Slashdot Mirror
Ohio Attempting To Stop Tesla From Selling Cars, Again
cartechboy writes "Man the automotive dealer associations don't like Tesla. Remember that time the Ohio dealers attempted to block Tesla from selling its electric cars in in the Buckeye State. Now, it's happening again. The car dealers are once again pushing legislation that would keep Tesla from selling cars in Ohio. Senate Bill 260 would prohibit the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles from issuing car-dealer licenses to auto manufacturers. Since Tesla owns and operates its own network of 'dealerships' (aka galleries), this would make it so the automaker couldn't acquire a car-dealer license. Section 11 of the bill lists 'a manufacturer... applying for license to sell or lease new motor vehicles at retail' as one of the types of organization ineligible for a dealership license. On top of all this, the language isn't on the Senate floor as a standalone bill. No, it's inserted as an amendment to Senate Bill 137 which is an unrelated bill requiring Ohio drivers to move to the left while passing roadside maintenance vehicles. Is this yet another slimy tactic to try and undercut the new kid on the block?"
Yes.
Seriously, tho... of course it's an underhanded tactic. It's not even new. The big "3" did the same thing when Tucker tried to revolutionize the industry. Automakers don't like change at anyone's pace but their own glacial plodding.
Ostensibly these laws exist to stop manufacturers and distributes from cutting out the middle-man. If Ford or Honda can sell directly, they can get rid of the dealerships, and then charge whatever they want for a Ford, since there won't be any competition. They are, on the face, anti-monopoly laws. [The oft-mentioned Texas law does the same thing for theaters - preventing Paramount from eventually owning all the theaters and then stopping showing MGM movies to anyone in the Lone Star State.]
It's not the first time politics try to protect businesses, but it's hardly been THIS blatant before.
Free market is a thing of the past. Today you don't buy and sell goods and compete with your competitor with quality and price, you buy and sell laws and compete in who can bribe more politicians.
It's a bit like papal elections in medieval times.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Once again, companies try to prevent competition through legislation ... and apparently some lawmakers aren't above giving it to them.
This is just buggy whip makers trying to ensure they still get their cut.
Free market my ass.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
We just moved the free market to also include laws, because it is more fair to buy and sell legislation than to protect my rights. I really don't get why they think this is such a bad idea. If car companies had more pull over dealerships perhaps they would be less awful.
How is this a Republican thing? The car dealer regulations are a national thing that has been around for years which is the entire reason car dealerships exist. Everybody else has played by those rules for years even though the rules themselves are fairly stupid. Companies like GM have unions on one end and car dealerships on the other end completely milking them dry.
Like it or not this is a huge issue nationwide and Tesla is looking for special treatment. It's not big bad republicans getting in the way of progress here. Tesla is crying because they don't want to play by the same rules everybody else has to and trying to pretend they are innovative because of it.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
"About 50% of the human race is middle man and they don't take kindly to being eliminated."
Malcom Reynolds - Firefly
----- My opinions are my own, etc, etc.
While Tesla is the only manufacturer who is attempting to sell cars without a dealer network, the dealers recognize that if Tesla is successful with this tactic other manufacturers will follow their lead. The car dealers are attempting to protect their business model. I hope the dealers fail because it is not at all clear to me that dealers add any value to the process. It appears that the dealers' association agrees with me. However, I am not positive that car dealers do not add value. If they do, and manufacturers are allowed to sell without them, we will quickly discover what value they add to the equation. In either case, this attempt to enshrine their existence into law is a bad idea.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Generally, politicians with (R) next to their name claim to be against regulations and state/federal interference with free enterprise. Therefore I would expect the (R) members of the Ohio Senate to be up in arms about this law, capitalizing on this opportunity to show that the (D) guys are always putting unreasonable burdens on private enterprise and stifling innovation and growth.
But the fact that the sponsor and co sponsors of the bill are all (R)s contradicts that long held (R) stance. What gives? And why aren't there any reporters pointing out this contradiction?
Like it or not this is a huge issue nationwide and Tesla is looking for special treatment. It's not big bad republicans getting in the way of progress here. Tesla is crying because they don't want to play by the same rules everybody else has to and trying to pretend they are innovative because of it.
