Tesla's Fight With Car Dealers Could Help Decide the Next Presidential Election

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Marcus Wohlsen writes that the most recent ban against Tesla selling cars directly from the company instead of through third-party dealers was enacted in New Jersey with the support of Gov. Chris Christie, a possible contender for the GOP nomination. That prompted Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Christie rival, to heartily defend Tesla's direct sales model. 'Customers should be allowed to buy products that fit their need,' says Rubio, 'especially a product that we know is safe and has consumer confidence beneath it.' Perhaps even more surprising is the love shown by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the once and possibly future presidential hopeful whose oil-rich state bars employees in Tesla's two showrooms from even telling potential customers how much the Model S costs. 'I think it's time for Texans to have an open conversation about this,' says Perry, 'the pros and the cons. I'm gonna think the pros of allowing this to happen outweigh the cons.' The sudden GOP embrace of an electric car company once reviled as a symbol of Northern California enivro-weenies might seem ironic says Wohlsen, but the real irony is that conservative politicians ever opposed Tesla at all.

'The widespread franchise rules giving car dealers virtual monopolies in their territories epitomize the government-controlled marketplace Republicans purportedly despise,' writes Wohlsen adding that possible presidential contenders realize there may be political capital to be gained in supporting Tesla. But the real winner is Tesla. If the company can manage to associate its brand with all the positive qualities Rubio and Perry hope rub off on them, few politicians will want to take the risk to stand against them. Mitt Romney called Tesla Motors a 'loser' company during his 2012 run for president. In 2016 running against Tesla might seem about as smart as running against Apple."

Comments

Rubio was doing so well

[Anonymous Coward]

And then he called them "consumers."

Protip: That's the derogatory term economists use for the general public when they're feeling especially sociopathic.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[TubeSteak]

And then he called them "consumers."

Protip: That's the derogatory term economists use for the general public when they're feeling especially sociopathic.

Manufacturer, Distributor, Wholesaler, Retailer, Customer, Consumer

None of those terms are derogatory.
All they do is describe different roles in the chain of commerce.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Your chain-of-commerce should have ended at "customer". Any further actions do not qualify as commerce.

"Customers" are people who pay you to do your job well. They buy your products and services, and if you don't provide what they need, they will drop your ass and find someone who does. These are "informed buyers" who will do pesky things like "demand warranty service" and "enforce contract terms".

"Consumers" are people that marking folks envision buying your product because they want it and will buy it without questioning whether they need it or not. These are "mindless automatons" who will "take what they're given" and "stand in line for days in the freezing cold to get the next minor upgrade of your product".

(If you want a good laugh, envision Chris Farley doing the air-quotes-guy skit in those last two paragraphs.)

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[Anonymous Coward]

No,
In the context of a manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler and retailer, people are consumers. In the context of a doctor or hospital, people are patients. In the context of a politician, people are voters or constituents.

That shows this politicians pro-business interests. People are consumers to him because he is thinking from a pro-business perspective, not as a politician representing people.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumer /is/ derogatory.
Customer shouldn't be (but might be due to consumer).

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[k6mfw]

"Customers" are people who pay you to do your job well.

"Consumers" are people that marking folks envision buying your product because they want it and will buy it without questioning whether they need it or not.

Excellent description between the two. I would have posted the same. Customers are those you want to please and that is incentive to provide good products/services. Consumers are those you want them to consume regardless.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, there is an actual distinction between the two which is subtle but important.

Customers and consumers are usually one and the same (someone buying something that they will use themselves). But there are a lot of times where they aren't the same person. A customer buying a gift for someone else for example. The customer paid for the good, but didn't actually consume it. The guy a company actually has to keep happy post-purchase is the consumer. The customer in this example is mostly concerned with the buying experience itself.

Another example is a business sale for software. A company is the customer, but the workers at the company are the consumers. Although in this case, the consumers of the software can (and usually do) influence the decision of the company to continue being a customer or not.

It doesn't help that the usage of consumer gets garbled by enough people that you get the same mess of how the word "theory" is used, and how it has different meanings depending on the context, and your personal views of what the word should mean in that context.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[TubeSteak]

No. Your chain-of-commerce should have ended at "customer". Any further actions do not qualify as commerce.

1. There's more to commerce than the exchange of money.
2. Your definition of consumer is a transparently biased straw man you've built up specifically so you can beat it down.

For this conversation to be meaningful, we need a common definition.
Heck, it'd probably help if you even read the fucking article

"It's an established product," Rubio said. "Customers should be allowed to buy products that fit their need, especially a product that we know is safe and has consumer confidence beneath it."

3. Rubio isn't even using "consumer" in the way that's got you Anonymous Cowards all hot and bothered.

Is "consumer confidence" derogatory?
Does it imply "mindless automatons?"
Or maybe you ACs are just full of shit.

Fuck. I don't even like Rubio's Tea Party politics,
but I definitely dislike incorrect /. pedants even more.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[Enry]

Almost. As a parent, I'm the customer since I'm the one buying and paying for it. My daughter is the consumer, since she's the one that wants the bear/ipod/minecraft shirt

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[Lodlaiden]

Which flavor do we have here at the ol' slashdot?

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[khallow]

when they're feeling especially sociopathic

In addition to both getting the definition of "consumer" and characterizing Rubio's use of the term incorrectly (see TubeStake's discussion of this), we also have the misuse of the term, "sociopathic". What's going on is that economists are merely creating a useful label for a role in certain sorts of trades. This is called "abstraction". It's a far handier label than say, "Bob" because it describes the role and applies even when the consumer isn't named "Bob".

Let's look at the actual definition of sociopath:

a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I don't see any of that applying merely because one uses a word which you don't like.

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[RaceProUK]

Raspberry

Re:Rubio was doing so well

[Grishnakh]

Wrong. Manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers are all customers. The distributor is the customer of the manufacturer, the wholesaler is their customer, the retailer is their customer, and the consumer is their customer. The manufacturer is the customer of whoever sells components, raw materials, etc. Everyone's a customer of someone. That's why the term "customer" isn't used, and "consumer" is. The consumer is the end-user, the last link of the chain. They don't have any customers. They simply consume, and don't produce or act as a middleman.

You can attach all the negative connotations to the term you like, but the fact is the term is perfectly apt when you're talking about economics, and the term "customer" is totally different and not interchangeable.

To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

the company and their models have changed since 2012.
Also...it's not like the presidential hopefuls really care about the company, or honoring what they say before the election.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Or after the election.

Re:To be fair

[lgw]

the company and their models have changed since 2012.

Tesla is in an odd place in conservative conversations, because it hasn't sunk in yet that this is the first electric car that's not a joke played on hippies. The Model S really did change the landscape (and, hey, we wouldn't be conservatives if we embraced change quickly). Now people on the right are starting to realize that this could be the new American Car Company to rally behind, now that "Government Motors" is on the lifetime-ban list of many on the right after the bailouts.

Speaking of changing landscapes, people need to shed the silly notion that "oil companies" oppose electric cars. There are no large "oil companies" any more, they're all "energy companies" now, and they're just as happy to sell natural gas to electric companies as they are to sell oil at the pump.

Re:To be fair

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

They'll make a heck of a lot more if they are selling gas at the pump than natural gas to the electric company.

Re:To be fair

[macpacheco]

The reality is electric cars are wayyyyy less profitable for "energy companies" than gasoline cars.
Mainly because you can put this thing called solar panels on your roof and charge your cars with your own generated electricity (either directly, or sell your surplus to the grid during the day and buy it back in the wee hours when your car is home charging).
Electric Vehicles + Solar panels are the kiss of death for all fossil fuel based energy companies.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Distribution costs, refining costs, additives, marketing, etc make selling gasoline much more expensive than selling directly to an electric company. Not to mention we have a surplus of natural gas, where as we're importing oil, again making oil (and hence gasoline) more expensive.

Re:To be fair

[Applehu Akbar]

Too many of the general public confuse 'conservatives' with 'Republicans.' The Republicrat Party is a matched pair of umbrella organizations set up to protect given sets of special interests, which involve significant overlap, from real-world economics and public accountability. The left-hand half of this party just got through putting together a tax-supported national healthcare system that carefully avoids interfering with the legal armor that allows the pharma business and the hospital business to screw us blind. Rank-and-file leftists never got the healthcare cost controls they craved. Meanwhile, the right-hand segment of the party spouts capitalist rhetoric while being careful not to bring up the idea of subjecting the same set of big donors to the free-market competition that its own base has always wished for.

We of the dark side have been generally suspicious of electric cars because of the perception that most purchases are made with cushy tax subsidies, rather than inherent merit, in mind. There is also a cultural bias factor ("University hippies buy these, so they must be bad...") which works both ways. I recently had a relative profess shock that, despite my politics, I recycle. I had to explain to her that hating environmental activists doesn't have to mean hating the environment itself. We feel batter about Tesla than about the Leaf and its ilk because it's the first electric vehicle that is being successfully marketed to people who take economics seriously (still early-adopter pricing, but with decent range and performance), and that it comes from Silicon Valley rather than being an afterthought product, withdrawn at the first hint of technical difficulties, marketed to guilt-ridden academics. Tesla intends to make this product a success, and is putting in the infrastructure it will take to make it so.

