jour is and you have a far more environmentally friendly vehicle than an old gas-burner. Even burning gas in a small turbine generator and using batteries as a buffer to provide the extra "oomph" occasionally needed is likely to be a significant improvement. We just need to get large electric motor production to the point that they benefit from the same economies of scale as internal combustion engines and things can start getting interesting.

Re:Cherry-picking

[femtobyte]

Which cars are those?

I was thinking of current "affordable" electric models, like the Nissan Leaf --- improve battery technology by ~5x (capacity, charge rate, cost) over the next decade or two (extremely slow progress rate compared to past history; plausible technologies already on the "too expensive now, but not for long" horizon), and you've hit the "does everything a gas car does" level.

"A decade or two" is a long friggin' time. Who knows what we'll come up with between now and then? (P.S. this is why I think futurists, AKA self-proclaimed oracles, are idiots).

I don't think it's unreasonable to make mid-term projections of basic technological progress; you just have to decide how far out to draw the line between "batteries will improve 8% per year for another decade or two" versus "everyone will have mind-control jetpacks and be part of a supercomputer hive mind." I consider it fairly safe to expect technologies we *already have today* (slightly limited and expensive, but in an area of research progress) can gradually get better and cheaper. Some loonies in the '60s may have said we'd all be in space: but those were just the idiots speculating that rockets which cost *billions of dollars* would be affordable to middle-class families in a couple decades. But assuming that today's ~$100k (and falling) technology will reach the ~$20k range in a decade or two doesn't require a comparable stretch of credibility.

hybrids and EVs pollute as much if not more than their gasoline or diesel counterparts.

For hybrids, let's take a quote from your last article:

The Argonne National Laboratory ran a side-by-side comparison of hybrid and conventional vehicles over their entire life cycle, which includes vehicle production, vehicle operation and the energy required to produce fuel for both cars. If you assume that both vehicles travel 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers) over their lifetime, the conventional vehicle requires 6,500 Btu of energy per mile compared to 4,200 Btu per mile for a hybrid. That higher energy input results in far greater lifetime greenhouse gas emissions for conventional vehicles compared to hybrids, more than 1.1 pounds (500 grams) per mile compared to 0.75 pounds (340 grams) per mile [source: Burnham et al].

So hybrids are *already* significantly past their "gasoline or diesel counterparts," according to your own source. EVs are more mixed depending on how terribly dirty the available electric sources are: the very worst case "pure coal" scenario is

it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle

So, you are correct, it can be a little worse than hydrocarbon-fueled cars in the worst case --- however, note that this problem is *not* so much from the "battery production being insanely polluting" as the electric charging source being "insanely polluting." With better sources, the EVs start to to better. From your second article,

The findings show that only the 45 percent of the U.S. population living along the coasts have sources of electricity capable of using a Nissan Leaf EV at lower greenhouse gas levels than gasoline engine vehicles capable of 50 mpg in combined driving.

so, for roughly half the US population with access to cleaner energy sources, EVs meet or exceed the lifetime efficiency of a 50mpg car (like a hybrid; lots better than similar-sized all-gas cars on the market). Coupled with the ongoing decommissioning of coal plants for cleaner energy sources, a larger and larger portion of the population will live in areas where EVs allow them to make good use of cleaner energy sources to claim significantly better energy efficiency than sticking with fossil-fuels-only technologies.

Re:Cherry-picking

[CanHasDIY]

Which cars are those?

I was thinking of current "affordable" electric models, like the Nissan Leaf

Ah, I thought you were talking about those tiny gasoline-powered tin cans.

You're right about that - personally, I'm kind of hoping soon-to-be-released models like the Tesla S can meet the mileage estimates put forth by the manufacturers, although considering that the Roadster recently had it's mileage expectation lowered by the EPA it's a bit concerning. Still, If they can produce a car that I can drive across the state and around town once I get there (so, about 400-600 total miles), without requiring 8 hours of down time* in between, that's something I may actually have interest in.

* Under normal circumstances, 8 hours is no big deal. But what happens when you get the evacuation order 2 hours after you plug in?

I don't think it's unreasonable to make mid-term projections of basic technological progress; you just have to decide how far out to draw the line between "batteries will improve 8% per year for another decade or two" versus "everyone will have mind-control jetpacks and be part of a supercomputer hive mind." I consider it fairly safe to expect technologies we *already have today* (slightly limited and expensive, but in an area of research progress) can gradually get better and cheaper. Some loonies in the '60s may have said we'd all be in space: but those were just the idiots speculating that rockets which cost *billions of dollars* would be affordable to middle-class families in a couple decades. But assuming that today's ~$100k (and falling) technology will reach the ~$20k range in a decade or two doesn't require a comparable stretch of credibility.

This is assuming no major socio-political upheavals, pandemics, natural disasters, or any number of other unknown unknowns that may have a negative effect on our ability to make those improvements. While planning for the future is a good idea, making predictions based on the expectation of a particular future is a ridiculous notion, IMO.

Plus, you've got to remember - lots of otherwise brilliant notions and technologies have gone the way of the dodo, merely by virtue of the fact that no government or corporation could find a way to monetize them. Granted, at this juncture there's no reason to think battery technology will meet the same fate, but we're talking 1-2 decades into the future; $deity knows what lies between now and then.

For hybrids, let's take a quote from your last article... so hybrids are *already* significantly past their "gasoline or diesel counterparts," according to your own source

According to one paragraph of one of the many sources I offered. From what I've read, the overall consensus is that, when it comes to pollutant output, hybrids, EVs, and IC engines are just about equal (and that's not factoring in the environmental cost of changing several hundred pounds of Lithium batteries every, what, 5-8 years?).

No surprise though, considering that they're doing the hybrid thing completely wrong - the IC engine should do nothing but charge the batteries. That way, you can have a much smaller engine, meaning less weight, less fossil fuel used, better range, and, combined with other technologies such as regenerative braking and solar-charging body panels, none of that "8 hours of downtime to charge" crap.

note that this problem is *not* so much from the "battery production being insanely polluting" as the electric charging source being "insanely polluting."

Which the NIMBY crowd finds intolerable; funny how filling the Chinese skies with pollution is A-OK for the Greenie Hipsters, but when it's their own air being fouled...

so, for roughly half the US population with access to cleaner energy sources, EVs meet or exceed the lifetime efficiency of a 50mpg car (like a hybrid; lots better than similar-sized

Re:Cherry-picking

[femtobyte]

* Under normal circumstances, 8 hours is no big deal. But what happens when you get the evacuation order 2 hours after you plug in?

I suppose the same thing as when you get the evacuation order when your car's gas gauge is at 1/4, and the filling stations are already jammed with mile-long lines of panicking evacuees wiping out all available local fuel reserves. Hope you can hitch a ride out of town with someone else. At least the hybrid/electric cars won't end up burning through all their fuel idling in the 6-hour traffic jam of everyone leaving town.

This is assuming no major socio-political upheavals, pandemics, natural disasters, or any number of other unknown unknowns that may have a negative effect on our ability to make those improvements. While planning for the future is a good idea, making predictions based on the expectation of a particular future is a ridiculous notion, IMO.

A general guess that batteries will continue to improve doesn't seem like an overly "particular" future; true, we might all be back to stone tools and animal skins after the zombie apocalypse. But, for figuring out how to direct research, development, and energy policy from *today,* assuming a reasonable continual increase in battery capability seems reasonably plausible. That doesn't require kicking society into panic mode: nobody is suggesting that we bulldoze all the gas stations and put in EV chargers by next weekend to support EVs available 20 years from now. But a continued slow-and-steady emphasis on rolling out new EV-compatible infrastructure in tandem with the slow-and-steady progress in EV research and availability seems like a decent plan (better than "do nothing whatsoever! fossil fuels forever!") --- it's even useful at every stage along the way (as your articles indicate, EVs aren't perfect for every application today, but they do pretty well in the places they're generally appearing first --- and can continue to spread *where they are useful*), and if it ends up not panning out in the long term to replace all cars, it's still a useful tech for urban commuter scenarios in regions with access to clean electricity.