So this is like the Uber thing, where outsiders come in to innovate, and are willfully clueless about how things currently work, and why.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Car dealerships are extremely anticompetitive and politically connected. But they are hardly the only industry like this. Tesla and other innovators are already or soon will be a countervailing political and commercial force, with consumer demand playing a big role. The car dealership cartel will soon be broken - this Ohio move is a death throe. The same can't be said for many other industries, however. Cable TV/local broadband is an easy target but is being disrupted too. I'd focus my outrage on agriculture. The Farm Bill is a far bigger handout, affecting far more consumers, than car dealerships' (relatively) petty corruption.
This is not about auto makers. It's about auto dealers. I can say, without, reservation, that all auto dealership owners are sleazy and dishonest and 100% republican. They have lots of money, and pay republican politicians to protect their outdated business models.
It's also about the anti-environmental brand the conservative repubs carry. They score with their anti-intellectual base by beating up on that hippy pointy headed ivory tower California electric enviro-car company that dares try to sell in their great god fearing state.
How is this a Republican thing?
Perhaps because the Senator who proposed the amendment to Senate Bill 137 is a republican? Or that the two cosponsors are also republicans? (Senators Patton, Balderson and Hite)
I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your overall statement but a quick check on the linked article and the bill itself makes it obvious that the republicans are the ones going to bat for the existing dealerships.
in this case it seems that free market = freedom to collect campaign funding from the market.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
The guys pushing this have R's next to their names.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
The owners of Tesla Motors would also be the owners of ANOTHER company that controls the network of dealerships.
Wouldn't that work in the USA?
So say we all
I most certainly will not stop trying to build the best damned monkeys this world has ever seen.
They will be able to fling poo with great accuracy across vast distances.
People won't know I've released the monkeys until they get monkey poo in the face and have NO idea of where it came from.
And when not flinging poo from afar, they will entertain me by choreographing monkey dance numbers.
I shall never give up my quest for a better monkey.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
different then their implementation?
No, they're Republicans in name too.
They don't have D's next to their name.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I'm shocked to find out that Liberal and Libertarian Washington State is trying to interfere with Tesla's business model. Washington has the most Tesla sales per capita and yet these legislators obviously paid off by the auto dealers has put forward a bill that would stop Telsa from adding stores.
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/p...
Like you, I am not stating a position on this particular bill because I have an instinctive aversion to regulation against the "free market". But like your statement is it then also worth commenting on the fact that Tesla has recieved pretty hefty startup funding from a Democratic federal administration?
A half trillion dollar loan (trillion with a T) is not just a thumb on the scale weighing free market equality. The scales were artificially tipped in favor of Tesla before they tried to sell the first vehicle in Ohio.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Of course, this has nothing to do with Tesla or people buying Tesla's. Its about HOW cars are sold, not which cars are sold. It is dealership protection, plain and simple. Folks use Tesla to draw attention, but Teslas could be sold under the proposed law just like any car.. via dealerships.
Now, I am very much against this protection of dealerships. But it has nothing to do with Tesla, or political parties. You'll find plenty of protectionism in both parties. It stifles competition. While there may be a few legitimate consumer protection concerns involving unscrupulous car sellers, it doesn't really measure up, and there other ways to afford those protections if they think they are needed.
But anyone who jumps on the "republicans want to ban Tesla" wagon isn't really thinking very much about what really is at the core.
I don't see what repairs have to do with showrooms. Having the manufacturer own the dealership has nothing to do with where I take my car to get it repaired.
appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
Bureaucracies are inherently resistant to change, especially when a new technology comes along to undermine the assumptions on which the bureaucracies were built. Those bureaucracies’ express mission is to hinder progress. It is our express duty to educate them so they know that the hinderance they are attempting will fall as surely as the Berlin Wall fell. Using technology to improve people's lives is too easy and so welcome it won't fail.
The simple solution for Tesla is to outsource their galleries to some degree. I believe Tesla did that in some states and the Ohio law bans "affiliated entities" as well, but this really will become a "cat and mouse" game.
Regular dealerships are "affiliated" with the manufacturer at some level, so it sounds like Tesla will have to find that balance as well.