Re:To be fair

[MrLeap]

_all_ fossil fuel based energy companies? Surely someone wouldn't be engaging in hyperbole on the internet.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric Vehicles + Solar panels are the kiss of death for all fossil fuel based energy companies.

Please put your money where your mouth is and short oil companies. Especially the small ones and let me know what you are shorting. Thanks!

- Reality

Hint: no one cares about electric cars. All it will result is more cars on the road and even more carbon being unsequestered.

Re:To be fair

[Atzanteol]

Source?

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many of the general public confuse 'conservatives' with 'Republicans.'

There is no confusion going on there. See, for example, this:

We of the dark side have been generally suspicious of electric cars because of the perception that most purchases are made with cushy tax subsidies, rather than inherent merit, in mind.

This idea is straight out of boilerplate Republican rhetoric, and it reflects an ideological blinder central to conservative Republican politics. You never, ever allow yourselves to contemplate the merest iota of a chance that the Holy Free Market might not be 100% perfect at governing the future of society. No sir, there is no chance at all that in the real world, absent government intervention, superior solutions may rot on the sideline because the market often lacks a mechanism for pushing itself out of local minima. And there is also no chance at all that unregulated markets will fill with rent-seekers who do their best to put higher walls around the local minimum they're occupying. None at all!

Keep your ears firmly plugged, little conservative lapdogs. You must not let disapproved doubleplus ungood facts in. Continue repeating Republican mantras as necessary whenever reality intrudes.

There is also a cultural bias factor ("University hippies buy these, so they must be bad...") which works both ways. I recently had a relative profess shock that, despite my politics, I recycle. I had to explain to her that hating environmental activists doesn't have to mean hating the environment itself.

It is telling that you take it as a given that environmental activists must be hated.

We feel batter about Tesla than about the Leaf and its ilk because it's the first electric vehicle that is being successfully marketed to people who take economics seriously

It is equally telling that you think anyone on the left, by definition, does not take economics seriously.

Hint: it's you. You're the guys who don't take economics seriously. You refuse to pay any attention at all to serious attempts to analyze economics (by which I mean ones which attempt for academic rigor). You constantly shout down attempts to do so. You rely instead on a toxic mix of tribal rhetoric and slavish devotion to disproven absolutist ideas about the infinite superiority of the unregulated invisible hand. (Betraying, by the way, that you haven't even seriously read the works of the man who invented the term "invisible hand". Adam Smith would be quite leftist by modern U.S. political standards, as he was a firm believer in making markets more free by regulating them. You see, he recognized that players in a market, particularly on the "supply side", will attempt to make it less free to protect their own interests.)

In short: fuck off, conservative. Your "ohhhhh, the Republicans are nae true Scotsmen" spin and your attempts to put yourself on the good side of a few issues while still clinging to the bad side are transparently dishonest.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

NEVER.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHA!!! You're under the assumption that the price of energy is tied into how much you use?
 
Let's put it this way, if the average consumption of oil goes from 100 bbls per year per person to 1 bbl per year per person guess how much oil is going to go up?
 
You'll never understand business as long as you don't understand this basic fact.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

He was right, and you just proved it. Congrats AC!
Signed,
AC.

Re:To be fair

[Dread_ed]

I think the conversation, and the resulting political tie-in, is more about US franchise law and auto dealers dependence on said laws, than they are about an electric car, conservative ideology, or any particular politician.

Auto dealer groups comprise a powerful lobby with massive dollars to spend on politicians and long standing relationships with our governing bodies. These dealer groups are by and large threatened by Tesla's "direct to customer" model because it cuts them right out of the picture. Their greatest fear is once Tesla has cemented this as a viable and legal distribution method for their cars, what will stop other manufacturers from following suit and putting the franchise auto dealers out of business?

Thus, state and national auto dealer groups have been exerting whatever influence they can to maintain the status quo concerning franchise law, and this means standing in opposition to Tesla's business model. It really has nothing to do with the car, nor does it have anything to do with conservative thinking, or even that the car is electric. It is merely about the fact that lots of people who have been making lots of money for a very long time under current franchise law don't want to see that change. If it does you might begin to see manufacturers buying out their franchise dealers and running their own operations for sales and service in the US.

If all manufacturers go to this distribution model, or have it as an available choice, what does that mean for us?

1) Does that mean some of the prohibitive barriers to successfully producing and marketing a new car make have suddenly disappeared? I think that may be a yes, and that's possibly a good thing. More choice, more avenues for innovation and economic opportunity. On the downside, a lack of required infrastructure, like service facilities, dealerships where they have staff on hand to take care of the customers, etc. can make the ownership experience particularly daunting. I think Tesla has handled this right, however another company coming along after them might not. This is a major point of contention in the franchise law battle. Currently manufacturers are required to have a certain number of service facilities and sales floors.

2) Would widespread adoption of Tesla's business model by other manufacturers adversely affect prices? I think it *could* result in lower prices for cars and related services as you could cut out a middleman. However, imagine if every Ford dealer in your state was owned by the same company. That would reduce or even eliminate competition, and make it very easy to have institutionalized price fixing that would be very difficult to detect and prosecute. Less competition is bad for customers in general, and bad for companies as well as there is no drive to perform better, work harder, give better customer service than the other guy.

3) How will this affect jobs? The economy, etc.?

This really needs a lot of thought put in to it. Its not as simple as just saying, "Hey, its Tesla, its an awesome car, and an awesome idea, lets just let them do it." Its about all of the other manufacturers that are eying this exchange and getting ready to start pushing boundaries themselves. Where that will lead is really uncertain.

Re:To be fair

[lgw]

Ford can fix whatever price it wants to (you don't think Ford dealers compete with one another on price, do you?). That's not important, as there are many brands. Let Ford sell cars their way, and Tesla do their own thing, and trust the customers to favor the model best for the customers.

Re:To be fair

[deadweight]

You are going to need a LOT of solar panels to do this and also note most people are home at NIGHT when this is not going to work out so well ;)

Re:To be fair

[rsborg]

You are going to need a LOT of solar panels to do this and also note most people are home at NIGHT when this is not going to work out so well ;)

Note: using solar to power your car is through offsetting your daily electricity use and powering at night - you don't actually have to use the *specific electrons collected by photonics deposits on your solar panel* to power the electric car.

The end result is the same - car gets juice (usually the cheaper variety if you're hooked up with a smart meter) and you pay less.

Hell, Musk even has a company that helps homeowners do just that - SolarCity - without all the overhead of buying the panels and installing them yourself.

Re:To be fair

[Kaenneth]

It wouldn't be that hard to have an energy reservoir that fills during the sunlight hours, then charges your car when you plug it in.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, who do you think makes all the money at all those added stages? The fucking oil companies of course!

Re:To be fair

[sumdumass]

Years sgo when Exxon was posting billion dollar quarterly profits and gas was around $5.00 a gallon, we did some math and determined that along the entire supply chain, they were making about 25 cents per gallon total over the costs of crude. Of course they operate on 5 different continents so the massive profits were due to volume more than anything.

Anyways, the CEO of both exxon and bp oil were talking about delivering alternative energy when it became viable. I think the BP oil CEO said something along the lines of there being more money to be made in alternative energy like compressed natural gas. It was a while ago so i may be off a bit on which said what.

I think the only thing they fear about energy other than oil is not being involved in it for profits sake.

Re:To be fair

[F34nor]

"There are no large "oil companies" any more, they're all "energy companies" now, "

Wrong. They are "natural resource extraction" companies not energy companies. The two are radically different. A unholy part of economics with no environmental costs, and "unlimited supply." Both ridiculous concepts within the farce that is economics. *see http://www.scientificamerican....

You are full of shit.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the first electric car that's not a joke played on hippies

Excluding every single electric vehicle sold between 1910 and 1930.

Re:To be fair

[macpacheco]

To be fair it's a very slow kiss of death.
I expect by 2020 Tesla alone will be delivering around 300k vehicles/year. Even at that pace, Tesla will still be less than 5% the number of vehicles delivered than Toyota.
You are conflating to separate aspects.
1 - It will take decades until 50% of new cars sold are electric cars, to get to just 10% of new cars being electric cars should happen from 2020-2025.
2 - Every electric car in the roads are way less profitable for fossil fuel companies
We'll see by 2025 a measurable reduction in oil consumption per capta, since new electric vehicle purchases will trend towards higher utilization cars, so even 20% of all cars in the road being electrical could reduce oil utilization by 35-40%. Right now we're seeing EVs being purchased by green minded rich people. Once EVs are a little bit more affordable and their lower maintenance costs are proven, we'll see people with enough savings to justify owning EVs primarily for their cost X benefit analysis. Then the Oil companies will squirm big time.
So no, I wouldn't short oil companies yet, but between 2020 and 2030 we'll start seeing a substantial challenge to their shareholder value proposition.
The more expensive oil gets, the more economical EVs become. That will be the ultimate kiss of death of the oil companies, they won't be able to capitalize on really expensive oil, because it will be too expensive to compete with EVs. US$ 200 / barrel oil would make EVs very cheap comparatively.

