Slashdot Mirror
How Car Dealership Lobbyists Successfully Banned Tesla Motors From Texas
Funksaw writes "In a political op-ed on his blog, long time Slashdot reader and contributor Brian Boyko (the guy who did that animated Windows 8 video) — now a candidate for state representative — explains how lobbyists from car dealerships successfully banned Tesla Motors from selling cars in Texas. From the article: 'Tesla Motors doesn't just present a case study of why a lack of campaign finance reform blocks meaningful reform on the issues that Democrats care about, like climate change and health care. A lack of campaign finance reform blocks reforms on both the Left and the Right. Here's the big elephant in the room I'd like to point out to all the "elephants" in the room: With a Republican-controlled legislature, a Republican executive, and many conservatives in our judiciary, why the hell don't we have free markets in Texas? Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used? I'm not saying the conservatives are right in these assumptions; but I am saying that our broken campaign finance system makes a mockery of them.'"
They don't want a Free Market, they want a Free For Them Market, screw everyone else.
Also, with how I saw Red McCombs screwing around San Antonio while I lived in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.
Yep. Anyone can describe a utopian economic system ("Under communism, everyone will work together for the common good!" "Under capitalism, competition and individual choice will lead to the greatest possible efficiency!") but in the real world, they all tend toward cronyism and corruption. Every single time.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Republicans don't want free-market.
Democrats don't want free-market.
They both want different lobbys to pay them (in campaign donations) for the "privilege" of not being encumbered by regulations of the other party.
Libertarians (both big "L" and little "l") generally want free-markets.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The free market here is in politicians, not autos.
I think it's cute that the synopsis above thinks Texas has a lot of conservatives in its government. Republicans != conservatives, at least not universially.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Texas is trying to convince Space-X to build a launch facility near Brownsville, TX. Someone may have forgotten that Elon Musk runs both Space-X and Tesla.
Here's what the Tesla site says:
http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas
Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php
And Auto News:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Republicans aren't free market libertarians, they are corporatists. Corporatists go complaining to the government when their long standing business model is challenged. Look throughout US history and you'll see examples going all the way back to the decline of the railroad empires.
It wasn't a new law that kept Tesla out of Texas. The law that car makers couldn't sell direct to consumers in the state has been there for years. Tesla can sell all the cars he wants in Texas. He just has to get someone to open dealerships just like GM, Ford, Toyota and all the others.
They're not saying that Tesla can't sell their cars in Texas. They're saying that Tesla can't deal them without using a third party dealership.
Its one of the old monopoly laws. Another one would be movie theaters. They used to be owned almost entirely by movie studios. That is, universal, etc would literally own the theater. They broke up most of those relationships and now you have to have separate corporations for many of these things.
Tesla could probably sell their cars just fine if they contracted with the local dealerships. Why they don't... I do not know.
Regardless, I agree that companies should be able to sell their products directly. After all, doesn't Apple have Apple stores that sell apple laptops directly? And then there are all the direct internet retailers. I can buy a computer direct from dell or a pair of socks direct from the gap. And the gap "makes" those socks. They're "gap" socks.
So I agree, the law is dumb. But it is actually very easy to get around it by just dealing with the dealerships instead of setting up your own.
AGAIN... I agree... it s dumb. But its manageable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I read the laws tesla is lobbying for on their website, it's a rather specific exemption from the dealership law for basically them:
"a manufacturer of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, or a distributor of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, that (i) owned and operated a new motor vehicle dealership in the United States on or before March 1, 2013, and (ii) has never sold its line make in the United States through an independent franchised new motor vehicle dealership, may own or operate a dealer or dealership, or act in the capacity of a dealer, at any location within the state and may obtain a dealer general distinguishing number under Section 503.029 of the Transportation Code."
"let's write ourselves an exemption, but slam the door on anyone coming after us"
Tesla is not banned from Texas, they are banned from having dealerships. I just test drove (and will probably buy) the Tesla sedan last Friday here through the Tesla showroom at the Domain in Austin. I now have to simply go online and order one, and it will be delivered right here to Austin, Texas. In addition Tesla has an agreement with a local repair shop for any servicing, and they are building a charging infrastructure here in the state. So you can't say they've been banned, only that they have been prevented from having a tradition all in one place solution.
And I find it so amazingly ironic that all of the Republicans in this state who pontificate about the free market and demonize regulation would fight to keep the dealership system. It is exactly the kind of regulation they usually abhor, and prevents the capitalist system from working. The hypocrisy is unfortunately sadly predictable for those on the right in Texas. This is the same group that has passed a voter ID law to suppress the voting rights of the disadvantaged, even though in the last ten years there have only been 4 cases of voting fraud that could have been stopped with the ID law.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing, but it _is_ very political. Planet Money had an explanation of the economics of car dealerships and how dealerships and politicians prevent sales directly to consumers.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes
I have come to believe that "the invisible hand of the free market" is an euphemism for "MY invisible hand ON the free market"
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
Socialism, lol.