Dice doesn't care: they think that /. isn't worth anything to them: http://www.twst.com/update/388...
Is 1563649 a prime number?
But like your statement is it then also worth commenting on the fact that Tesla has recieved pretty hefty startup funding from a Democratic federal administration
Sure, if the Democratic position was to burn lots of oil, it would be worth commenting on it.
As it stands, we have two major parties in America: the socialist party and the hypocrite party.
The markets size and modern shipping has eliminated the original problem.
These days stealerships are a problem.
Tesla will fix a Gordian knot left in the laws because of conditions that no longer exist.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Corepirate is actually kinda cool. I think I'll find a place to use that one.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
riders need to be done away with.
There abuse far out weighs any advantages.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Having the manufacturer own the dealership has nothing to do with where I take my car to get it repaired.
It sure does when there are no other places to get it repaired other than the manufacturer!
If the argument here is the "free market" and "fair competition", then the political affiliation of the those assisting a manufacturer of electric vehicles to compete against other manufacturers is exactly as relevent as the political affiliation of those who oppose the method of sale of those competing vehicles. Perhaps more so. If is pertinent to state that its proof of Republican corruption when they try to curb the sale of Vehicle X, then it is relevent to point out that Democrats provided unfair advantage that allowed Vehicle Y to be created and become a competitor of Vehicle X in the first place.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
It is not a coincidence that Tesla has no dealerships. It likely never will.
This strong-arming is a perfect example for the reason. Dealerships wield in an inordinate amount of political power in their regions. The result hash been that once a manufacturer grants a dealership license to a dealership in a certain area, it is perpetual, geographically exclusive and irrevocable by the manufacturer. Unheard of conditions in practically any other business.
Tesla will sooner open its own dealerships across Ohio's state lines. The lost sales taxes will eventually prove irresistible to the coin operated legislature.
Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans
The republicans aren't about the free market any more than the dems are despite lip service to the contrary. This is clear evidence of that. We do not need car dealers as middlemen anymore. No, this is simply them pushing the agenda of some monied interests. Same as it ever was. The dems do the same thing, just for different constituents.
Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.
This doesn't expand the government any. It simply is an attempt by some greedy middlemen to limit competition by legislation. Both parties do this. There is no reason at all that we should have to buy cars through dealerships.
A rear wheel drive sports car is a fun toy. A Tesla is a status symbol.
You don't buy status symbols to leave them in the garage.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am guessing that Apple should shut down all of its stores across the country, too. Car dealer regulations may have been around, but they (car dealer associations) are trying to change the rules when someone (Tesla) introduces a new, but legal means of playing the game.
...my apologies for the stupidity and protectionism being displayed by the auto dealers in my state. Ohio has enough problem without something this stupid.
Bearded Dragon
The party of less government and pro-business.
Pro-business. Mostly yes. Less government? Not so much. The republican party only wants less government when it suits them and keeps them in power. If the republicans REALLY were for less government they would be pushing to reduce the size of the military, reduce medicare, reduce social security and stay out of morality debates like stem cell research and gay marriage. They can pay lip services to "less government" all they want but their actions are not those of a party which actually wants less government.
So, from what I can tell, the main problem with this Ohio law (aside the fact it's an obvious, blatantly stupid attempt to stop one particular company from selling in the state) is that they want to prevent auto manufacturers from owning dealerships, right?
So, then, why doesn't Tesla just franchise out the dealerships in Ohio?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The only argument that I can remotely see being made for this sort of legislation is 'protecting jobs in X industry.' Manufacturer distribution and sales have got to be more efficient, and probably [relatively] more honest since the manufacturer suffers directly if someone's missold or if the product is misrepresented.
Frankly, the car dealer industry is one that could disappear without many complaints from the public, but there will still be plenty of used cars.
The reason it's awful, is that for most people, a car is the most expensive item (apart from real estate) that they will ever buy, by a huge margin.
The reason it is awful is because lots of dealers have a VERY well deserved reputation for trying to rip people off. If you've ever been through a negotiation to buy or sell a car through a dealer, you probably know that they will use every underhanded tactic in the book to try to get you to pay more than you need to. They try to sell you add ons that you do not need (like undercoating) or are overpriced. They try to take advantage of you and as a result, people resent them.