Oh, and build one that can tow a horse trailer. That might get the farmers out of their Ford Super Duty's.

Indeed, some automobile applications might take a lot longer to transition to all-electric than others. But there's no particular reason that pulling a trailer is especially hard for an EV. Once battery price/capacity have fallen enough, heaving a big heavy battery pack onto a big heavy truck frame doesn't seem like an insurmountable technological marvel. And the advantages that electric motors have for low-speed, high-torque applications might make a truck with great handling performance for yanking a trailer into motion.

Re:Cherry-picking

[CanHasDIY]

Where I'm actually more interested in EVs is as the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle during the energy transition we need to be doing this century. Most people don't drive new cars - it's a horribly wasteful economic investment unless you have a pretty high income. And an old gas car will only ever efficiently burn gas. An old EV though, aftermarket mods that replace most the batteries with a small natural gas generator, or Mr. Fusion, or whatever the compact electric generating system du-jour is and you have a far more environmentally friendly vehicle than an old gas-burner. Even burning gas in a small turbine generator and using batteries as a buffer to provide the extra "oomph" occasionally needed is likely to be a significant improvement. We just need to get large electric motor production to the point that they benefit from the same economies of scale as internal combustion engines and things can start getting interesting.

Huh... I guess I should be ashamed, being a gearhead who never considered the 'aftermarket modification' potential of electric cars...

See, now I'm thinking... do you have any idea what you've done?!?! This can only end badly for the guinea pigs...

Re:Cherry-picking

[CanHasDIY]

I suppose the same thing as when you get the evacuation order when your car's gas gauge is at 1/4, and the filling stations are already jammed with mile-long lines of panicking evacuees wiping out all available local fuel reserves.

Ah, I believe the technical term for that is "kiss your ass goodbye."

Hope you can hitch a ride out of town with someone else. At least the hybrid/electric cars won't end up burning through all their fuel idling in the 6-hour traffic jam of everyone leaving town.

One of the many reasons to own an enduro bike

A general guess that batteries will continue to improve doesn't seem like an overly "particular" future; true, we might all be back to stone tools and animal skins after the zombie apocalypse.

Not sure if it was intentional or not, but I love how the tone of that sentence basically assumes the zombocalypes to be inevitable.

But a continued slow-and-steady emphasis on rolling out new EV-compatible infrastructure in tandem with the slow-and-steady progress in EV research and availability seems like a decent plan (better than "do nothing whatsoever! fossil fuels forever!") --- it's even useful at every stage along the way (as your articles indicate, EVs aren't perfect for every application today, but they do pretty well in the places they're generally appearing first --- and can continue to spread *where they are useful*), and if it ends up not panning out in the long term to replace all cars, it's still a useful tech for urban commuter scenarios in regions with access to clean electricity.

Fair enough. Plus, as someone else mentioned, there's the underground gearhead world I completely forgot about. Suddenly I'm kinda looking forward to what sort of hacks and performance upgrade we can come up with in our home shops.

heaving a big heavy battery pack onto a big heavy truck frame doesn't seem like an insurmountable technological marvel.

Hmmm.... wonder where I can find some big ass batteries (already have a frame)...

Re:Cherry-picking

[Immerman]

Guinea pigs? You monster! At least use politicians, corporate lawyers, or some other lower life form.

Yeah, EVs render drive-train modifications fairly non-existent, but I'm really looking forward to seeing the creative oddities people manage to splice into the power system. Heh, just flashed to an old Knight Rider spoof (I think) that featured a hamster wheel behind the dash to provide power.

Re:Cherry-picking

[drinkypoo]

And the advantages that electric motors have for low-speed, high-torque applications might make a truck with great handling performance for yanking a trailer into motion.

We already have that, it's called a turbo diesel with a wastegate and an automatic transmission. Done and done. And really, too many road-miles are traveled by freight. There should be more rail-miles in there.

Re:Cherry-picking

[femtobyte]

I absolutely agree we should move more freight (and passengers!) to rail. Note, in the context of the discussion above, "truck" was referring to a pickup truck or light truck, not a semi --- and, while I'm a strong supporter of rail infrastructure, I wouldn't go quite so far as to suggest "farmers with Ford Super Duty's" should switch over to pulling their horse trailers around town by train :). Time will tell, but I suspect that the continued development of battery technology will eventually make EV light trucks a better choice than turbo diesel --- similar or improved handling capability, range, and TCO, with lower total environmental impact.

Re:Cherry-picking

[drinkypoo]

Time will tell, but I suspect that the continued development of battery technology will eventually make EV light trucks a better choice than turbo diesel --- similar or improved handling capability, range, and TCO, with lower total environmental impact.

I hope you're right, but we seem very far away from that. Range is still a massive difference between diesel and gas, and EVs aren't even up to the range of gassers yet. My 444ci turbo diesel uses about 2/3 or even 1/2 the fuel of a 460ci gasser doing the same job, which is why I bought a diesel... I get better real-world mileage with my 7.3 liter V8 than many people get with their pinner little V6s.

Re:Cherry-picking

[femtobyte]

I think we're a lot closer than "very far away." For medium-sized cars, like the Nissan Leaf, an improvement of ~5x in battery capacity (with matching improvements in charging rate, charging infrastructure, cost, etc.) would put you pretty much at full gas car equivalent. There are already lots of "5x improvement" technologies on the development horizon right now --- lab prototypes today, that could make it to market in 10 years (at which point, they'll be no big deal --- just another incremental improvement from the 4.5x better-than-now batteries available the year before). Internal combustion engines are a rather "mature" technology at this point; with room for only slow and tiny improvements. Batteries are still on the "rapid improvement" portion of the technology curve. The upper limit for battery technology is rough parity with chemical energy sources, ~20x away from present technology; leaving plenty of room for major improvement before hitting the diminishing marginal returns development slowdown stages.

GM tried that

[Anonymous Coward]

it was called Saturn.

Re:GM tried that

[ShanghaiBill]

it was called Saturn.

And it failed. I prefer negotiating because that way the dealers make all their money from dumb people, while those of us that have enough sense to Google the prices get a good deal.

Re:GM tried that

[yurtinus]

And as a business model, it worked out pretty well - until instead of a single no-frills commuter car, it was expanded it into a badge-engineered model line exactly like all the rest of GMs model lines.

I don't think you're necessarily trying to give the impression that the business model is what killed Saturn, but just so our fellow readers are aware - they were killed by the same model redundancy and bloat that killed oldsmobile and pontiac.

Re:GM tried that

[Alioth]

But it's unpleasant and wastes a lot of time. If we were in a world where the price stuck to the windscreen was the price you paid and that was that, you could google the fair price and compare prices at several car lots without having to talk to a salesweasel. The haggling model means if I want to compare prices at several dealers it is a slow and highly unpleasant process.

Re:GM tried that

[mrchaotica]

And it worked, until GM's schizophrenic management killed it for no good reason.

By the way, Scion had the same kind of "no haggle" policy too, last time I checked.

Re:GM tried that

[smooth wombat]

Saturn failed for many reasons, but having a single price wasn't one of them. The brand became so successful that it was taking customers away from Pontiac and Chevrolet which, similar to this article, griped dealers trying to sell those cars.

Then there was the fact that they lost money on every car sold and when they ran ads during the Super Bowl, didn't have cars available for people to look at after they saw the ad.

Here are three articles which give a bit more depth to what I just said:

Businessweek

Christian Science Monitor

autoblog

Re:GM tried that

[Taibhsear]

And is currently called Scion. (at least it was when I bought mine.)

Re:GM tried that

[Nimey]

Saturn failed because its executives didn't know how or were unwilling to play internal GM politics. Chevrolet and Pontiac kept getting new models while Saturn was left with old stuff and became uncompetitive.