If it's "dishonest" to frame this as "Tesla can't sell cars in Texas" then it's equally "dishonest" to frame it as "Tesla can sell cars in Texas if the follow 'the rules'". Both of those statements are true. Neither tells the whole story. And there's no reason whatever to accept one version over the other.
In 1960 blacks it was true to say "blacks in MS can vote if they follow 'the rules'". Of course "the rules" were desperately unfair both in conception and enforcement so in practice kept blacks from voting. Hence it was also true to say "blacks in MS are not allowed to vote". Just like in the Tesla case neither simplistic statement tells the whole story, but neither is any more "dishonest" than the other, they're just framed from different points of view.
Laws go to the highest bidder. What could be more free market?
The invisible hand of the market determines who gets what resource by slipping fat checks into the right persons pockets.
Exactly the same thing can be said about Democrats. Don't play partisan politics. They are both the same.
I want to be a corrupt crony, you insensitive clod!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I understand the basis of the franchise laws as they exist to be: Car companies needed to expand in the old days, but lacked the capitol. Franchisees bought the rights to sell cars from a given company, put their name on the door, and started selling Ford, GM, whatever. Once the car companies themselves were in better shape (with cash kicking around) it would have been trivial for them to open their own dealership down the road, then either stop selling cars to the franchisee, or undercut their prices, etc. etc. Without those laws it would have been easy, and economically beneficial, for the car companies to kill their dealer network and replace it with corporate stores once they had the money to do so.
No franchisee has given money to Telsa to start selling their cars, so there's no one who needs those protections.
paul reinheimer
The issue is that Republicans are liars and at the end of the day are all just homophobic Democrats. Bush was not a conservative, not by any real economic measure, but that is Rove and Ailes fault. Of course when you look at the war-agitprop and unapologetic positions of Democrat leadership then you sson realize that democrats are just hedonist war-mongers. Their common fault is that they all believe that their party can fix what the other party has broken. I always refer to politics with the same analogy: It is just like professional wrestling. When the cameras are on and the stage is set they are bitter enemies, smashing each with rhetorical chairs and over-the-top storylines. When the lights are turned down and the crowd goes home, they are all backstage drinking beers and swapping wives. In the end its because the biggest corporatist-whores are the media themselves, the media that has never known a war that it at first didnt love and cheer-lead for, the media that always implicilty calls for legislative action, the same media that can get caught red-handed in a lie but never apologize or be punished. #CNNMakesYouDumb
The Ds are what most countries would call 'the right'. They are nowhere near Socialism.,/p>
But Democrats don't sell themselves as wanting completely free and unregulated markets. That's not to say they are hypocrites about other things but in this case it is more about Republicans.
That's what most Americans don't get. "Liberals" in the US would be conservatives in most other countries. We are so far at the bottom of the "socialist" rating scale that we might as well be eliminated as an anomaly.
Yep, socialist just like Obamacare, that thing that makes you buy a corporate product just so taxpayers don't end up footing the bill when you go to the hospital unexpectedly. Practically communist it is.
The idea that there is anything at all socialist about it is laughable. It's the most corporate healthcare proposal ever devised, which isn't a surprise since it was devised by Republicans. All of the parts that were even vaguely socialist (single payer system for example) were quickly excised because they were a threat to the profit margins of drug makers, insurance companies, and other healthcare services. Most of the real cost saving opportunities were lost because the healthcare industry has a lot of lobbyists and a strong desire not to stop the gravy train.
I read the internet for the articles.
I can imagine someone arguing this is the free market working. Lobbying and representation is a product, and those with the most money are purchasing it.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
OK, RTFA.
EXISTING laws proscribe direct sale to the consumers. Argue if you want about how those laws cam into existence, but they are in fact, the law and predate Tesla.
Tesla wanted the laws changed. So they were actually the ones lobbying for a special exemption.
Texas didn't ban Tesla cars, they didn't change the existing laws to accommodate Tesla's sales model. You can argue about that being smart or not, but Telas's cars are NOT banned.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There are car dealerships around here (Seattle area) that do "bottom line" or "lowest everyday" prices, but they are still above invoice. Car dealerships will even sometimes sell new cars at below invoice prices, because it's in their interests to move product and they will make that money back on manufacturer discounts, service, etc...
In my opinion, the root of the problem is that dealerships are an additional cost which affects the price of a car, and a good argument can be made that in a hyper-regulated industry with lemon laws, the cost isn't a necessary one.
Neither party wants a free market. The difference is one of those parties makes a lot of speeches about wanting a free market.