Re:To be fair

[lgw]

Hey, they're in the S&P Global Energy Sector Index, they're energy companies. Feel free to live in the trees, free of any taint of the farce that is economics, if it bothers you so much. Mean while, they're still as happy to sell natural gas as to sell oil, which was my point.

Re:To be fair

[fyngyrz]

Doesn't even have to be that way. A charging station could easily be designed that stores charge from solar during the day, and transfers it to the vehicle whenever it's parked at the charger, day *or* night.

What I'm really waiting for is ultracaps. When and if they replace batteries, the entire landscape will shift. If they don't, electrics will continue to have a horribly expensive wear-out-and-replace component, and that's going to keep the effective cost very high.

Re:To be fair

[Barsteward]

The dealership model is more or less like a Union Closed Shop. "if you don't play by our rules, I'll take the ball away" - makes a mockery of a free and open internal market.

Re:To be fair

[BVis]

This is what is really holding back solar. Nobody's developed a storage tech that approaches the energy density of petroleum products. When that happens (and it gets mature enough to be cost-effective) then we'll really see some serious shit.

Re:To be fair

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Play with the cost to run a car on gas vs electric. There are several calculators out there, including one on tesla's site where you can adjust milage on the gas car, miles driven, cost of electricity, cost of gas. .

This is my argument:
It cost less to use electric. Someone will make less money if we were to switch from gas to electric. I'm guessing that someone will be an oil company, even if an oil company supplying natural gas to the electric company.

Re:To be fair

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

There is some truth in that, but you also have to be weary of their accounting. Its full of dirty tricks, where they can make a massive profit look like a loss. Sometimes in reporting the profits along the pipeline, they only talk about the profits of one part of their company. The crude oil department may only make .25 cents, but the refinery also makes .25 cents, the delivery division makes .25 cents, the retail gas station company makes .25 and so on.

Re:To be fair

[sumdumass]

I'm told the name of that is called hollywood accounting.

There is the chance that profits were burried somewhere but i think the numbers came from their SEC filings which doesn't allow too many shenanigans else they get hit with the regulatory bat and sent to pita prison. Of course like with worldcom and tyco, they have to be caught first.

Gary Johnson!

[bluefoxlucid]

As a Gary Johnson fan, I'm curious what his stance on the whole deal with Tesla is. This is relevant since I may want to vote for him next election, and the implications of his opinions on this matter are going to reflect across his Presidential policies and how he encourages Congress and the American People to act.

Re:Gary Johnson!

[I'm New Around Here]

Unfortunately, the third party candidates never get any national coverage, so get very few votes. They need to do something majorly news-worthy if they want to be noticed in 2016.

See my sig for what I consider to be the most effective move they could make.

Re:Gary Johnson!

[fustakrakich]

Unfortunately, the third party candidates never get any national coverage, so get very few votes.

They get very few votes because people are too lazy to look beyond the TV for information. Besides, most people will stick with the devil they know regardless. A simple youtube video could have the same clout as the big networks if not for that. If you want to take the money out of politics, you have to vote for people with no money. Then the whole idea of campaign financing and all its corruption will become moot. Any third party candidate drawing from the same trough as the big boys is just as worthless and will invariably be just as crooked. The tea party is a perfect case in point.

Re:Gary Johnson!

[ShanghaiBill]

the third party candidates never get any national coverage, so get very few votes.

When third party candidates do get coverage, their support tends to go down. The reasons for this are complex. They often focus on ideology rather than practical solutions, and have difficulty compressing their message into simplistic soundbites that can be understood by the general public.

Re:Gary Johnson!

[Admiral_Grinder]

From his droppings on Twitter, I would put him on the pro Tesla side. But he has a twitter and G+. He is a busy man, but I'm sure you can get a response.

Re:Gary Johnson!

[turp182]

Doing something newsworthy won't change much. The two-party system is ingrained. Both parties suck (Congress has an approval rating of 13%, up from 9% earlier in 2013: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...).

Both parties are willing to change their rules to prevent uprisings in their organizations. And the two parties control media exposure, specifically debates, the last independent/3rd party candidate that was invited to a Presidential Debate was Ross Perot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

The two parties are doing their best to destroy themselves (a solution I have figured they would do for a quite a while), but their control over the election system is almost absolute. States work to keep third parties from getting ballot space.

New rule: If a candidate is going to be on the Presidential ballot in 10 or more states, he/she should be allowed to participate in the debates. This would help, the country needs new ideas outside of the norm (which is mostly fueled by ethical standings such as access to abortion - the two parties are one and the same, supporting big government, big military/wars).

Re:Gary Johnson!

[sumdumass]

Third parties will never make it nationallly until they start taking it locally. If the dems and reps didn't hold almost all the state and local seats, you would see more third parties both in the news and federal government.

Re:Gary Johnson!

[fustakrakich]

Third parties will never make it nationallly until they start taking it locally.

I believe that is true. And on top of that, we should vote based on word of mouth and the person's record, not glitzy advertising. The power is in our hands to make it happen. Until we do, expect more of the exact same old crap indefinitely.

Re:Gary Johnson!

[rtb61]

So ignore the political parties in the mass media channel that is the US government, focus on the corporations actually running the show. In this case the oil companies and the valuation of the future value of their existing reserves, not just the profits they are generating now, but they value of the oil they are sitting on and yet to pump out and sell over the decades, this value is calculated into their share price and that is the real reason why the obstruction of clean air policies. Now on the flip side, for electric cars to become the norm, nuclear power must come into play, so there is the value of the uranium they are sitting on and yet to mine out over the centuries to come and it's value which could be much higher. Then there is the value in existing power stations versus the profits of building new nuclear power stations. Even car companies can get behind the idea, that the shift to electric means the replacement of the whole existing infernal combustion fleet.

So you now need to wrap your mind behind the idea of which corporations will be able to influence the greatest control over the mass media channel that is the US government (accept it, US politicians have been reduced to the status of news desk representatives for corporate propaganda), seemingly based upon who owns the most congressmen and senators, as well as who can extort the greatest control over any political individual at any particular time (versus the majority of the time).

So you are bound to see chopping and changing and flip flopping, as outside corporate forces exert opposing influences. It would seem nuclear power might be pushing harder against oil at this time and likely to do more so in the future. This is the way it will remain until such time a lazy and cowardly Americans start paying a lot more attention to the primaries.

Christie has no chance to win anyway

[alen]

not after the bridgegate fiasco
then add withholding funds from hoboken because they didn't let a developer run rampant
hiring friends and family for a state marketing campaign

Re: Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

If Christie's are as made up as Clintons's, sure. Else he won't survive the primaries.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[alen]

those didn't make people spend 3 hours in traffic and cause a few people to die because the ambulance couldn't get there

people in NJ hate Christie and no President has ever lost his home state

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

"The point is controversies get forgotten or can be irrelevant"

Vince Foster's death wasn't a Clinton-at-fault problem outside of Fox News
Travel gate isn't a real thing
File gate isn't a real thing - check the Bush email archival system @ Iraq war, oops?
Not to mention former President Bill Clinton, your nightmare

The point is you're going to have to stir the shit faster if you expect to float come 2016.

Re: Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people that give a shit about a candidates controversies are the people that weren't going to vote for that candidate anyways.

Christie will do just fine.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing the point entirely. Anyone that cares about or makes a stink about a candidates controversies was never going to vote for that candidate anyway.

Christie will be fine.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[sjbe]

people in NJ hate Christie

Clearly, because we only elect people who are universally hated. [/sarcasm]

and no President has ever lost his home state

Would you care you try again using actual facts?

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all not all of NJ hates Christie. It's only a small population that wasn't going to volte for him in the first place.

There were 9 presidents that lost their birth state or residential state.

Polk
Taylor
Lincoln Twice
Wilson
Nixon
Bush Sr.
Bush Jr. Twice

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

No one cares. Stop apologizing for assholes you've never met.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[wiredlogic]

The only thing Hillary was personally involved in was Whitewater which turned up absolutely nothing other than lies in a deposition and BJs from an intern.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[sudnshok]

No one died as a result of this traffic jam. The media tried to claim that one person died to sensationalize the story and the family of that person came out and said that was untrue. Source

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Megane]

Don't forget all his palling up to Obama after Sandy... which ended up not helping New Jersey at all. The feds still took their own damn time to clean things up. So he gets an image problem and nothing to show for it!

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

please don't use -gate for that. any time -gate is attached to a word, it means its nothing but a manufactured scandal. him closing lanes on the bridge out of petty spite actually happened though, and is a real scandal.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which is irrelevant. If you don't like a candidate you will believe anything real or made up to hate them more.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[sudnshok]

Care to quote your source? Despite months of testimony, 3 separate investigations and thousands of documents being released, there has yet to be a single shred of evidence that Christie had anything to do with these lanes being closed. There has been evidence of 3 people being involved with this, 2 of which worked for Christie and no longer do (one resigned and one was fired). Please stop spreading allegations as fact.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed

This may come to shock to you but you and every one you know don't constitute a majority.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

So a fortunate outcome makes it acceptable to you, then?