Re:GM tried that

[cayenne8]

But it's unpleasant and wastes a lot of time. If we were in a world where the price stuck to the windscreen was the price you paid and that was that, you could google the fair price and compare prices at several car lots without having to talk to a salesweasel. The haggling model means if I want to compare prices at several dealers it is a slow and highly unpleasant process.

Wait, don't you want to haggle?

:)

Well, if you're not used to doing it it might not be that pleasant, but you have to haggle for most of the better things in life.

I mean, you DO negotiate for your salary/bill rate for work don't you?

When you rent an apt/house, you do negotiate for the rent don't you?

It is a skill used around the world, but not as much in the US. I think that's actually a mistake. One needs to learn to try to haggle the best deal they can for themselves in any situation for the most part. It is a skill that should be learned.

Once learned, it is kinda fun too....I love it when I do it and feel I get a good deal.

Re:GM tried that

[Phreakiture]

He never said that. Maybe, like me, he has better things to do with his time. I, for one, hate car shopping.

Re:GM tried that

[msobkow]

I wouldn't call Saturn a failure. While they never achieved huge market shares, they did keep a rather large number of dealerships busy despite the fact that the dealerships weren't allowed to negotiate on pricing.

I was quite happy with my Saturn LW300 wagon, save for one huge glaring problem: The heating system would freeze up in cold and windy weather. And that was, apparently, not a problem isolated to that one model.

Re:GM tried that

[denobug]

ummm, so you are just lazy? and should be rewarded for that!?

If I am a fleet manager I would not want to spend a lot of time negotiating per vehicle, or per order. Rather it is to all parties advantage to have a set fleet price and order at the negotiated price. And yes, the negotiation is between the car manufactures and the buyers. Dealers are just there to fulfill the orders.

Re:GM tried that

[IndustrialComplex]

No, I don't want to haggle. It's annoying and a waste of time because the only time a 'good' deal occurs is when one side of the transaction gets a 'bad' deal.

I hate buying furniture, I hate buying cars, I hate buying anything where the price advertised isn't even a 'starting offer' it's a price that jumps up $2000 in useless fees which I then have to spend MY time to remove to get the product down to the price that both sides knew was the price the product was going to sell for in the first place.

I'm glad you enjoy it, but I hate it.

Re:GM tried that

[bzipitidoo]

Yes, and the crap they put you through is a big reason I don't buy from dealers any more than I can help. You can't learn much about the cars from the salespeople. Even when they know anything (which isn't often), they can't be trusted to tell it straight. You have to research the cars yourself beforehand. The salesperson is useless. Then when you finally think the price is settled and you're ready to buy is when they mention some extra conditions they should have mentioned at the outset. They know you don't want to walk out and have all the time you spent looking and haggling go to waste, and they try to take advantage of that. Scumbags. Worth keeping the old car another few years to put that off as long as possible.

I can't believe car dealerships can continue to operate the way they have. It's horribly wasteful, and nearly universally loathed. I'm looking forward to seeing the entire commissioned sales system fade into history, and am only disappointed that it hasn't happened yet.

Re:GM tried that

[HornWumpus]

I'll mod you up for 10 bitcoins.

Re:GM tried that

[HornWumpus]

I know 1 good way to buy from a dealer. You've got to be looking in the range of cars the dealer is going to send to the auction and you've got to be working/living close enough to see the car hauler pull up.

Case the joint. They often run the car hauler to regularly scheduled auctions. Figure out the schedule.

When they are going to send car to auction they will have the minimum bid (along with a bunch of other information) in the window. Find a car you like well enough. Go inside. Go to the sales manager. Don't even speak to any sales scum. If you talk to them the sales manager will have to pay them commish. Offer the sales manager the minimum bid - 2%. His costs at auction are much higher. Don't budge on price. He won't like it, but eventually he will have to decide to sell it to you or put it on the hauler and take his chances. Make sure he understands this it 'the price' no dealer fee bullshit.

Re:Moral of the story

[SirGarlon]

News flash: cosmopolitan urban centers are also full of greedy, stupid people. I know because I live in one. You can't escape them by changing your location.

Ah

[lesincompetent]

The United States Of America, the country that legalized bribery.

Re:Ah

[drinkypoo]

The United States Of America, the country that legalized bribery.

Are we actually the first nation to permit campaign contributions? I don't think so.

Every western nation is dedicated to the idea that if you write your corruption into law, it's no longer corruption. They're also all based on the idea of endless growth. Guess what isn't sustainable?

Re:Ah

[shutdown -p now]

Are we actually the first nation to permit campaign contributions? I don't think so.

I can't actually think of any other Western countries where campaign contributions weren't much more heavily regulated.

dealerships suck.

[nimbius]

and the argument in TFA from Glaser is that somehow dealerships are vital for things like recalls, malfunctions and service. Recalls and malfunctions are widely visible through Technical Service Bulletins that places like Firestone actually have a system to track. problems are fixable by any local garage, partly because the government tracks them. Taking your car to a dealership for service might happen once or twice, but the local garage is closer and likely more a part of the community than the regional chain of last-name-here car dealership. Glasers boilerplate at the end about who is going to support the YMCA and little league seems a bit far fetched. Crap like that is a write-off for dealerships, not something they do strictly out of kindness.

Re:dealerships suck.

[ganjadude]

I think the point is that the manufacturer would be less willing to come forward with the information to initiate a recall over a 3rd party.

Re:dealerships suck.

[CanHasDIY]

FWIW, when we bought the wife's brand new 2012 TDI Jetta last year, the dealership failed to complete the mandatory factory recall repair on a faulty fuel line until I brought it up, a good 2 weeks after we had taken delivery on the car (which was 4 months after the recall notice was shipped to dealers from VW).

Re:dealerships suck.

[CanHasDIY]

I think the point is that the manufacturer would be less willing to come forward with the information to initiate a recall over a 3rd party.

They don't have to; the NHTSA maintains a publicly-accessible database

Re:dealerships suck.

[ganjadude]

I think you misunderstood, who do you think reports to the NHTSA the information they use to post on the web for us to see? the dealerships. If the company owned all the dealerships, I think the argument could be made that they might be more willing to cover up and recall related issues.

Re:dealerships suck.

[CanHasDIY]

I think you misunderstood, who do you think reports to the NHTSA the information they use to post on the web for us to see?

Manufacturers, government agencies, independent safety review boards, and of course, the consumers themselves.

If the company owned all the dealerships, I think the argument could be made that they might be more willing to cover up and recall related issues.

If auto manufacturers were the sole source of safety information, I'd agree, but they are not (see above for short list).

FWIW, the government is currently considering issuing a recall on 192,000 Chrysler vehicles due to a stalling issue that was reported by owners, not the manufacturer. Then there's the whole Toyota "unintended acceleration" debacle from a couple years ago...

About Taxes and State Revenue

[EXTomar]

One of the biggest sources of revenue comes in from sales and licensing of new vehicles where over time dealership industry is powerful on the state level due to this relationship. When dealers make money, the state gets serious revenues. So when a new type of car comes along with a company who can't afford the high barrier of entry to setup a dealer network the whole thing turnes into market protection in the guise of customer service. If you are interested in buying a Tesla and living in a city with a center, you can go there but it is like bizzaro land because they are forced to operate as a "service center" instead of a "dealership" subject to fees and zoning that are often waived or offset for "real dealerships".

It is stuff like this that makes me wish the market would be dragged into the 21st Century. Shopping for a car is one of those tasks that is slightly higher than "doctor visit". There is little to no value added for going to the dealership so I would rather just order directly from maker themselves than to sit through the junk you need to do for a purchasing a car.

Re:About Taxes and State Revenue

[drinkypoo]

It is stuff like this that makes me wish the market would be dragged into the 21st Century.

You mean, we get high-speed rail and PRT and nobody* is buying their own cars any more? I wish for that every day.