Did you know that, here, we can go to one of several websites and buy a new car from any manufacturer, usually with a significant discount over list, together with a mandatory manufacturer's warranty that has to be honoured by that manufacturer's service outlets?
The Health Service is creaking a bit though...
There are two kinds of Libertarians.
Idiots who are too naive to understand that libertarianism leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism, and
Monopolist Vulture Capitalists.
Here's what the Tesla site says: http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas
Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php
And Auto News: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla
Could you put that into a car analogy for us?
...
( ducks and runs for cover )
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
If Exxon is going to have the privileges of a person I'd be perfectly willing to let Exxon vote. One vote. The other side of the deal would be that they would also have to accept the responsibilities of a person. Including the death penalty for their many acts of premeditated murder.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Healthcare would be nationalized. Welfare would pay more and have fewer strings attached. Labor rights would be much stronger. Public education would go through at least undergrad level. Community/municipal ISPs wouldn't be banned in any state.
Its a computer with a really nice set of wheels :-)
Greed is the root of all evil.
Sweden, Germany, Denmark, your pick.
Your not talking about Libertarians, you are talking about the hypocritical ultra-conservatives that call themselves the Libertarian Party of America. They have nothing to do Classical Libertarianism.
Most Slashdotters can understand that being a Liberal does not necessarily make one a Socialist or Communist. Why then do we accept the pigeonholing of all Libertarians as Anarchists/Anarcho-Capitalists? Those among the political right who cast the diverse group we know as Liberals into Socialist/Communist box are mocked for their ignorance -- and rightfully so. Yet, those among the political left who cast the diverse group we know as Libertarians into the Anarchist/Anarcho-Capitalist box are applauded, rewarded as is the case here through moderation.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Because the basic assumptions of Libertarianism are flawed. Libertarianism as expressed by Rand, and economic theories based on or expounded by Libertarianism are flawed from the beginning because it assumes people will always act rationally and without fraud. Hence the ACposter was right, there are 2 kinds of Libertarians.
That is not to say that elements of Libertarian philosophy aren't useful in tempering over-reach by government regulators. For example, I think regulations strictly designed to limit competition such as limits on taxi vehicles should be reduced or eliminated. I think regulations that create undo barriers to entry for trades are unnecessary. For example, the state where I reside wants people who do hair weaving to be licensed as barbers which requires extensive training and apprenticeships. I think beyond the reasonable expectation that persons doing tasks that require "intimate" contact with people should be competent and not be a health hazard, the other requirements are designed as a barrier to entry and result in protected markets that do not function well.
But Libertarians these days spend their time demonizing government on all levels, and not recognizing the role that government does and should play in our society. They do not recognize economic terms like "public good" "excludability" "Rivalrous" to distinguish between markets that can only be public and non-exploitable. Everything to them should be privatized. That is a flawed understanding of economics.
I'm a libertarian and I believe none of those things you attribute to "Libertarians". You're stereotyping and confusing classic libertarianism with the writings of people like Rand.
Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.
Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?
Solving real world problems requires trade-offs, and the extremes are always (ha!) the wrong answer. But view any government power as a negative in the assessment. We want some service or oversight, great, what the least cost way to get what we want, viewing centralized power as a significant cost?
You're confusing that I think with people who don't want the services in the first place, and use "no government" as an excuse. There are very few such people, but they are noisy.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.
That's nice to know. However, most of the people who I know who describe themselves as libertarian promote some combination of those ideas to me. Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?
Civilizations are measured by how they treat their weakest citizens..
Over here in communist Australia my government health care levy covers myself and about 6 other people for less money than I could insure a family of four in the US. UHC has received bipartisan support in Oz since the right wingers gave up the fight to get rid of it in the late 80's (after it had been running for over a decade), according to numerous polls 80% of voters would now vote against a candidate who tried to fuck with it. Recently a similar scheme for the disabled was instituted with bipartisan support and strong voter approval. Personally I am proud to be part of those schemes in communist Australia.
Seriously, writing "communism" to describe the above state of affairs felt wrong even though I was aiming for sarcasm. Americans already pay about the same per-capita tax on health as Aussies do and have much better economies of scale, but then they have to go out and buy health insurance, wtf? We have statistically superior health outcomes to boot, so someone in the US must be making huge profits from other people's misery, I wonder who?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I want to be a corrupt crony, you insensitive clod!
This is the internet, you're going to have to settle for being a corrupt brony.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I'm also a 'moderate libertarian' here, and oh heck is "There are very few such people, but they are noisy." true.
Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?
Very much so.