Christie's actions re: Bridgegate put lives at risk. Was it a high level of risk? Probably not. But is any level of risk acceptable as a side effect of an action which served no purpose beyond petty revenge? I say no.

Also, even if you're a dumb Republican tool (but I repeat myself), you should be outraged that the revenge didn't even register with its true target! Instead it disrupted the lives of people who needed to get across the bridge, no doubt including many Christie supporters. If you're an elected official and you set out to abuse your powers for revenge, the least you can do is to hit whom you want to hit, in a way that is understood by your target. Apparently, wannabe Republican presidential primary candidates are no longer expected to even be good at being crooked. Nixon would be appalled at how far the party has fallen from the standard he established.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the last time that someone lost their resident state and won the election was 1968. Not encouraging for Christie.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no proof of any Christie action here causing this.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says Christie loses New Jersey?

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Bridgegate?
 
The man was already considered a RINO as it was and now with scandal, Obama hand holding and anti-gun legislation under his belt? He's done and even he knows it.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Military involvement in other countries puts lives at risk, many more so than a stupid bridge. Get your priorities straightened out.

Re: Christie has no chance to win anyway

[fyngyrz]

You mean, when he loses to Hilary? Yeah, he will. :)

After the republican congress's abject fuckery, and the round table of clowns the repubs fielded last time around, you really think the swing voters will go republican? Really?

Remember: all the red states go red. All the blue states go blue. Nothing changes that.

So it's down to the swing voters. Every time. And unlike the party faithful, they can, and will, change allegiance when something good happens (like people getting health insurance, credit protections, civil rights) and they also notice when, for instance, republicans try fifty-plus times to knock out a law they have literally zero chance of knocking out, instead of taking care of the business of the nation.

Yeah, say hello to president Hillary, my friend. :)

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Libs have already started their all out attack on Christie because they have no candidate who can beat him. Hillary? Pffft. She's the reason we have Obama today. The ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Democrats will find an alternative again, but the voters will elect Christie.

Re: Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume Hilary will make it past the primaries. Lots of people made that assumption last time.

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Oblig. XKCD, and it includes the fact that you are wrong.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Re:Christie has no chance to win anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything lives were saved - although that's an unprovable hypothesis

Re: Christie has no chance to win anyway

[fyngyrz]

Hey, the post I was replying to assumed Christie would too; seems perfectly fair.

Chris Christie? Is a dead whale in the water.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mitt Romney called Tesla Motors a 'loser' company during his 2012 run for president" Proof enough.

OMG I lost brain cells reading that

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read anything this stupid in a long time.

Dude, you need to go back to your kindergarden teacher and get a fucking refund.

Oh wait, you are no doubt either a Ca liberal or an East Coast liberal. Never mind.

Investments

[evendiagram]

Sounds like a few politicians had just enough time to move some of their investments into Tesla before legalizing direct sales.

Interesting strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

They gonna do the same thing with Women's rights? Take'm away for a couple years, so they can look good giving them back right before elections? Might work, assuming women trust they won't just take rights away again after getting elected.

Re:Interesting strategy

[I'm New Around Here]

Who is taking away women's rights? Please, be specific.

Re:Interesting strategy

[I'm New Around Here]

Wow. Asking a question for clarification is 'trolling' now?

How small minded some moderators are.

Re:Interesting strategy

[cbhacking]

I seem to recall news stories about the Texan state government attempting to ban feminine hygiene products in the capitol after a bonch of women got understandably upset over that same government trying to shut down many options for women's reproductive care in the state...

Re:Interesting strategy

[kaatochacha]

You must be new around here...

Re:Interesting strategy

[I'm New Around Here]

You must be new around here...

How'd you know? :)

Doubt it.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The governors will talk about how good Tesla is but their day job is still governor and that office is under the thumb of the National Automotive Dealers Association who could easily contribute to their rivals.

The state laws that prevent direct sales of automobiles should be criminal because it preserves the insane concept of "negotiating" the best price. Hopefully Tesla will go farther than cars.com did.

A layperson would think that the state laws would go against the US Constitutions commerce clause.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

A layperson would think that the state laws would go against the US Constitutions commerce clause.

Clueless people believe all manner of ludicrous things.

Re:Doubt it.

[macpacheco]

This whole "negotiating best price" argument is a farce and you know it.
The reason you don't get to negotiate prices when buying a Tesla is there's a 6 week production backlog. They are not desperate to sell you the car, they have thousands of customers in line.
      It's an awesome car.
Perhaps if Detroit stopped innovating at a snails pace and started actually put brilliant, radically innovative designers to design cars, without lawyers and the overall poisonous corporate culture stepping on their toes all the time, perhaps they could make a car that will truly compete with Tesla. Until then, Tesla rules !
For decades, Detroit has innovated at a snails pace, catering to the most conservative customers the US has.
My message to car dealers is R.I.P. You are just dying an ultra slow, agonizing death, cause you don't care one bit about your customers.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The commerce clause of the US Constitution gives congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce between states. Therefore a state law that attempts to disrupt or regulate a transaction that originated outside of their state is unconstitutional unless that ability was expressly authorized by a federal statute.

The problem is that a law is constitutional until it ruled otherwise by the courts. The court system is hesitant to take up the issue because locally elected judges also get contributions from NADA affiliated car dealers.

Re:Doubt it.

[AaronW]

I think part of it is that Tesla is run by Elon Musk who thinks like a consumer. He decided not to do the whole dealership thing from his own experience with dealerships. When dealerships claim to offer consumers "protection" Elon hits back perfectly comparing their protection to the kind you get from organized crime. Dealership "protection" didn't really help most Fisker buyers when Fisker went under. The Karma owners must pay out of pocket for things that their warranty and pre-paid maintenance should have covered.

Re:Doubt it.

[Registered Coward v2]

The state laws that prevent direct sales of automobiles should be criminal because it preserves the insane concept of "negotiating" the best price.

What is insane about negotiating a price? Just because a price is posted doesn't mean it cannot be discounted or that at the least you cannot ask for one. The posted price is simply the ceiling for the negotiation.

Re:Doubt it.

[cbhacking]

Repair? Tesla themselves, free of charge in many cases. They'll even come get the car for you if needed, most dealerships won't do that.
Regular maintenance? *What* regular maintenance? Les Schwab or your preferred local alternative can rotate the tires and check the brakes for you. Not much else is needed... no oil, no spark plugs, no transmission (in the conventional sense), etc.

Re:Doubt it.

[drinkypoo]

Who will repair or perform regular maintenance on the Tesla for you? Without a local dealer you may be hard pressed to find a qualified garage.

In fact, you have to pay Tesla $600/yr for service. That includes roadside assistance and so on, and covers all of your service needs completely. It is a bit offensive though, and the news did lead to cancellations. It's a staggering amount of money compared even to a German car. On the other hand, I'd bet you a fairly large amount of money that it will simply have less failures in general than most other cars, simply by virtue of being an EV. On the gripping hand, there's no shortage of customers even with these terms.

It's unlikely that Tesla could be smacked down in this regard without also forcing other automakers to provide service information that even independent shops don't get now, so I don't see this changing soon. Maybe in California (if anywhere) they'll be forced to accept independent service. We have very strong warranty protection laws here. On the face of it, they do seem to conflict directly with Magnuson-Moss, but IANAL.

Re:Doubt it.

[jedidiah]

> Clueless people believe all manner of ludicrous things.

Yes. You are a fine example.

There are many things that have been dragged under the rather thoroughly stretched and distorted umbrella of the ICC. Applying the ICC to this situation with Tesla would be far less of a stretch than some precedents that are over 100 years old.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, I'm curious how this works in MA, given the recently-passed Right-to-Repair law...

Re:Doubt it.

[GodInHell]

This is why it is illegal for states to regulate anything originating from outside their borders, like flammable mattresses and poisoned baby food.

Re:Doubt it.

[jedidiah]

Every time I go to buy a new car and have to deal with dealerships, I just wish that I could order what I want from the factory (or Amazon) and just pay MSRP.

Seriously. Dealers have gotten so bad that paying sticker price for exactly what you want is a better deal and less hassle sometimes.

Re:Doubt it.

[wile_e_wonka]

I think that "negotiation" was in quotes there because it isn't really negotiating. If you can negotiate a price lower than the sticker, it is because the dealer had no intention of charging you that price unless you were stupid enough to not ask for a lower price. The sticker price bears little relationship to the actual value of a vehicle.

Re:Doubt it.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Noticed how negotiating was in quotes?

Negotiation shouldn't involve you hanging around the dealership for a minimum of 2 hours while the sales staff perform a dog and pony show to make you believe that you are getting a great discount off of a very inflated sticker price (value added services (undercoating) or accessories (a different color pin stripe)). After which you spend another 2 hours before you actually purchase the damn car and leave.