"Man the automotive dealer associations don't like Tesla.
They have a name: NADA. Hate them, they are evil.
Rent-seeking
It is not surprising that a group with an existing legislative advantage in the marketplace is returning to the legislature to bolster their advantage against a new threat. That's how the market works.
The primary job of an elected official is to get reelected. If you want a legislator's attention,donate to their election fund. They'll notice the money, and then when you talk about your legislative needs, they'll listen carefully, and often act in your interest. Just keep those checks coming.
My Heart Is A Flower
The simple solution for Tesla is to outsource their galleries to some degree.
Simple but ultimately self defeating. By doing that they are basically giving away profits to a middle man that they realistically should not have to.
Having distributors only makes sense if you lack the ability to adequately reach or economically serve a group of customers. The distributors I deal with in my day job are better equipped to deal with small customers or customers with niche needs. In the case of automobiles, there is no compelling economic interest on the part of consumers to have a middle man be required. If I want to buy direct from Tesla I should be allowed to do that. Independent dealerships provide me no economic value.
not related to original motion (in any meaningfull way) - should never have got on the order paper
When will you people wake up.
Make it illegal to tack unrelated bills together.
So that is what the Republicans mean by a "free market."
This proves the people who currently call themselves "Republicans" are anything but. The party has been hijacked by a bunch of self-serving individuals. Clearly these people could not care less about the free market or competition.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
The most powerful and least productive group today. You could produce the best product in the world, but if you cut off the "middle man" you won't be able to sell it.
I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
Tesla should not get special treatment, but rather than trying to apply an outdated law to Tesla, the outdated law should be taken off the books.
The are real consequences for doing this however. In some small towns a new car dealership can be a major employer. You've got sales people, repair people, parts people, administrative staff, etc. And of course an auto dealership relies on other services in order to operate which also employee people.
So while we may like the idea of direct sales because it cuts costs, it also takes money out of the local economy.
Believe me, I'm not a big fan of auto dealerships. I like the savings I get from buying direct or online, but I am also concerned about the long term impacts on the economy of the loss of brick and mortar retail outlets.
So this really may not have much to do with Party platform at all. It's possible that it's all about the campaign contributions made by Ohio car dealerships. It also might be driven by a genuine concern for their constituent's jobs.
Automakers should sell their own products. Then you don't have a middleman who try to pass the blame to the auto maker and an auto maker who will try to pass the blame to the dealer.
If the manufacture misleads the dealer about their cars, there's nothing the customer can do about it but complain to the dealer.
Licensing is fine, as long as the rules aren't dictated by the richest licensee.
I'm not looking forward to next week when the retards come back.
Right, it's about all those other new manufacturers that are trying to sell directly to consumers. How could people miss it? There's a horde of them!
Well,
sell all your Teslars to Europe. That would be the simple thing.
Now lets wait who is going to found an re-import business.
Worst case do it yourself ... the next thing is: a brand new car will only be available via 'used car dealers'.
Or do it like Apple: manufactor the cars in Ireland and export them from there to the USA (like Apple does).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If Telsa sold cars through a dealer, how does that guarantee Tesla are not the sole suppliers of spare parts?
If you take your car to a Ford dealership to get fixed, they'll use genuine Ford parts.
If you take it to your local mechanic, they might offer to source parts from a wrecker.
The local mechanic has nothing to do with car dealer licenses.
So, they went federal, is that when they found out that clubbing union members and shooting wooblies didn't get them many votes?
How much longer was it before they figured out that segregation was a bad thing? Maybe more like the60's?
Seems like if it wasn't for Kennedy, whose fiscal and social polices were very unpopular with old school democrats, the old south would be as bad now as it was then.
No brain, no pain.
No, they're Republicans in name too.
They don't have D's next to their name.
Fox News watcher?