* OK, just as some people had private rail cars, some people will have private PRT vehicles. It'll be much more expensive than using a public one, but probably not too different in cost from buying an EV today.

North Carolina Legislature

[WOOFYGOOFY]

against the free market , guess who's going to win this one?

http://www.stateintegrity.org/north_carolina

http://clclt.com/theclog/archives/2010/05/13/nc-more-corrupt-than-even-sc-and-louisiana

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2010/05/09/the-most-corrupt-states.html#slide5

No... it's not that the multimillionaires who own auto dealerships can't stand a new entrant with a novel product that makes their look expensive, dirty and lame. It's that they're worried about the integrity of the market place.

Re:Moral of the story

[benjfowler]

The difference here, is that in rural areas, you have a Dead Sea effect... anybody with any brains and talent leaves. Guess who stays behind?

Nobody I grew up with with any talent or prospects whatsoever, bothered to hang around for long.

Pointless Summary

[fermion]

This has nothing to with anything other than historical laws to solve past problems. These laws are essentially set up to protect local 'small business' from corporate interests. It sound quaint, but one must look at this in the context of selling cars in the 1940's and 1950's, and even the entire climate at the time. There was no Walmart killing main street, there was no Costco cutting deals with the consumer, and no Starbuck serving corporate consistent coffee. And there few if any sophisticated auto consumer. So laws were past in most states that protected the local dealership from the larger auto manufacturing companies.

So the auto manufacturers created the franchise system, essentially to get around the laws. This is little different from McDonalds. The manufacturers pretty much control the operations, and in return offer kickbacks. The only way around this is the used market. It is probably, in the current climate, inefficient. It is probably one factor that makes american car makers less competitive, having to support the dealer network. OTOH, it is good for the manufacturer and consumer because you can go to any dealer who sells new fords and know you will get basically the same thing as any other dealer.

The thing is we probably should not change laws for an individual, which is what Tesla is asking some states to do. If there is good reason to make the change, then make the change general. What is happening is that in some states the law is changing so that only Tesla or a company very similar to Tesla will benifit. THis is probably a not good thing.

Re:Pointless Summary

[thaylin]

So why would you need to create a new law to enforce an existing law.. That is essentially what you are claiming here. The answer is you dont, Tesla is not the one trying to change the law, they are just trying to sell something. I always love it when a political party shows their hypocritical.

not enforceable

[KernelMuncher]

I don't think this would survive a court challenge. US federal law governs these activities, not state law. The Interstate Commerce Act has been in effect since the railroad industry in the 19th century.

Former NC resident

[stevegee58]

As a former NC resident I can vouch for how collusive the car dealerships are there. People were going out of state to buy cars in areas with real competition.

Isn't that the law in Texas already?

[stiggle]

I thought Texas had a law similar which Tesla were complaining/campaigning against.

I do wish they'd hurry up and start making their space cars (why else would Musk invest in the company, but to get cars he can drive on whatever planet he ends up on with SpaceX)

NC has always LOVED middlemen...

[jeffb (2.718)]

...especially ones who make lots of campaign contributions. For example, the state tried unsuccessfully to require anyone selling on eBay to obtain an auctioneer's license.

Not that this is limited to NC by any means. God forbid anyone should step on the toes of health insurers, real-estate hucksters (sorry, my mistake, Realtors (tm) (c) (R)), taxi operators (jitney laws)...

I don't get it

[50000BTU_barbecue]

As someone who doesn't drive, I don't understand the intensity of the reactions I've seen about Tesla cars. Especially the ones against these cars. It's just a car that uses batteries. Apparently they are very good cars, but why these reactions? Do people not like Elon Musk? Do they like exhaust fumes? Are the politicians in the pocket of the oil industry? I don't understand that, since gas for cars is actually a small part of what uses oil.

Why Buying A Car Is So Awful

[brit74]

A few months back, NPR's Planet Money did an episode on the car dealership business and how entrenched they are with the government. It goes back for decades. It's worth a listen.

"Episode 435: Why Buying A Car Is So Awful"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-435-why-buying-a-car-is-so-awful

Re:Why Buying A Car Is So Awful

[BigZee]

I'm glad someone mentioned this as I was just about to. Speaking as someone living outside the US, it struck me that the reason is at least partially socialist. I know that many US citizens hate the idea that their country might have such socialistic leanings but this is just one example. It's not the only reason, but one reason for supporting the present system is that dealers are pillars of the community.

Re:Why Buying A Car Is So Awful

[brit74]

And a related article from Planet Money:

"Why Buying A Car Never Changes"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes

An excerpt:

"Buying a car sucks," Scott Painter says. "It's something that most consumers fear."

Back in the '90s, Painter started a company to try to change this. "The name of the company was Cars Direct," he says. "The mission was to sell cars directly."

Painter wanted his company to build virtual dealerships that would let people go online and buy cars. But after talking with a few car execs, he realized nobody would even consider his idea.

Painter was stopped by a web of state laws that make it very, very difficult to change the way cars are sold.
...
Car dealers argue that the laws are necessary to protect dealers' investment, and to protect the jobs of people who work at car dealerships.

"If you just take our organization alone, we employ over 2,000 people," says Tammy Darvish, who runs a group of auto dealerships and sits on the board of the National Automobile Dealers Association. "That's 2,000 families throughout greater Washington that are dependent on us continuing our business operations."

There are plenty other businesses employ lots of people but don't have so much protection from state laws.

That may partly be due to the fact that car dealers have a lot political power. Dealers contribute a big share of state sales tax revenues — as much as 20 percent in some states — and they tend to be big local employers. That makes state and local legislators listen.

Scott Painter now runs a company called true car...that tries to ease the process of buying a car. He's now trying to work with dealers not around them.

"There is no argument by which franchise law goes away," he says. "That is purely a fantasy conversation.

Companies like Tesla, Auto Nation, Costco and even many dealers are pushing to innovate from within the system as it is. All the people I talked to for this story — Tammy Darvish, lawyers for the auto industry, and Scott Painter himself — aid a friendlier, more rational car buying experience would come eventually. But it won't come without your local car dealer.

Re:Why Buying A Car Is So Awful

[Shompol]

We have the best government that money can buy. - M.T.

Re:Taxation backfire

[DudeTheMath]

Sales ("use") tax on vehicle purchases are generally computed based on the state of registration, not the state of sale. Even if you originally registered the car in VA (and you should have some difficulty doing that if your license is from NC), when you changed the registration, you'd probably pay some tax. If you didn't change the registration, your neighbors can rat you out.

Bill

[slash.jit]

The dealers are not giving us free charging through supercharger, they are not giving warranty on batteries. Why the hell should they make money from Tesla cars when they only act as a middle men unless they provide something good for customers. If they decide to pass this bill anyway then dealers should be forced to sell the car at a lower price than what Tesla sells.

completely unconsitituion

[peter303]

A US state cannot arbitrarily ban a good or service from another state in Article 1, sections 9 & 10. Only the federal government has this power to regulate interstate trade. This was one fears during the early years of United States that states might shut out each other, so it was banned.

Re:completely unconsitituion

[suutar]

no, but they can put requirements on the sale that effectively mandate a certain business model. After all, you have to register it, right?

Re:Small government Republicans my ass.

[L. J. Beauregard]

I see at least two of the Slashdot Tea Party Contingent® can't explain how this is in favor of Freedom® and Small Government®.

Broken business model

[Coop]

Car dealers already take in skimpy profits on new-car sales, as consumers are able to use the internet to find out what dealers pay for a car, plus the sales-based quarterly/yearly bonus money that the manufacturer gives them. So increasingly the negotiations are up-from-cost rather than down-from-sticker.

So the parts and service departments are where most of the money is made. But guess what? New cars don't need much service, used ones last a long time too, and parts are also available over the internet. A future with many electric cars also suggests that parts & service will see declining revenues.