They make it too time consuming and require travel to find a competitor selling the same brand which discourages a majority of their customer base. The last thing they want is for me to be able to purchase a car online and have it delivered to me.

They also have three phases to their bullshit practices.

Phase 1: We negotiate the price that I'm willing to pay for the car after stressing that I only care about the actual cost not some monthly payment goal.

Phase 2: After negotiating the price, you have to argue about how you are not paying anything extra in dealer fees and other bullshit. You start the next wave of negotiating. I usually either have the price of phase 1 lowered so that the amount paid is the agreed upon price or I leave. They either comply immediately or call me within 24 hours asking me to return.

Phase 3: They try one last time to get more money from you and try to sell you a warranty or other options. You have to listen to their sales job for at least 30 minutes when you already said no.

Phase 4: Despite already having financing arranged prior to shopping, you have to spend at least an hour in their finance department. Usually they bring up the warranty again.

If you had a trade in, you have to be vigilant because you just gave them another number to manipulate in their favor.

In the end, I think we would be better off if we could purchase a car like we purchase a computer, television or toaster. You shouldn't waste a half a day to purchase a car.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand... shill.

1) Tesla has no problem scheduling maintenance visits for those who call HQ from Texas, where Tesla is legally prevented from having repair shops of their own. In other states, they have corporate-owned repair shops.

2) Basic maintenance is greatly reduced. Basically tires and brakes, as there are few if any fluids to change. Any decent auto shop can handle that without any equipment specific to a Tesla. And, no, washer fluid (and similar "convenience" fluids) isn't a concern either. Any idiot can fill a reservoir from a jug. Yes, any idiot.

3) If you're worried about it, do it yourself. It's required by DOT regulations to have an OBD-2 port, and scanners are easy to come by on the internet. It'll be no time at all before Tesla codes start showing up alongside everyone else's, and with their lack-of-focus on repair and open reputation, maybe even Tesla will give those out directly. Everything else is, again, do-able by non-technical means. (Lugnuts aren't special just because the drivetrain is electric.)

This auto-dealer shill nonsense is just stupid. And this is spoken by someone who actually does take his car to a nearby dealership to get oil changes. I've never changed the oil in my car in my entire life. I can't be bothered when a shop will do the job for less than the wages I'd earn in the time it would take me to do it.

Re:Doubt it.

[tlhIngan]

In fact, you have to pay Tesla $600/yr for service. That includes roadside assistance and so on, and covers all of your service needs completely. It is a bit offensive though, and the news did lead to cancellations. It's a staggering amount of money compared even to a German car. On the other hand, I'd bet you a fairly large amount of money that it will simply have less failures in general than most other cars, simply by virtue of being an EV. On the gripping hand, there's no shortage of customers even with these terms.

That $600/yr service is optional. It's recommended, and Tesla will cover all consumables except tires for it. And it's flat rate, too - it's just $600 a year for all the service you need.

Most cars require a "major service" every couple of years, which can easily run into a couple thousand bucks, and service on German luxury vehicles can easily be $500 per visit, twice a year or more.

Tesla, OTOH, charges $600 for it all inclusive. And it includes a loaner (for a few more bucks, they'll let you take out a Roadster instead) for the duration.

It's a steal to get service for $600 all in, especially with all the perks. Dealers HATE Tesla because of it - they don't make much off selling new cars, the make it up selling service.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The state has an obligation to protect its citizens however the topic being discussed is the state's ability to enforce protectionist laws designed solely to protect the financial interests of their local dealers. Try to stay on topic.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

$600/year for service is a major rip off.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's going to need regular maintenance on a Tesla? All-electric drivetrains require very little maintenance. There's fewer moving parts, the transmission is incredibly simple and robust (1-speed, doesn't have to shift even for reverse), mechanical stresses on all drivetrain components are far lower because there's no percussive impacts from cylinders firing, and there's no high temperatures because there's no combustion.

There isn't even an engine air filter to change out. The only wear items that are likely to need maintenance more often than 100K miles are tires, brake pads / discs, and the cabin air filter. The brakes will also need less attention than conventionally powered vehicles because regenerative braking takes some of the load and thereby reduces wear on the brakes. All of these things can be done by any garage worthy of the name; you don't need a special dealer.

(I actually looked up the Nissan Leaf service schedule the last time this idea came up on slashdot, and it literally was just tires, brake pads, and cabin air filter changes till 100k. At 100K miles they wanted to perform the first oil change on the motor / gearbox. Oil can last a much longer time at lower temperatures when the bearings are under so much less load.)

Re:Doubt it.

[Attila Dimedici]

The governors will talk about how good Tesla is but their day job is still governor and that office is under the thumb of the National Automotive Dealers Association who could easily contribute to their rivals.

Rick Perry is not running for re-election and the campaign for his replacement is under way. So, he is not "under the thumb" of the National Automotive Dealers Association, since a threat fro them to contribute to his rivals is not really much of a threat. Based on previous contributions to national campaigns, Rick Perry is more interested in setting himself up for what he perceives as the stronger national position on this issue. I am pretty sure that Chris Christie is statutorily barred from seeking another term as governor of New Jersey.

I do agree that states should not have laws preventing direct sales of automobiles.

Re:Doubt it.

[Copid]

I've purchased a couple of cars through CarsDirect.com to avoid that hassle and been pretty happy with the results. An aggressive negotiator might be able to do better, but realistically, I see the online model as the eventual endgame here. More and more people are buying through intermediaries that provide a fixed price, so eventuallly the only people who go into dealers and haggle are going to be the real sharks who are willing to go 6 hours without a bathroom break to get a rock bottom price. Once the dealers lose the easy marks from their customer base, the "haggle and lie" model will have to give way to something else.

I'm pleased to see Tesla adding just one more nail to the coffin. A system that can't survive price transparency deserves to go down the toilet.

Re:Doubt it.

[jxander]

Part of the problem is that the current supply/demand situation prevents any reasonable negotiation over the price of a Tesla.

There is a months-long waiting list. If you want to try and haggle over the sticker price, Tesla can just say "next" and have another 1000 customers lined up for the vehicle you passed over. And personally, this is 100% fine by me. I'd rather know the price, evaluate the cost and benefits on my own terms and buy a car without trying to talk down some greasy salesman.

If we ever reach a point where a hundred Teslas are sitting on a showroom floor collecting dust, then MAYBE we'll need some dealers to help us haggle out a price... but until then, Tesla has a simple "take it or leave it" price.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

NADA make presidential campaign contributions too.

Re:Doubt it.

[Registered Coward v2]

Noticed how negotiating was in quotes?

Negotiation shouldn't involve you hanging around the dealership for a minimum of 2 hours while the sales staff perform a dog and pony show to make you believe that you are getting a great discount off of a very inflated sticker price (value added services (undercoating) or accessories (a different color pin stripe)). After which you spend another 2 hours before you actually purchase the damn car and leave.

While I agree with you that negotiating a car can be a pain (unless you are an obstinate SOB that enjoys the back and forth) but you have one key weapon - getting up and starting to walk out. They know if you leave you won't be back. Once they have agreed on a price, and I agree that you need to negotiate a bottom line not a price plus, you have the upper hand. Remember, you , the dealer and the sales person are all advisories of each other. The dealer want stye car off the lot and earn a profit, although sometimes losing money on a car means a bigger kickback form the manufacturer. he salesperson needs to sell it above a set price to get a commission. You want to pay as little as possible. If you walk you keep your money and the other two get zero. Also, never combine a trade in with a purchase.

Re:Doubt it.

[mjwx]

In fact, you have to pay Tesla $600/yr for service. That includes roadside assistance and so on, and covers all of your service needs completely. It is a bit offensive though, and the news did lead to cancellations. It's a staggering amount of money compared even to a German car. On the other hand, I'd bet you a fairly large amount of money that it will simply have less failures in general than most other cars, simply by virtue of being an EV. On the gripping hand, there's no shortage of customers even with these terms.

That $600/yr service is optional. It's recommended, and Tesla will cover all consumables except tires for it. And it's flat rate, too - it's just $600 a year for all the service you need.

Most cars require a "major service" every couple of years, which can easily run into a couple thousand bucks, and service on German luxury vehicles can easily be $500 per visit, twice a year or more.

Tesla, OTOH, charges $600 for it all inclusive. And it includes a loaner (for a few more bucks, they'll let you take out a Roadster instead) for the duration.

It's a steal to get service for $600 all in, especially with all the perks. Dealers HATE Tesla because of it - they don't make much off selling new cars, the make it up selling service.

You're right that $600 is a steal, you're just wrong about who is robbing who.

In Australia Toyota offers capped prices services on their small cars and hybrids (Corolla, Yaris, Prius) for A$130. You may have to do them twice a year, but that's only A$260. A lot of manufacturers are doing capped priced servicing for new cars, Honda, Nissan, Ford and even VW. This is in Australia, the land of rip-offs.