Since Ohio is a right wing governed state this is further proof that the right wing does not support liberty or business or a free market. What is does prove is that the republicans will back current businesses that put money across their palms. So why not have a site that is adjacent to Ohio that simply delivers the new car to Ohio residents? That way Ohio can lose out on the sales taxes. So what is next? will Ohio invent an impact fee for importing an American car that does not pollute? Then we will see their Republic, lying, scum bag leaders all clain they are for a non polluted environment. If fact they love apple pie, bribes and power but they hate their moms and their nation.
But, uh, there is?
There's lots of non-dealership places that I can go to fix my car, and those would exist no matter who owned the dealership I bought my car at (and might be more prevalent, even, if more car selling was direct from manufacturer).
Similarly, there's already manufacturer original parts and parts made by other companies. This has even less to do with who owns the dealership. It's not like the independent dealerships are making all the parts they use.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
I think that the real issue is that a car, much like a home is one of the relatively few things in this world that Americans (for the most part) will ever negotiate the price of. In the US most things traditionally "cost what they cost". You decide what you want to buy, you go to where they sell it, and you pay them the price that they have on the price tag if you want it bad enough and/or think it is worth the asking price. Relatively few people in the US negotiate daily and for most of them it's not a comfortable experience. Most people don't have a comfortable understanding of the process and are worried that they're being taken advantage of when they settle on a price. The process doesn't do much to help get past this fear. The last time I bought a car I did it online. I was looking for a 2006 Pontiac GTO and went to Pontiac's website where I searched for one in Texas and Louisiana. I found them all, assembled all their email addresses for their online sales department, and sent them the same email. Basically "I want a 2006 GTO, I'm going to pay 18% off sticker, I don't care what color it is or whether it is an automatic or manual transmission (there were very few options on that car). Please contact me if you want to move a car right now. I have my own financing lined up. Thank You". I got a bunch of replies. Most said nobody would make that deal and three said they had a car they would sell me for that deal. I picked one (a silver one in Bastrop Texas) and drove there from Houston with my wife to pick it up. I was in the dealership for about 45 minutes.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Tesla may be the first, but why would you think they'd be the only? Again, its not about Tesla, its about the practice.
Everybody else has played by those rules for years even though the rules themselves are fairly stupid.
Tesla is crying because they don't want to play by the same rules everybody else has to and trying to pretend they are innovative because of it.
Wow- So you're slamming Tesla with an argument of: "Innovate, but make sure you don't break the laws enacted to protect the status quo / artificially prop up an old business model.".... Isn't this one of the characteristics associated with innovation?
...break the laws enacted to protect...
Excuse me- ...break the rules enacted to protect...
I suspect many who rail against this kind of graft and corruption are fine with giving the government and it's agencies more power to regulate and 'insure a fair marketplace'. However, the more rules and laws that are passed, the more they can be (ab)used to advantage or disadvantage someone else or some other company. I am constantly surprised at how many people here on /. do not make this connection.
We beg and beg for more regulation about X. Once it's in place, you complain because companies try to influence the process? Well, surprise surprise.....when you regulate people or companies, they usually want to participate in the process. If, during that process, they can disadvantage the other guy......why not do that? That's common sense, completely expected, and has been going on as long as the world has been going around.
That Slashdot finds this surprising says more about slashdot than it does the companies.
Maybe this will work better:
1. Establish law(s) affecting companies
2. Act surprised when companies want to participate in the lawmaking
3. ????
4. Profit
...of why laws shouldn't be allowed to have "riders".
Each law should have to be voted on individually.
As the owner of a Tesla one thing I have to point out is that Elon Musk has publically stated that their goal for service is to not make a profit. When I broke a part on my Model S the replacement cost of that part, plus installation was a fraction of what it would cost for most other cars. My experience with dealerships is they try and gouge you any way they can, pushing unneeded services on their customers, especially on those they feel are the least knowledgeable.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I call bullshit on "both sides do it". There is only one party here is going off the deep end in the past 10 years. Democrats are a lot easier to bullier than Republicans to do the right thing.
There is no group with a lower aggregate IQ then new car buyers. Not even 'audiophiles'.
Have to quibble a little bit. I bought a new Toyota Matrix in 2005 even knowing the downsides of buying new. I had a couple primary reasons that I still think are valid:
1) At the time there were few hatchbacks available used anywhere within 1000km. Well-used Civics were going for 10K.