Younger generations aren't into cars the way older ones were, so the "superconsumers" are going away. Add all this up and I just don't see how the industry will support anywhere near the number of car dealers that it did in decades past. Getting rid of Pontiac, Hummer, etc. removed some capacity but there's still a long way to shrink.

Nothing new at all

[TheCarp]

> State laws imposing restrictions on manufacturers in favor of dealers aren't new

No shit. We have similar here in MA in relation to Alcohol, but one step worst. Instead of forcing sales through retail outlets, it forces the retail outlets to buy from licensed distributors.

So if Tesla started making wine, it would have to be bought buy a distributor before a liquor store here in MA could buy it and offer it for sale. Really nice racket. Now they are scrambling to make sure they get a similar middleman installed for the upcoming pot legalization.

God forbid they don't find a way to give their big donors a taste of the action. To think people might profit without cutting in the people who made donations to political parties. Such a travesty cannot be allowed!

Re:Nothing new at all

[dkf]

So if Tesla started making wine, it would have to be bought buy a distributor before a liquor store here in MA could buy it and offer it for sale.

I think you'll find that people are far more prepared to travel to purchase an expensive car than they are to get a crate of beer and a bottle of wine for the weekend. (Assuming someone who is actively interested in purchasing both and who has the financial means to do so. Tesla aren't selling cars to street bums.)

Re:Nothing new at all

[TheCarp]

I actually wasn't considering how prepared different groups were at all, not sure how or why that makes a difference. Its all about ensuring and protecting specific jobs and the business models that creates them.

Apparently doing business more efficiently is "unfair" now. Guessing this means "fairness" is defined as "works the same as we expected before we had current technology". Kind of like how buying refridgerators was unfair to ice harvesters....a perfect example of what happens when the government doesn't step in and restore fairness....now we all have to make our own ice because there is nobody to harvest natural ice for us.... so sad.

NC has become a very scary place recently

[Anonymous Meoward]

Some of the crap we've had to deal with down here with the veto-proof GOP takeovers of both houses of the legislature in 2010 includes:

• The state legislature interfering with local school boards (Wake and Guilford counties)
• Banning the use of LEED standards for public buildings (not just not requiring, banning)
• Jim Crow 2.0, oops, I mean, Voter ID laws (cuz there's fraud to be seen, if you really squint hard enough)
• Not just loosening enviro standards for fracking, but letting Halliburton re-write the rules
• Gutting pre-K educational funding
• ..and at least one legislator proposing a state religion in a bill that eventually was scuttled

So believe me, this is an incredibly minor incident, compared to the other B.S. that's been foisted on us by Art Pope and his cronies in the legislature and (since 2012) the governor's mansion. (I have friends who have protested in Raleigh and were arrested for trespassing as a result.) And oh yeah, nobody has explained how any of this will create jobs in a state that consistently has an unemployment rate that's 2% greater than the US average.

Tesla == Tucker

[tekrat]

See if it's available on Netflix or something, but go watch a movie called "Tucker" -- it's the (mostly) true story about a guy with a lot of good ideas about making a good car, who started up right after WWII -- and the Big Three colluded with government to put the guy out of business.

50 Tucker Torpedos were built before the factory was shuttered, and of that number about 43 survive to this day -- he built a great car (i.e, mousetrap), but the world wasn't able to beat a path to his door before he was forced to close.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Musk has been able to survive this long, and Big Oil just hasn't shut him down. Of course, Big Oil owns most of the battery tech, and the Big Three aren't quite the powerhouses they used to be, plus Musk is starting out with enough cash to buy his own Senators, and I'm sure he's not as naive as Preston Tucker was.. So perhaps Tesla has a chance.

Just a thought

[Synerg1y]

Couldn't tesla sell the cars to 3rd party dealerships in N. Carolina?

Surely, they don't have that rigid of a business model as to not to.

Re:Just a thought

[PPH]

It appears that's what the dealerships are trying to force.

But why should Tesla give in? In addition to choosing between Mercedes/BMW/Audi, shouldn't I be allowed to choose between distribution channels? And shouldn't any attempt to restrict my choice be considered as anti competitive? We all understand what this means when it comes to individual models (Apple vs Samsung for example). But if a group of manufacturers bands together to restrict my choice in the marketplace, shouldn't that group be subject to the same laws and regulations? Even if that group is represented by a legislative body instead of private corporations or individuals?

Re:Just a thought

[Synerg1y]

I was actually wondering about the legality of such a move myself. However, the bigger picture is that appraently N. Carolina was able to pass such a law (lobbied by associations of interest no less), and now Tesla has to adapt to it. I think the article said they were planning on opening a show room or something.

Car dealerships can die, die, die!

[Dr. Spork]

Oh, I would be so happy if the internet killed car dealerships! Yes, there are some industries hurt by the internet age that I mourn, like local book stores. But if car dealerships just die, I won't miss them at all. I won't miss their loud, stupid advertisements on TV, but I especially won't miss the ugly way in which they use valuable real estate in populated areas. American cities would work so much better if they used space more wisely and became generally denser. Car dealerships are one of the most important plagues that is keeping that from happening. Fuck them and their useless sprawling parking lots. There is nothing socially redeeming about them at all. I hope that car companies in the future make a move like Apple, and have something like a Mazda store in the local mall. It would basically be a showroom in which the cars are presented like jewels, with salespeople and mechanic "geniuses" that could chat up customers, as well as curious mallgoers who got hypnotized by the shiny things. They could have a back exit to a portion of the mall's underground parking lot where they have a few more cars that can go out for a test drive. Their maintenance and repair could be done by an authorized mechanic shop with a contract. That needs some land, but much less than a dealership. Really, there is no reason for traditional parking lot car dealers to live, and many great reasons for them to die.

Leadership should be about ideas not bankrolls

[sjbe]

why? why should I not be allowed to support the candidate I believe in? why should my money be pooled and given to politicians I dont agree with??

For the same reason your money shouldn't go (solely) to a candidate *I* agree with. Because the debate should be about ideas and leadership, not who has the biggest bankroll. It is well established that special interest funding causes politicians to listen disproportionately to certain parties. If you fund a specific candidate then he is (potentially) obligated to you but he has to govern everyone. Why should he listen to your needs more than any other constituent just because you happened to fund the winning candidate?

Money gives people a disproportionate voice in the political system. I think the Supreme Court erred greatly when it said that money = speech. One should not prohibit people from spending money on political activities but one should not give someone a bigger voice simply because they have access to more money either. While I don't think you can take money completely out of the equation, we don't have to let it dominate the conversation the way we have either. Our congressional representatives spend virtually all their time fundraising instead of thinking about how to make this country a better place. As soon as they win one election they start fundraising for the next. That cannot possibly be good for the country as a whole.

Re:Leadership should be about ideas not bankrolls

[bkaul01]

The reason the Supreme Court said that money = speech is that the primary use of money in politics is to fund political communications, primarily in the form of TV advertising these days. It's neither constitutionally permissible nor even desirable to prohibit people from involvement in political communications; doing so would undermine the entire concept of a free, democratic government.

I agree that the current state of political funding, corruption, and cronyism is troubling. But the answer isn't to somehow mandate that people pay for others to communicate things that the payer disagrees with, nor to prohibit a person from paying to spread a message he does agree with. That would be highly counterproductive.

Re:Leadership should be about ideas not bankrolls

[Rene S. Hollan]

Money gives people a disproportionate voice in the political system. I think the Supreme Court erred greatly when it said that money = speech. One should not prohibit people from spending money on political activities but one should not give someone a bigger voice simply because they have access to more money either. While I don't think you can take money completely out of the equation, we don't have to let it dominate the conversation the way we have either. Our congressional representatives spend virtually all their time fundraising instead of thinking about how to make this country a better place. As soon as they win one election they start fundraising for the next. That cannot possibly be good for the country as a whole.

Emphasis mine.

I've often thought one of the few things money shound not be able to purchase are law, and disproportionate dissemination of political candidate's platforms.