I own an old Honda Integra, I get it serviced at an independent who looks after JDM cars, so not the cheapest bloke in town and a service costs $180 which I get done every 7,500 K's (because sports cars tend to consume more oil than commuter A-B boxes) I could get it done cheaper at chain store like Ultratune but I care about my car. Services don't include things like brakes or drive belts, which are still pretty cheap.

Services only cover things like oil, spark plugs, transmission fluids that need to be changed regularly. The reason why old European cars tend to cost a lot as they age is because they brake more, same with old American or Australian cars but a Ford Falcon or Mustang from the 90's is an extremely simple beast and cheap to fix, a 90's Merc or Bimmer is stupidly complex and parts are expensive. If you want an old car that doesn't break often, it's Japanese, a 90's Corolla, Civic or Land Cruiser will last for over 500,000 KM given the most rudimentary maintenance. I've driven an 88 Toyota Land Cruiser with 900,000 K's on the clock that still runs but a Jeep Wrangler with 200,000 is falling apart.

Re:Doubt it.

[russotto]

What's going to need regular maintenance on a Tesla? All-electric drivetrains require very little maintenance. There's fewer moving parts, the transmission is incredibly simple and robust (1-speed, doesn't have to shift even for reverse), mechanical stresses on all drivetrain components are far lower because there's no percussive impacts from cylinders firing, and there's no high temperatures because there's no combustion.

So why does Tesla charge $600/year if regular maintenance is so much less expensive than for gasoline vehicles (which don't cost $600/year in maintenance either)

Re:Doubt it.

[TooMuchToDo]

Telematics (like OnStar), over the air software updates, etc.

OnStar from GM is something like $300/year. To get that same level of control, plus all service included, for $600? Sign me up.

Re:Doubt it.

[Agent0013]

Every time I go to buy a new car and have to deal with dealerships, I just wish that I could order what I want from the factory (or Amazon) and just pay MSRP.

Seriously. Dealers have gotten so bad that paying sticker price for exactly what you want is a better deal and less hassle sometimes.

I think a lot of people think this way. That would be why there are places like Car Max have been started with the express point of no haggling over the price. You pay the sticker just like you do when going to buy a loaf of bread.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually states can't regulate your examples since it falls under federal jurisdiction. State consumer protection laws mostly cover retailers located within their state.

Re:Doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Accurate statement, up until you got all bold-y on us and started with the opinions.

But, since this is slashdot, we gotta get all tesla smoochy smoochy while we argue semantics of an argument, like with the Mazda claim a ways back. Some manufacturers are implementing stop-start technology, reducing weight, etc. But no. Let us suckle at Elon Musk's teat of pretentiousness.

You were right for 2 whole sentences . . . dang.

Re:Doubt it.

[GodInHell]

Let's stick with the laws I know, which are Illinois - so here is Illinois' mattress law - that's in addition to the regulations that come out of our executive branch: http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio... (but hey, I'm just a lawyer, wtf do I know, right?)

Re:Doubt it.

[Rich0]

Yeah, but you'll miss out on the opportunity to buy rust protection, gap insurance, and extended warranties at 20x the market rate.

Re:Doubt it.

[jp10558]

Can you point me at how you do this? I mean, either you have:

  2 cars at the same time, (which to me means that your monthly payment is going to be inflated as if you didn't have a trade in) and you've got an unknown trade in value and time till "old car" is off your hands, therefore complicating your budgeting

or

you're without a car for a week or two at best as you shop for the new car and wait for dealer prep. In this case you need a friend or rental. If it's a rental, then you better get at least $400 better trade in or sale vs trading in on purchase as you're out the rental cost.(Assuming a cheap rental and 13 days to buy and dealer prep for pickup)... Would you usually get that much better trade in value?

Or do you just negotiate out trade in value first, separate from a purchase (and do dealers actually do that?) and then
negotiate the new car purchase price?

Re:Doubt it.

[Registered Coward v2]

Or do you just negotiate out trade in value first, separate from a purchase (and do dealers actually do that?) and then negotiate the new car purchase price?

Yes, dealers will do that. I do what you suggest, except I negotiate the new car price first, since that is what eh dealer is interested in selling. I simply say no trade, and get a final number for the purchase.

After that, I bring up the trade in. Since I am near a CarMax I get a written quote for what they will pay; which is the floor for what I'll take from the dealer. If the dealer matches or exceeds that I take it; otherwise it is off to CarMax.

People are hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're surprised by that.

Bait and Switch

[Anonymous Coward]

I know someone who just tried to buy a Tesla. What they told him it would cost, what he would get, and so on sounded like a reasonable deal. He did the test drive and loved it and was all excited about getting it. Then the REAL numbers came up.

NO DEALERSHIP does a bait and switch even half as bad as Tesla does. They added $30K to the price and over doubled the monthly payment. The down payment also went from $2K to $35K.

If they had dealerships and one did this to you, at least you could go to another one to buy the car. With their model you either take their bait and switch or don't get their car. I think their business model is pure fail if they are doing the same to everyone else.

Re:Bait and Switch

[Anonymous Coward]

I'ld like to see this written up someplace, plenty of main stream press would eat it up.

Re:Bait and Switch

[bbn]

Because it is unlikely to be true. Anyone can go to the Tesla website and check the prices. You will get the car at the price listed on the site, no more and no less.

If he is talking about financing, nothing forces you to finance the car through Tesla. In my part of the world one usually borrows the money in a bank and this is how it is done when buying from a dealer too.

Re:Bait and Switch

[hawguy]

I know someone who just tried to buy a Tesla. What they told him it would cost, what he would get, and so on sounded like a reasonable deal. He did the test drive and loved it and was all excited about getting it. Then the REAL numbers came up.

So he went to a Tesla showroom where someone gave him some lowball numbers to get him to do a test ride, then when it came time to actually do the sale, the numbers were higher? How is this different than buying from a dealer?

NO DEALERSHIP does a bait and switch even half as bad as Tesla does. They added $30K to the price and over doubled the monthly payment. The down payment also went from $2K to $35K.

This part of the story doesn't really make sense -- I don't really see how adding $30K to the price *and* requiring an additional $33K downpayment requirement could have doubled the monthly payment he was expecting. Unless his credit warranted such a high interest rate that the monthly payment was higher than expected. Which may be what happened since they also upped the downpayment from the standard 10% advertised on their website to 30% - 50%.

I know someone that bought a Tesla a few months back and he said he paid the same price they list on their website. He didn't need to finance it, but I'd imagine that most shoppers for a $70 - $100K car don't need dealer financing.

If they had dealerships and one did this to you, at least you could go to another one to buy the car. With their model you either take their bait and switch or don't get their car. I think their business model is pure fail if they are doing the same to everyone else.

Well, the difference is that the car's list price would be set higher so the dealer could "give" you $30K off the list price of the car so you think you're getting a good deal, then the finance guy in the back room will make you think that the 72 month financing at 20% interest is a fantastic deal but you have to buy today because when his boss comes in Monday he'll cancel the deal since the dealership is losing money on the sale.

Re:Bait and Switch

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation needed]

This is the first I've heard of such problems, not that I've bothered to find any. I'm gonna need a reference a little better than an anonymous /. post.

Re:Bait and Switch

[__aarzwb9394]

A few years old, but a very very educational series of articles:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-buy...

Don't EVs help both sides?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can EVs helping both sides. The left benefits because shifting to solar/wind power as the primary means of a vehicle's propulsion is better for the environment and gives less fossil fuel waste.

The right benefits by EVs because they offer energy independence (something the Tea Party strongly pushes for), a nod towards Big Coal, and less reliance on oil.

This happened with solar last year... both the Tea Party and the far left greens have ended up agreeing on the importance on this... which is ironic because Congress didn't lift a finger when China hacked US solar companies, then started selling panels for cheaper than the rare earths it took to make them, thus causing most panels to be imported rather than made domestically.

Re:Don't EVs help both sides?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tea party isn't for energy indepedence as a real thing that means what it should mean, they are for drill baby drill. Anything that is green is obviously evil.

Re:Don't EVs help both sides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation please. Other than the ass you're pulling that out of.

Re:Don't EVs help both sides?

[guises]

I can EVs helping both sides. The left benefits because shifting to solar/wind power as the primary means of a vehicle's propulsion is better for the environment and gives less fossil fuel waste.

Not to take away from your point, but everyone benefits from this. The environment shouldn't be a left/right issue, and it's shameful that it's been turned into that.

Re:Don't EVs help both sides?

[coinreturn]

Citation please. Other than the ass you're pulling that out of.

You're welcome to pull it out of the ass of any tea-partier instead.

Backroom "deals"

[Dripdry]

I guess we know where Elon gets those ripped, cut jaw muscles now...

There is no irony

[damicatz]

To anyone who actually understands how the Republican party operates, there is no irony because they are little more than two-faced hypocrites. They preach limited government but then try to regulate the bedroom, who can get abortions, who can get married and birth control. They preach freedom but use eminent domain to steal people's property (the Keystone Pipeline they are so fond of is built on stolen land) and funnel trillions of dollars into the military industrial complex so that more people can be bombed. They preach lower taxes but then raise taxes on everyone except the super-rich.