2) I have every intention of driving my vehicle into the ground, in another decade or so.
Now there are hatchbacks/crossovers from everyone all over the place, so when we add a second vehicle I'll probably go used.
They don't own the dealerships, but they do set the prices.
All Toyota dealerships within 2000km of my house had the same prices when I was car shopping. And they didn't dicker. If you were really good you could get a couple of accessories thrown in, but the price on the car itself does not go below Toyota's suggested price.
And Toyota parts in Canada cost double what they cost in the USA.
What the heck? First off that is stupid, second off putting it into another bill to try to get it passed is really unethical and moronic...It should be illegal to do that...hopefully that bill will be edited to remove that part of it
The people running for office mostly just want to be rich. To be elected to office, they need to appeal mainly to one of two groups of people: those who want less government telling them what to do, or those who want more government to take from others and give to them. Once elected to office, they don't have to actually do either. They simply need to pretend that they are working on less/more government while blaming any issues on the other side for not accomplishing less/more government. This is why Democrats have been promising to end poverty for 40 years yet poverty continues to rise (even when they control the White House and Congress). This is why Republicans have been promising to reduce the size of the federal government for 40 years yet the government continues to grow (even when they control the White House and Congress).
While there may be a small handful of honest politicians who truly believe in doing what is in the best interest of the American people, this is obviously not the majority of the people in Washington.
The difference here is that Tesla has promised and made it their goal to not make a profit on service or parts and Elon Musk has publically stated this. From my experience this is certainly the case. When I looked into the possibility of having to replace a part on my model S due to a friend spilling something in the car the price I was quoted for the part as well as installation was a fraction of the price in another well-known luxury brand car according to a mechanic friend of mine who specializes in that car. Fortunately I was able to get everything cleaned up.
I also at one point broke a clip on one of the roof panels on my car. Unfortunately this required replacing the entire clear-coated roof panel that borders the panoramic glass panel. The replacement was $100 for the panel and $175 for labor (about 3 hours). If this had been a Toyota the part would easily have cost at least double that.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Tesla has heat and even a sub-zero weather package for heated wipers and a heated rear seat. They just did a cross-country trip going through several snow storms and some very cold weather. For warmer weather it uses a heat pump, for colder weather it uses a resistive heating element. The traction control also works extremely well, especially since the electric motor is far more responsive than a gasoline engine. There is also active heating and cooling for the battery pack which can also extract excess heat from the electric motor and inverter. They wouldn't be selling them in Norway if they didn't have heat.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
This would be like Fisker all over again. Fisker used dealerships to try and sell their cars and failed miserably.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Couldn't Tesla create a company that exists only to sell their cars, similar to how large businesses create a "property" company to "own" the buildings/land they're in, and then the parent pays the "property" company to lease the land to get around such stupid legislation?
bork bork bork!
Tesla may be the first, but why would you think they'd be the only? Again, its not about Tesla, its about the practice.
Except in this case it is about Tesla explicitly, as the law is being changed to apply only to Tesla and Tesla's marketing approach. It may be worded in a general way that doesn't explicitly call out the name of Tesla explicitly, but it is a law that only applies to this particular company. Outlawing this approach is done strictly as a marketing move through the use of political pressure to further the profits of a small group of politically well connected individuals.
Sadly, legislation has some of the largest return of investment that you can ever make, from a Wall Street perspective of ROI. It is by far easier to make money that way than it is to usually invest in high growth technology companies.
The GOP is a mix of:
Tea Party loonies that want to destroy the federal government, while they reign terror on economic interests that don't support them at the state level (like Tesla)
Religious fundamentalists which want to dictate their views on health, society relationships (very anti libertarian of them)
Libertarian which really means my rights are more important than yours
Your common republicans which are pro war, defend massive wasteful expenditures in the military regardless of actual need (huge federal government), have always been in love with every invasion of privacy made in the name of national security (but wouldn't mind selling those secrets for a lot of money to their friends in the private sector)
A smashing minority of common sense politicians which genuinely want to reform the tax code, want a smarter/smaller military, are willing to make bipartidarism work, want less entitlements, AKA, Republicans In Name Only
And one of his earliest stories, too! Heinlein almost always has an apposite quote. Mod parent up
Sounds unfair to me! I'm in the UK but I wouldn't think Tesler is going to affect the American market drastically as it is expensive and specialist?