Thus, I would support equitable (though not necesarily equal) distribution of funds donated to the political process among all candidates, overseen by an organizatoin not tied to the incumbancy.

"Atlas Shrugged" isn't a how-to manual

[ChipMonk]

And yet, here's the "Anti-Dog-eat-dog rule" come to life.

Smart companies != smart voters

[sjbe]

Research Triangle area is practically the Silicon Valley of the south. ...and they're trying to Ban Tesla.

I have family in the Research Triangle area. Believe me when I say that the presence of some smart people and high tech companies hasn't reduced the dumb redneck population in the area very much. As my uncle puts it "there is a high Bubba factor around here".

Re:Moral of the story

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Urban areas also have the convenience of offering some degree of choice when it comes to which stupid and greedy people you want to deal with(except on the subway, then you have to take the cards you are dealt). It's a great deal easier to write people off and not deal with them when you have plenty of alternatives nearby.

Yes it is a win

[sjbe]

So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?

Yes. Next question.

The Tesla S is a luxury car and a very unique one at that. It's not remotely certain that Tesla will succeed and what sort of sales to expect. Outselling some very nice vehicles from MUCH better funded and established companies is very much a positive for Tesla.

When you outsell the 5-series, the E-class, and the Audi A6, then you'll have something to talk about, as all three manufacturers sell an order of magnitude more of those.

Let me know when Lincoln manages to do that. When Ford can't do it, it might be a bit unreasonable to expect Tesla to do it as well.

Re:Yes it is a win

[drinkypoo]

Let me know when Lincoln manages to do that. When Ford can't do it, it might be a bit unreasonable to expect Tesla to do it as well.

That's like saying it's unreasonable to expect a neighborhood steak house to beat Outback because the BK Angus Burger isn't very good. And I say this as the former owner of a T-Bird and the current owner of an F250...

Dealers are right to feel threatened...

[loshwomp]

Being an industry insider, I'm sometimes a little rough on Tesla, but if there's one reason I'm rooting for them, it's because I want someone to lay waste to the antiquated car dealer model in place in the US.

I just went into a [shall remain nameless] dealer over the weekend for the first time in a decade, and I'd forgotten how absolutely awful it is.

Incumbents always have the advantage

[sjbe]

Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents.

There ALREADY is a strong bias toward incumbents. Re-election rates pretty much never drop below 90% for House seats and rarely below 75% for Senate seats. Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.

Even the current limits on campaign contributions have greatly increased the percentage of politicians that get re-elected, while also greatly increasing the number of millionaires in congress, since they can just use their own money.

The data I linked to above does not agree with your assertion. Re-election rates haven't changed appreciably since 1980 and there ALWAYS have been a large number of wealthy candidates. George Washington was among the richest Americans of his day and adjusted for inflation was the wealthiest president ever with an inflation adjusted net worth of over $500 million. Jefferson, Jackson and Madison were in the top 5. Mitt Romney by way of comparison would have been the 2nd or 3rd richest ever had be been elected.

Re:Incumbents always have the advantage

[ebno-10db]

Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.

Especially since parties often don't even bother to run a serious candidate or campaign in a district where there is a well entrenched incumbent (of either major party). They throw all the money into the "competitive" races. It's pathetic - I'd at least like to pretend I have a choice.

Re:Incumbents always have the advantage

[imikem]

Humble suggestion: Decay the proceeds of political contributions depending on time in office. For example, an outsider running for office gets 100% of the contribution. First term incumbent gets %75, remainder to public finance. Decay to 50%, 25%, etc. per term. Thus it gets expensive to keep the fossils in office.

Re:Incumbents always have the advantage

[Teancum]

Humble suggestion: Decay the proceeds of political contributions depending on time in office. For example, an outsider running for office gets 100% of the contribution. First term incumbent gets %75, remainder to public finance. Decay to 50%, 25%, etc. per term. Thus it gets expensive to keep the fossils in office.

That is a pretty good solution, other than it would take the votes of the incumbents to make such a change.... thus it has the chance of a snowball surviving the day in Tuscon during the summer of every actually happening.

Re:Moral of the story

[FatAlb3rt]

Nice data point.

interstate commerces

[kimvette]

Doesn't this mean the state is violating the constitution of The United States of America by preventing out-of-state manufacturers from selling legal goods to their residents? Isn't regulation of interstate commerce STRICTLY the domain of Congress, much like inter-state sales tax? (which incidentally means state sales taxes on internet sales from vendors out of state is a violation of the Constitution as well)

Re:Um, we don't need the middle men

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Volkswagen is such a cool company. I wish they would turn their engineering attention to electric cars.

Re:Taxation backfire

[yurtinus]

This is right on - but don't forget that NC will lose out on employment and property taxes from Tesla-owned retail and service centers. For the Model S, these laws harm the states but really won't impact Tesla. People who really want them will take the short trip to get them. Now, if Tesla intends to move more mainstream into the market where people are looking for "a commuter car" instead of "a Tesla" - they'll absolutely have trouble by not having a local presence.

Telsa will sell online

[segmond]

They will be really screwed when Telsa takes orders online and they get 0 taxes for sales to people in their state.

Re:Telsa will sell online

[thaylin]

That tax is collected when you go to register the car.

Capitalism, the conservative definition.

[jeff13]

Capitalism, the conservative definition - The free competition of business... except when we don't like it.

Note to pot from kettle

[DeathGrippe]

You're black!

Oh that is not the issue

[SmallFurryCreature]

That is basically company owned dealerships, they have existed for a long time and the decent ones were a FAR better deal if you just wanted a good car for a fair price with good service.

BUT it ties the car company to the vagaries of the local car market including having to worry about brick and mortar store issues like location.

For a very common large scale car maker, it is barely do-able. For a niche market? There is in Holland 1 Ferrari dealer. But that is not the issue because people in the market for such a car don't have an issue traveling a bit in their luxury car and are in any case likely to be living in the west part of Holland (the store used to be in Utrecht, which is almost dead center for the economic heart of Holland).

But it is FAR FAR easier to serve all you need to serve with a web site and a service van. If Tesla has to open a shell company in every state, in every country in every county/province, that is a LOT of shell companies. And why should it? Amazon doesn't have to do it. Why should car dealers not face pressure from web stores? Especially since dealers COULD have a unique location issue, fixing your car.

This is clearly bought law. The US has the right to bear arms. Stop killing kids with your guns and kill yourselves some politicians instead. Or are the guns you carry just to compensate for your small penisses. Come on US, show us why you got more guns then citizens.

State sponsored religion

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Didn't North Carolina recently make Christianity the official state religion?...Thus, violating a few federal laws that trump state laws, such as the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment and maybe Article 6, Section 3? Truly, this is a backwards state.

Virginia too

[cstacy]

Pretty sure that Virginia is doing the same thing: law requires that dealers sell cars, not manufacturers. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23091404/virginia-dmv-denies-tesla-request-run-its-own-dealership

Money should solve it again

[dingleberrie]

I think this can be solved quickly.
Tesla might make it simple for people to order their cars and have them delivered to locations in neighboring states near the border. It can be small businesses in Tesla-rented parking lots. NC residents can then pay sales tax to those states for purchasing it there and the appropriate level of use-tax difference to North Carolina when registering the car in NC.

Re:Can anyone guess what group got elected?

[omnichad]

cars that do not use fire for propulsion

Coal-fired power charges these things just fine.

Re:Taxation backfire

[omnichad]

You'd have to buy it use. Tesla doesn't have dealerships anywhere - not just in NC.

Re:Just means more revenue loss for the state.

[omnichad]

Buy it where?

Re:BTW - This is Electric technology

[omnichad]

Which probably doesn't have near as much influence in North Carolina as coal-fired electricity.

Voted with my feet

[Yogs]

I lived in a comparatively liberal enclave (Raleigh) in NC. It seemed like pretty good town except for it's near absence of a downtown and totally car centric character. But there were signs of regression.