They (along with the Democrat party, which is the same shit but different rhetoric) are little more than corporate prostitutes who are available to the highest bidder. The stealerships in this case have more money combined than Tesla. So no, there is no irony because I expected nothing less from the Republican party than cronyist statism.

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stick to the subject at hand.You threw in at least 5 completely unrelated issues which clouds any discussion on THIS issue.Try to forget the hatred and bias and speak to a single issue at a time.(ps. i support tesla and the keystone pipeline,go figure?)

Re:There is no irony

[hamburger lady]

what's the "democrat party"?

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-tesla-battery-swap-is-the-hoax-of-the-year/

Here is the democrat party, making Tesla $100 million on ZEV credits.
Yunno, people who buy $75k cars do need help......

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the "democrat party"?

it's a tell that the user of the phrase is an idiot.

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

It's what conservative idiots call the Democrats. Why, I don't know.

Re:There is no irony

[AaronW]

Tesla has since announced that battery swapping stations will be operational within the next couple months between the Bay Area and LA so I don't think it's a hoax at all.

Re:There is no irony

[number6x]

Its like the Republic party, except Republics like elephants I think.

It does always sound like the person speaking has some kind of learning diasability when I hear the term 'democrat party' spoken. It could just be that english is not the speaker's first language.

Re:There is no irony

[drinkypoo]

It's what conservative idiots call the Democrats. Why, I don't know.

I consider myself a progressive liberal, but I've listened to enough conservatives (you might try it sometime, if only to know what's coming next — keep your friends close, but blah blah blah) to suspect that they don't believe that the democratic party actually embraces democracy. I don't believe that either party is really in love with it, at least not at the federal level, so I'd consider that to be a bit hypocritical. But there's no shortage of hypocrisy on either side.

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a Libertarian.

Because you're too dumb to be able to tell the difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's their "reason" for it. But it's just childish name calling. Anyone who can't talk about politics without restoring to name calling should be ignored.

Also, it's no surprise that Republicans didn't like electric cars and now like Tesla. It's a rich man's car, not a green car.

Re:There is no irony

[dcollins]

Mostly agreed. But admittedly the Republican party has long been a gluing-together of different and not totally compatible factions, such as fiscal conservatives (business) and social conservatives (religious). On some issues they agree, like military adventurism abroad (for their own reasons). Other times, it looks more like a confused back-and-forth run around, like that recent crowd-controlled video game (whatever it was). Even without many individuals in the electorate being themselves hypocritical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

are you insinuating that republicans don't try to legislate people's bedrooms (gay marriage and birth control), women's bodies (abortion), higher taxes for the poor (something they bluntly talk about on fox news) while constantly claiming to be anti-government and anti-regulation? they are also very clearly bigots (just listen to how they talk about mulims). the facts speak for themselves.

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-tesla-battery-swap-is-the-hoax-of-the-year/

Here is the democrat party, making Tesla $100 million on ZEV credits.

Claims a global warming denialist website literally known to be bought and paid for by oil money. Yeah, I'll trust that spin at face value...

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, no talking points coming from this guy. It's almost like you get your information directly from Media Matters and OFA. I actually liked the last two sentences in the last paragraph, in an attempt to give the "but really, it's the same but different..."

Of course I'm sure that you'd also be in lock step with the view that a group like the tea party is a bunch of racists, just like what the media tells you.

The tea party is a bunch of racists. I don't need mainstream media, Media Matters, or OFA to tell me that. As a matter of fact, I pay zero attention to any of those things. All I need do is look at the plethora of examples of outright racism on display in Tea Party rallies, communiques, etc. Or the constantly dogwhistling racist candidates promoted by the Tea Party.

And it's not a talking point to state that Republicans are a bunch of dishonest hypocrites. They are! Just look at what they say versus what they do. Republicans constantly talk up small government, yet the most massive expansions of government have consistently come under Republican leadership.

And I'm with the GP about the Democratic Party too. There are very important differences between the two parties, but the nominal left in the USA is not really leftist at all.

Funny how an outsiders view of american politics and pick all this out fairly easily.

Sense not make this.

Assuming you meant to wrap yourself in the mantle of being an outsider to American politics, I call bullshit. Nobody who is truly impartial about U.S. politics would be so hurt about people calling the Tea Party out for what it is.

Re:There is no irony

[jxander]

Democrats with party hats and noise makers. Clearly.

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly did you disagree with? He fucking nailed it. No need to add your brain sludge.

Re:There is no irony

[Anonymous Coward]

They use the adjective "democrat" instead of "democratic" because the latter has become a synonym for "something good" -- but often in a context completely unrelated to the Democratic Party. For example, when someone says "we hope to see a democratic government in Russia/Iran/Iraq/Syria/etc." they're not saying that they want Barack Obama to be president of those aforementioned lands. Thus, when they denounce "democrat policies" on health care/the environment/take your pick, their concern is not that those policies are too "democratic."

In contrast, no one advocates a republican government in the aforementioned countries, because they already have that (i.e., rule by a commoner, not a monarch). Thus, the adjective "republican" doesn't have the broad use that "democratic" does. Accordingly, when someone denounces "republican policies," the term is unambiguous -- no one would understand the speaker to be a monarchist.

Finally, individual members of the Democratic Party are known as "Democrats" (by syntactic necessity, as the "-ic" ending of "Democratic" doesn't allow its use as a noun). Thus, a "democrat policy" is a policy proffered by a Democrat. However, individual members of the Republican Party are referred to as "Republicans," not "Republics" (I guess there's no firm syntactic reason for that, but it just never caught on). Thus, a "republic policy" would not be understood by anyone as a policy proffered by a member of the Republican Party. So one would sound silly using "republic" in that way.

And seriously, if it really bothers you, the best way to reduce its future use is not to let on that it bothers you -- comments like all these just encourage it.

Re:There is no irony

[F34nor]

Go back to shilling for the GOP; hack.

Re:There is no irony

[readin]

There is no irony because the Republican party has a strong free market belief. Just as Tesla shouldn't benefit from government handouts, the car dealerships shouldn't benefit from government protection. Both should compete on their own merits in the free market. Anyone who can't see how Republicans oppose Tesla's handouts while supporting Tesla's right to compete is either just isn't trying or is brainwashed by the whole "conservatives are evil big business whores' nonsense pushed by so many news organizations and movies.

Re:There is no irony

[Trogre]

To be fair, all the other parties also oppose murder of one kind or another.

Re:There is no irony

[Rich0]

They preach freedom but use eminent domain to steal people's property (the Keystone Pipeline they are so fond of is built on stolen land)...

While I agree with most of your post, there has to be SOME place for eminent domain, and something like a pipeline seems like an appropriate use of it. It isn't like they can just skip a 100 yard section of the pipeline because somebody doesn't want to sell.

Now, I strongly oppose using eminent domain to just hand property over to corporations or to buy parcels of land that could just be bought on the market. It should only be used when it is important to the nation that something be sited in a particular place. If you just need a police station somewhere in town, then look at the property listings. If you need a pumping station at this point along a water main, then see if you can just get a reasonable price from somebody in the immediate vicinity but if not identify the ideal location and give the owner market value for their loss (I'd probably add a premium to deter abuse - though I suppose even that is potentially subject to abuse of a different kind).

There is no other reasonable way to do it. Generally things like roads/pipes/etc work better when they're straight, so you can't zig-zag around every house in the state.

There is only one thing you need to know

[DNS-and-BIND]

Republicans BAD! Vote for the people who are in your own economic self-interest. Vote for those who promise you free money!

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Democrats 2016!

Re:There is only one thing you need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about "Republicans Bad!", but "DNS-and-BIND PLAGIARIST" is certainly true.

Re:There is only one thing you need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, if you hate Mexicans and others, vote for us. We've demonstrated our commitment to those values time and again.

Republicans 2016 - don't believe anything anyone says but me, you can't trust everyone, they might be commies.

Re:There is only one thing you need to know

[whistlingtony]

I keep trying to vote myself more bennies, but I never seem to find it.... I know, I know, you think Democrats give away Money to Poor People. I think our government gives away money to Rich People. As someone who got government help with food and education when I was younger, I think I've more than paid back in taxes from the fancy job that helped me get. Hooray for a Hand Up. Everyone benefited.

And frankly, you're pissed that people are trying to vote themselves more benefits from the public treasury? Isn't that kind of how it works? Isn't that a democracy in action? What are you complaining about? Would you rather people NOT be able to vote in their own best interests? What do you think is better? The alternative looks a lot like a dicatorship to me.

I don't think you can actually say that every democracy collapses due to loose fiscal policy, followed by dictatorship. I'd like some examples. Democracy is relatively new. Empire isn't, but democracy is. Where are all these failed democracies that are now dictatorships? I can name many dictatorships in the world. None of them started as democracies. North Korea? Syria?