Let's look at schools and prisons. Both are something that you can, in theory, privatize. However it's been my experience that while private schools(especially religious ones such as Catholic schools, and I'm an atheist) can often educate a child better for less money, private prisons tend to be a mess. Ergo - private schools are okay, I support vouchers, though you constantly have to monitor said private schools to make sure they start and remain effective. Prisons, on the other hand, need to be public - but there's a lot of space because an overly powerful prison guard union can drag down a public prison as effectively as corporate greed can drag down a private one. It's all about balance, because once you get into colleges 'for profit' schools suck majorly - delivering low value education(worse rates at jobs/lower salaries) at high expense. They spend proportionally more on advertising and such...
I think it's because parents concerned enough to send their child to a private school, even profit ones, is a step removed, but they're there more or less constantly to do quality assessment. But I still prefer non-profits(not necessarily religious).
I don't think it's too much to ask that we regularly review various programs for effectiveness. If it's not effective, it should be dropped. If it's not the most cost effective way to do something, why aren't we using them? Not everything is about profit, but look at our prisons - other countries and even some states within the USA have shown that an emphasis on reform, alternative punishments like house arrest & ankle bracelets work and can cut the time you need to toss somebody into prison for by 2/3rds while producing a released prisoner that's 2/3rds less likely to offend again. That's HUGE, and I have to ask: How can we afford to keep paying for our current system?
I don't read AC A human right
"Invoice price" is entirely a marketing gimmick to make people think they got a great price these days. It works surprisingly well. It shows the skill of the salesmen when people genuinely believe they bought a car for less than it cost the dealership.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"""Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible"."""
Some issues here.
First, it is Classic Liberalism. For the lack of a better description Classic Liberalism waned as a political force as implementation of its policies led to the Victorian workhouses. This led to Liberalism gaining a more social approach, leading to Social Liberalism which became the leading faction of Liberalism in the 20th century.
It is Libertarianism (ie. Neo-Classical Liberalism) that is concerned with minimalising government intervention. Libertarianism is basically Classical Liberalism in new clothing.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism
What's the case for your claim that libertarianism leads to "monopolism"? The ideology deliberately weaken government which is the both the most powerful sort of monopoly out there and the principal creator of monopolies historically.
And what's supposed to be wrong with vulture capitalism? Capitalism has always been fairly good at disposing of dying businesses and obsolete capital. I think part of the problem here is arbitrary moral rules that don't actually help anyone.
There is an old business adage: "Nothing Succeeds like Success". It breeds corollaries such as "Nobody got fired for buying IBM". (Microsoft, for the younger generation).
A successful business breeds a positive feedback process just as failing businesses tend to nosedive. As a business becomes more and more successful, it attracts more and more customers. It also can afford to negotiate for favorable supply contracts, buy up smaller competitors, and do other things that accelerate the growth curve even more by diving it an edge on the competition. Eventually, it gets so big that it can buy government on its own terms.
It doesn't need government to get there. Government - with the sometimes exception of local government - actually prefers to avoid dealing with smaller businesses, so you have to be well on your way towards monopoly before you can even start getting governmental favors.
And "moral rules" generally do help people. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. Even (or perhaps, especially) the ones that seem anti-common-sense. One of the most dangerous business fallacies is the pseudo-Darwinistic conceit that only the strong and the nasty survive. In the natural world which Darwin formulated his theories on, we have cute fluffy bunnies, delicate pretty butterflies and ape tribes which prosper because some members take care of others progeny instead of breeding themselves.
Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?
yes
They are no different than rich kids wearing Che shirts who think they are communists while they enjoy their life of starbucks, designer clothes, affluence, and consumerism.
I find it works best to use "classic liberalism" when talking to those on the left, and "classic libertarianism" when talking to those on the right; otherwise people often dismiss you before even understanding your position. I mostly talk politics with people on the right, so that's the first term that leapt to mind.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If you are a corporatist it does not mean you want *every* corporation to control the government. It just means you want to be part of the group of corporations that does. In fact it is important that most corporations are losers to concentrate wealth at the top.
A warlord doesn't want democracy. A warlord wants the world to be ruled by warlords. This doesn't mean he wants every warlord to succeed. He wants most to fail, so he can be as near to the top of the food chain as possible.
He's talking about the only two kinds that ever existed though.
It's doing decently enough compared to the dollar. Perhaps those 'entitlements' don't weigh as much as America's fat bankers.
In a libertarian system they end up being the defacto government and effectively use their intervention to stifle competition. It's feudalism once a generation has passed and social mobility based on merit would cease to happen. Have you got your patron lined up?
When the rich have nothing to stop them creating barriers to entry for those that threaten to take away their riches it's only human nature for them to protect the livelihood of themselves and their families. Unchecked and you end up with feudalism.
I really don't understand why so many Americans want to throw away what George Washington and others fought to give them. I suppose it's a good old American style confidence trick to hide such a thing under a name with "liberty" in it.