The change over to more balkanized schools was the worst.

But earlier, the fact that the rechristening and the (tiny) reawakening of downtown was spurred by taking a pedestrian mall and turning it back into a ^&*(ing road (albeit a pretty one with wide sidewalks).

Seeing this kind of stupidity at the state level, sigh. At least I'm out.

Re:Moral of the story

[betterprimate]

anybody with any ambitions leaves.

FTFY. They may need brains and talent to succeed, but not to leave.

You pay for speech you disagree with already

[sjbe]

The reason the Supreme Court said that money = speech is that the primary use of money in politics is to fund political communications, primarily in the form of TV advertising these days.

Money enables publishing. It is not speech. Restricting spending for political ends to be the same for everyone does not restrict anyone's speech. They can still say whatever they have to say. They just can't say it say it (excessively) more than anyone else.

But the answer isn't to somehow mandate that people pay for others to communicate things that the payer disagrees with, nor to prohibit a person from paying to spread a message he does agree with.

I pay for things all the time that I disagree with. I'm sure you do as well. I very much would prefer my tax dollars not go to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Limiting political advertising to equal (and hopefully sane) levels is no different. Furthermore just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it doesn't need to be said. I fund the salaries of Congress, many of whom I greatly disagree with but I'm ok with that.

Other States

[rossdee]

Conventional Car dealerships in Minnesota are trying to use a similar law to block sales of Teslas here too.

Re:Small government Republicans my ass.

[Attila Dimedici]

It's not, which is self-evident from the fact that Massachusetts has a law that is pretty much like it.

Concern troll?

[SIGBUS]

Not that I have anything personal against electric cars - much to the contrary, despite the fact that battery production releases insane amounts of pollution (thereby effectively negating the "green" effect of electrics vs internal combustion)

[citation needed] [not to mention the insane amount of pollution involved in mining and refining petroleum, much less burning it]

However, considering the lack of supporting infrastructure, abysmal battery life, and crazy-huge charging times, I just don't see them being adopted en masse anytime soon, short of an unlikely, major technological breakthrough.

Most of the time, you're going to be charging it at home, overnight. For that, charging stations are unnecessary if you're staying in-range.

An eight-year warranty isn't "abysmal battery life." I'll agree with the lack of charging infrastructure for long trips (the Tesla Supercharger stations are nowhere to be found in the Midwest, for instance), but even a Nissan Leaf would handle 100% of my daily routine driving. It's the non-routine long trips that kill the deal for me (I have a Leaf budget, not a Tesla budget). For now, that means I drive a Honda Fit instead. Once the Fit is paid off, depending on gas prices, I'll crunch the numbers and see if a Leaf would work out as a daily driver, keeping the Honda for the long trips.

The Supercharger setup comes very close to solving the long-trip problem, though. When you have 200+ miles of electric range and get get 150 more miles for half an hour at a Supercharger (with time to stretch your legs, get a snack, etc.), it's a lot less of a problem.

If I were in the market for a high-end luxury car, the Model S would be at the top of my list.

Re:Concern troll?

[CanHasDIY]

Most of the time, you're going to be charging it at home, overnight. For that, charging stations are unnecessary if you're staying in-range.

Hypothetical situation: You come home after a long (200+ mile) journey, plug in your almost-dead EV, and go watch the news.

Two hours later, an evacuation order comes out and you must leave the county NOW, but your EV only has enough charge to get you to the other side of town. Solution?

Granted, emergency situations are typically few and far between... but they are inevitable, and those are the times you need reliability and expedience the most.

An eight-year warranty isn't "abysmal battery life."

To most people, that's going to depend on cost. If replacing the batteries every 8 years is the same or more than they would have paid for an equivalent IC based vehicle, EV's aren't going to win any fans among the Plebes.

The Supercharger setup comes very close to solving the long-trip problem, though. When you have 200+ miles of electric range and get get 150 more miles for half an hour at a Supercharger (with time to stretch your legs, get a snack, etc.), it's a lot less of a problem.

Sure, when you have access to them, and there's not a line of people waiting to charge up; not a problem today, but we're talking mass adoption. If you think waiting 10 minutes on the slow-ass old man at the gas pump is bad right now, wait til he tries to figure out that new-fangled charger-majiggy, and you're the fourth car back.

If I were in the market for a high-end luxury car, the Model S would be at the top of my list.

To each his own, I always say; were I in the market for a $60,000 - 70,000 ride, I think I'd be leaning more towards one of these bad boys.

Re:Concern troll?

[Firethorn]

Two hours later, an evacuation order comes out and you must leave the county NOW, but your EV only has enough charge to get you to the other side of town. Solution?

1. Go with a neighbor/relative - fewer vehicles on the road during an evacuation is beneficial anyways
2. If you have 2 vehicles, which many families will have for the foreseeable future, you will probably have 1 gas and 1 EV. You take the gas one.
3. Toss a generator into the trunk or attach a trailer that has a generator and the appropriate hookups, basically converting your hybrid into an EV
4. Catch a bus.

As for access to the super-charger points, logically as more Tesla vehicles get on the road they'll install more charge points. You should be fine unless you're trying to travel to some event where the road has vastly more traffic on it than normal. Ideally I see lots of charge points at restaurants. They always have enough parking, at least unless the restaurant is full itself. Charge points might be expensive now, but they have the potential to be a lot cheaper and at least they don't present a serious chemical/fire hazard.

And yeah, to each his own.

Dealerships are Leaches

[AaronW]

A few months ago I purchased a Tesla model S. The process was completely unlike purchasing other cars at a dealership. I just went to the web site and selected what I wanted. The showrooms I visited were just that, showrooms. Nobody was trying to push me to buy the car and the people working there patiently answered questions. Most of the people in the showroom were not likely to buy one but they still patiently answered questions and treated everyone with respect. I think this is due in part to the fact that the show rooms are just that, show rooms. They can't sell you a car, the best they could do is point you online to order one.

When I got my car everything was taken care of. All the paperwork was done and a few weeks later the plates arrived in the mail. A part for my car that was not available when I got my car was fed-exed to me. They also threw in some additional charging adapters that they normally charge for.

As for service it is night and day. I managed to break one of the roof rack clips on my model S. This required that the entire roof panel next to the glass roof be replaced. If that were on my Toyota Prius that would easily be a $300 part and $300 for labor. Tesla charged me $100 for the part (which given what it was is more than reasonable) and $175 labor. Elon Musk stated that they hope to not make a profit on service. I also had service install some 3rd party rim protectors (http://www.alloygator.com) where they charged me $25/wheel, which is quite cheap for the type of car it is.

I always cringe whenever I take my Prius in to the Toyota dealership since they're always trying to push unneeded services, or god forbid I run into one of the sales leaches.

The fact that Tesla is outselling the other cars in its class without any real advertisement or dealerships is amazing. Their commitment to the owners goes above and beyond anything I have seen before.

For example, if I take my car in for service the loaner car is a top of the line model S. If I want, I can just keep the loaner car and just pay the difference in price. No dealership would do something like that.

All in all, my experience dealing with Tesla has for the most part been amazing and a welcome change from dealing with dealerships.

Re:Dealerships are Leaches

[Quila]

It really depends on the dealer.

The local Nissan dealer was very nice, showed us a few vehicles, no pressure whatsoever. She even gave us buying advice for how to make the best deal (later confirmed online). They also give free oil changes and add onto the manufacturer's warranty.

The local Honda dealer was all that you say, high pressure tactics (including tag team hand-offs, "I have to talk to my manger", etc.), pushing unneeded services, pressuring into what they wanted to sell, etc.

Some dealers are added-value, some just suck.

Re:Reliable parts

[AaronW]

The maintenance is much simpler. According to Tesla the electric motor is lubricated for 12 years. Service includes everything except replacing the tires. I.e. they replace the wipers and brake pads and whatever else needs fixing or replacing including normal consumables. There's something like only 12 moving parts in the drive train. It's an amazing car to drive.