The people running for office mostly just want to be rich.
Nearly all of the ones running for national office already are rich even before they get into office. Someone who has to work a Real Job to make ends meet is never going to have the financial resources or time to spend on the campaign to get elected. What they mostly want is power though most seem to add to their wealth along the way.
Sadly, Ayn Rand's vision of the future is coming true :(
Here is the issue: Car dealerships laws are the equivalent of unions for sales people. If you want Tesla to get to set a precedent and be able to go around these rules then you're going to see similar moves by just about every other manufacturer out there which will do a ton of damage to local economies nationwide. Especially small towns.
Car manufacturers are basically an oligopoly and in an oligopoly, regulations are somewhat necessary. While I'm not a big fan of encroaching on the free market, there are areas where you have to (utilities for example).
Tesla can make awesome cars. Tesla can save the planet. Tesla can get big investments from the government and build infrastructure all over the country...but if Tesla gets to rewrite the rulebook "because Tesla" you're going to tear down a whole lot of economies.
I drive a Volt right now and I'm a big Tesla fan too, but what Tesla is trying to do is equivalent of running onto a soccer field, picking up the ball and running it into the net...then complaining that they aren't allowed to do it that way.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
Let me see if I can pull this out of my head correctly: I get what you're saying, and it brings to mind questions I've pondered over the years (which may or may not apply to Tesla's business model).
There exist many examples of what you've described, in many industries. When someone pops up with what looks like a better process or product, something that might yield great benefit, it often simultaneously disrupts an industry and the economics dependent upon it- people and systems change slowly and painfully. Often, existing industry will buy out the innovators and sit on their work for this reason.
How do innovative concepts that have not only enormous potential for profit, but enormous potential to benefit society as well, concepts such as electric vehicles with nation-wide battery-swap stations, thorium reacters, etc., get implemented on a useful scale?
How does society-changing, profitable innovation take hold while at the same time minimizing impact on those people and industries that are reluctant/slow to change?
I don't have answers for either of these questions, and if I did, I'm just positive that Captains of Industry look for answers from idiots posting on Slashdot.
As a semi-related side-rant, I guess what I find discouraging is that, taking the energy industry as an example, unimaginably wealthy corporations and shareholders seem to be content with a slow-motion slide into distopian decay, as long as they're the last ones to go. They could, albeit with significant, careful investment over time in the technologies mentioned above, maintain profits and control, but over a type of industry that has huge untapped potential as well as societal and environmental benefits far beyond what exists now.
I guess the biggest concern is the rate of slide more than anything else. What Tesla wants to do here isn't innovative...that's the issue. Everybody with eyes would have done it that way if they were allowed to as because they weren't all existing players around the country have invested in the most effective way to play with the rules that we have.
As happens with union arrangements, if a company is tied down by those agreements and a new competitor pops up that does things more efficiently with fewer people the older company probably wants to do it that way too...but they can't because they are playing by the rules. They will either be run out of business because they couldn't adjust or they will hit chapter 11 to get them out of those agreements so that they can adjust.
Either way though, societal impact has to be considered. Almost any arrangement that leads to lower efficiency while contributing to dramatically larger employment is bad for the company but good for the economy at large because the greater good is massive employment. It might to be efficient and as a programmer that will bother me but it needs to happen that way.
When we start to shift towards money generating efficiency with minimal employment the unfortunate result is extremely high unemployment and job loss.
I'm all for efficiency but there has to be a point in society where we reward and encourage high employment models.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
My used car began to die, and I knew I would need to get a replacement.
I was looking for a "reliable old Honda" when the CARS bill passed (popularly "Cash for Clunkers"). This brought a new car down into used car price ranges. I wouldn't get the $4500 credit for buying a used car, only a new one, so I bought a reliable new Honda instead.
I knew I'd want to keep my car until there was a reliable, affordable all-electric, and I figured I have at least 15 years from date of purchase for some company to come out with one.