Shopping for a car is easy

[Quila]

If you have the cash. Walk on the lot around the time the next model year is coming out, point to a previous-year (current calendar year) car sitting on the lot, and offer a below-invoice amount of money, cash (you did look that up, right?). For almost no work they get rid of it that morning to make space for the next year's cars. You will get way below the list price.

Also, do this on the last day of the month when they're desperate to add another car to their sales number. That can be worth a few more grand.

You don't get those advantages of pressure working for you when you order online.

I have a solution

[Atrox666]

Sell cakes with the constitution printed on them..give away a free car with every cake.

Re:Taxation backfire

[dkf]

Now, if Tesla intends to move more mainstream into the market where people are looking for "a commuter car" instead of "a Tesla" - they'll absolutely have trouble by not having a local presence.

They simply don't need to solve that problem in North Carolina yet. There's millions of other potential customers elsewhere. Once they're big enough, they can deal with NC in any way that makes sense (e.g., by delegating the problem to someone who focuses on providing whatever level of support is required in that area) but that doesn't mean that they need to do it right now. And you know what? They won't deal with this right now.

Re:Moral of the story

[SirGarlon]

That explains so much ... :-)

Car dealers are so shonky

[MichaelSmith]

My wife's VW Jetta had constant problems with the DSG transmission as long as the car was in warrantee. Every time we took it in the dealer would say something like they put the wrong firmware version in and it destroyed the clutch but here is a new software load lets see how it goes. It went on for years with VW funding all this work which the dealer was creating.

Its no wonder that Tesla don't want to have to deal with the fuckers.

And walmart?

[Yakasha]

How is this ban morally different than banning big-box stores. Such bans don't seem to generate any negative publicity. In fact, quite the opposite.

But the goal of the ban is the same: protect local businesses by keeping money local instead of flowing out of state/city/county/country.

Re:Just means more revenue loss for the state.

[suutar]

Georgia would be my guess; Atlanta has a good number of car dealers but it also has a fair number of folks who'd want to buy a Tesla without dealing with them. Failing that, a round trip ticket to CA and a one way car transport bill would probably only be about $2-3k, not that much on top of the car itself.

Re: Just means more revenue loss for the state.

[omnichad]

I think you missed the whole point - they don't sell through dealers.

Car Buying Services

[onebeaumond]

Services like this one https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/car_buying_services_products will negotiate with many dealers at once, within your state or anywhere else you specify. This particular service is for ex-military, but there are others. Current marketing trends have already moved well beyond the local dealer, who for years was always the "richest man in town".

Where's the unfair competition part?

[Vrtigo1]

I guess I'm not seeing where the unfair competition is coming from? So Tesla sells direct and everyone else doesn't and that apparently gives them an advantage somehow...why is that an issue that government or any regulating body should care about?

So, I'm going to extend this by analogy so it's really simple to understand, maybe someone can forward it to the cronies in NC. I'm going to start selling cars. I'm going to get a crack design team to come up with the best designs and build stuff that people will really like, but I'm only going to have a one day work week and sell them on Tuesdays, the rest of the week I'll be closed. Then I'll demand regulations be put in place to force the other car companies to stop selling cars on days other than Tuesday because it gives them a huge competitive advantage over me.

The point...why should the government care that other auto companies decided not to sell direct to the public? Tesla comes along and proves that it's a workable arrangement so the automakers go complaining about unfair advantage. What's stopping you from selling direct? Nothing is. They just don't like having to adapt to change, so they go to the cronies and try to put a stop to it. Just like the music companies when iTunes first hit the scene. Just like the movie companies when Netflix hit the scene. Just like the cable companies when the DVR hit the scene.

Get over it. Life and innovation happen. Sticking your head in the sand and trying to pass laws to stifle your compeition is not the answer. It just makes you look like a shortsighted moron.

Re:Just means more revenue loss for the state.

[shutdown -p now]

Cars are usually one of the few items on which the states manage to successfully levy their use tax, because they have to be registered in that state.

(Another such category is firearms.)

Re:no one but lawyers can understand it?

[drainbramage]

They don't really understand, or even read it.
They choose a bit here and there, have their PR flacks craft a statement, then hand you a shit sandwich.
If you have to eat it you complain, if the guy you disagree with has to eat it then you vote the crap feeder in again.
If people truly cared about fairness they would not elect or reelect such people.

Re:Taxation backfire

[yurtinus]

You're right, it's just too bad that they have to deal with it at all.

Atlas Shrugged

[michelyoung]

This is a page right out of Atlas Shrugged. Other companies using the government as a tool to stop competition.

Well, can we buy them off the Internet instead?

[vandamme]

Like we buy everything else?

(except politicians)

Re: Just means more revenue loss for the state.

[suutar]

Ah, I see. I was interpreting the question more as "where is it going to be legal for them to have the car delivered".

What's government for , anyways?

[doccus]

What's government for , anyways, except to regulate the market.. It won't do to dismantle the constitution and restrict human rights in the "Land of the Free", unless the PTBs also apply Soviet - style "corrections" to trade and commerce. I mean, after 200 years we're much smarter than the Founding Fathers... Maybe Ben Franklin And George Washington should have thought things through instead of slap-dash following the highest moral code as a guide for the constitution.. Instead, they should have got blind drunk and read Karl Marx, and perhaps sought help from the beast himself, and implemented a good old form of communism instead . We'd have been much better equipped to have perpetual war, and could have invaded many more countries without a word of protest.. and instead of the expense of over a century of food stamps, we could have saved millions by just imprisoning dissenters and throwing away the key. Well, it's OK, they're finally getting it now....

Tesla already went down this road in Massachusetts

[JonBoy47]

15 years ago, autobytel.com, a dot com startup that did Internet based sales of new cars, was undone by similar laws in many states which undermined their business model by forcing them to partner with local dealers. Tesla has already been sued by the Massachusetts Automobile Dealers' Association after they opened their first showroom in the Bay State. Turns out MA already had a similar law on the books. The suit was thrown out on the grounds that the dealers association had no standing. Tesla has never granted a sales or service franchise to anyone anywhere in the world, thus it is not possible for any existing dealer to have been subjected to "unfair" competition against them. I'm rooting for Tesla in this case. A victory by them would allow the other manufacturers to begin to unravel the convoluted dealer based sales model and replace it with a more customer friendly (and yes, profitable) direct sales model.

B2B versus B2C

[athenaprime]

Direct to consumer isn't always the best solution for a lot of industries. Too much choice creates confusion for the customer and diffusion on the part of the business's efforts. In the publishing industry, traditionally, it's always been the buyers of bookstores and bookstore chains that were the customers of publishers, because the retail buyers knew their markets better (locally and regionally). With a product as widely diverse as literature, it was up to the buyers to pick and choose what would best sell in their markets (romances, sci-fi, self-help, history, etc.) while the publisher concentrated on making widely diverse products available at different scales. If a publisher would have had to focus on things at the retail level, most of the literary market would never have even seen the light of day in favor of more commercial literature to the exclusion of other works just by virtue of the economies of scale. Granted, the bookselling market has done just that to itself with the rise of megabookstores, but it's begun to swing the other way thanks to the internet and Amazon (whose model isn't without its own problems, either).

My TL;DR point is that large manufacturing companies cannot have the granular focus to take full advantage of local markets. Bob's Rural Chevy dealership is going to sell more pick'emup trucks than Dan's Urban Chevytopia. Bob is not going to order many high-end sports cars because he knows most people in town can't come close to affording them, and Dan is hoping people are smart enough not to want a 3-axle workhorse that requires two parking spaces when the cheapest parking rate in the tri-state area runs 800 bucks a month.

And if the manufacturers did end up trying this, most of those D2C storefronts would need an entire infrastructure of administration right down to the real estate, which is probably the last thing anybody would think a car company could handle.

"Unfair Competition"

[bbrodt]

Who is John Galt?