I think that's what you WANT to believe, but I don't think you have any examples to back up what you just said.

I am actually horrified and disgusted by your weird little history lesson on greatest civilizations. What does spiritual faith have to do with it? bondage? They ALL rose up from bondage? courage? What courage? Empires arise from many things. Greed. Lustful economics. Courage rarely has anything to do with it. Liberty? What liberty did the Roman slaves have? What liberty did the United Kingdom bring to the world? What liberty have we? Oh, and THEN we got selfishness, riiiiight. We were all courageous pious people of spiritual faith, but THEN we got all selfish?

I think you're making all of this up so you can be mad at Democrats (which really, has nothing to do with anything. ) I think you don't have any REAL reasons to be mad at them, so you have to make up this claptrap so you can feel properly outraged. I'm not a Dem. I'm independant. But if you're going to hate someone, at least hate them for REAL reasons....

Would you like some real reasons to hate Dems? I can give you plenty.

Also, keep the patriotic spiritual marching bullshit to yourself. It's all fake, and we know it. Rah Rah Rah! We're #1! Don't Look Behind The Curtain!

Re:There is only one thing you need to know

[Bardez]

I think the examples the GP had in mind are Greece and Rome

Re:There is only one thing you need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans BAD! Vote for the people who are in your own economic self-interest. Vote for those who promise you free money!

Well, as I'm not a billionaire, I'll vote Democratic then. The Republicans give vastly more money to a much smaller group of millionaire and billionaire business interests. Forget the unnecessary wars, I also vote Democratic because there not as big a group of hypocrites. The Repubs claim to want small government, but they want to say who can have sex and what happens afterward. I'd rather pay taxes for healthcare than for sex police.

Dems Social policy: We're doctors! We'll tax everyone to provide healthcare!
Repubs: We're the Sex Police! We'll say who can have what sex with who, and what they can do afterwards!

F that.

Re:There is only one thing you need to know

[whistlingtony]

both of which based their economies on slave labor...

Running against Apple a losing proposition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone better notify Google and Microsoft.

Uh No

[the eric conspiracy]

Demographics, not electric car business models are going to decide the next Presidential elections.

Republicans have won the Presidential popular vote only ONCE since 1988 (Bush v, Kerry, and that was an incumbent).

Re:Uh No

[Obfuscant]

Republicans have won the Presidential popular vote

There is no "Presidential popular vote". It's a myth created by ... who knows? People who can't read the Constitution to see how the President is actually voted for. or people who were unhappy that their pet candidate lost the election but they needed something to whinge about. It is pushed by "news" organizations who think that the common man is too stupid or has too short an attention span to understand the real voting process. Joe Sixpack is happier, they think, being able to see that his candidate is winning! because the "popular vote" percentages say so (have another beer and go to bed), but then that creates the arguments when the truth comes out otherwise.

The interesting tidbit that the winning Republican President did not get the largest sum total of all the votes cast in all the states combined is irrelevant, just as the fact that Democrats can win without getting the largest sum total of all the votes from all the states. The relevant tidbit is that the winning Presidential candidate is the one who gets the majority of the Electoral College votes. Period.

You want to argue that this process should be changed? Fine. You'll also need to argue that the composition of the Senate needs to be changed, because the two systems are related by the Federal nature of our government, and were designed at the same time by the same people for the same reason. But until it is actually changed, your "fascinating data" means nothing. It's fodder for flames and nonsense is all. "X won the popular vote, oh noes, there's corruption and fraud!"

Re:Uh No

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to argue that this process should be changed? Fine. You'll also need to argue that the composition of the Senate needs to be changed, because the two systems are related by the Federal nature of our government, and were designed at the same time by the same people for the same reason. But until it is actually changed, your "fascinating data" means nothing. It's fodder for flames and nonsense is all. "X won the popular vote, oh noes, there's corruption and fraud!"

I'm not sure that you've heard of it, and maybe it's because this obscure idea only runs in a few circles, but if I can recall correctly, there's this thing called the House that is meant to offset the allotment of two senators per state. I think there may even be a fancy-pants ivory tower phrase for it: something like bicannibal? Maybe? Or is it bicaramel? Oh, that's right! I've got it now: bicameral.

Re:Uh No

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Clinton 1992 due to Ross Perot splitting Republican vote. Clinton 96, again due to Ross Perot. Bush 2000 due to Nader splitting Dem votes in Florida. Only three straight contests, 2004, 2008, 2012. R 1, D 2. That is the score now.

Re:Uh No

[Bing Tsher E]

Wait, you're saying that any election where a third party candidate wins a significant number of votes is a screwy and weird aberration?

Re: Uh No

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

No. I am not saying that. The statement was the Republicans hence not won the popular vote for a long time. If re distribute Ross Perot vote and Ralph Nader vote to R and D, R would get 92 and 04. D would get 96, 00, 08 and 12. Four and two instead of five and one. D's demographic advantage is undeniable but the extrapolation curve is a little over estimated. R still has fighting chance in 16 and 20 unless they change their policies.

Re:Uh No

[coinreturn]

Clinton 1992 due to Ross Perot splitting Republican vote.

Interesting theory. FYI: I am a democrat who voted for Ross Perot.

Re: Uh No

[the eric conspiracy]

The only reason the Republicans have a fighting chance in 16 and 20 is because the electoral college arrangement gives them a slight advantage.

In the popular vote they have no chance.

Heck, if the Presidential race were decided by popular vote GHWB would have been the last Republican President. GWB would have lost in 92.

Non story

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Slashdot was about tech, not politics. Enough with the articles to stimulate debate. Tell us something cool about the car!

Re:Non story

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough about the car, let's talk about the henge!

Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less.  Right now, Tesla S's going for for $70,000.

Re:Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less

[ArcadeMan]

I think even the Nissan Leaf is more than 20 000$, so it might take a while for Tesla to offer something in that price range.

Re:Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less

[ArcadeMan]

Unless of course Tesla has the smart idea to make electric motorcycles and/or scooters.

Re:Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less

[macpacheco]

Never gonna happen. But if you buy the base Tesla and drive it a lot for 15 years, in the end, the cost of the car is fully paid by savings in gas and maintenance.
That's right, the car comes out essentially free if you drive it a lot (and keep it for a really long time).
Electrical battery prices will drop but not that much. They will always keep EVs significantly more expensive than normal gas cars, but you can save $5K / yr in gas and maintenance costs if you drive a lot (and put solar panels in your house).

Re:Give me a Tesla for $20,000 or less

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. Get Telsa to make a motorcycle based on some of the old BMWs, and I'd be tempted to drop my four wheels down to two.

That just sounds too sexy to not comment about.

Marketing spin

[sjbe]

There are no large "oil companies" any more, they're all "energy companies" now

Exxon-Mobil is not an energy company in the general sense nor are most of their competitors. They make their money in oil and gas. They may call themselves an energy company but you are what you do and what they do is fossil fuels. Calling themselves an energy company is just marketing spin.

Re:Marketing spin

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. With such a head start capital-wise, you'd be a fool to think the these companies aren't going to position themselves in a timely fashion to be in the forefront of whatever the next wave of energy is. They make their money in oil and gas right now because that is the most economically sensible way for them to make money.

Re:Marketing spin

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Of course they are an energy company in the general sense. What do people do with their products, build houses out of them? Or do they burn them, allowing the expanding gases to exert mechanical work? The last time I checked, the potential to exert mechanical work was called "energy".

Re:Marketing spin

[sjbe]

Of course they are an energy company in the general sense

How many nuclear power plants does Exxon-Mobil own? Solar? Geothermal? Wind? Hydro? Fact is that they have very little meaningful investment outside of oil and gas and some coal. They make almost all their money from extraction, refining and distribution of fossil fuels particularly oil and gas. They are rightly described as an oil and gas company, not an "energy company" in much the same way Microsoft is a software company, not a computer company. There is nothing preventing Exxon from getting into the other parts of the energy market but they have chosen not to do so in any significant way. Until they do they remain an oil and gas company.

Fear leads to anger....

[sjbe]

From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Thanks for the insight Yoda

well

[hamburger lady]

'The widespread franchise rules giving car dealers virtual monopolies in their territories epitomize the government-controlled marketplace Republicans purportedly despise,' writes Wohlsen

yes, but they also epitomize the lobbyist-controlled cash funnel republicans love. money is by far more important than having actual values.

Re:well

[ArcadeMan]

"If they love money more than actual value, they'll love Bitcoins!" - Anonymous Slashdot Troll.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

values != value

Re:well

[dbialac]

The irony is that it is Tesla which is interested in a monopoly. Dealerships exist to because you can peg dealer against dealer, resulting in a lower price for you.

Re:well

[citab]

Tesla selling their own product does not make them a monopoly ... if they were trying to be the only electric car company available to the public, that may be considered monopolistic, but still ... there is plenty of competition in the EV market.

Plase, not Slashdot too

[jandrese]

In case anybody is curious, the next Presidential election is over two years away, none of the horse race talk means a goddamn thing right now. This is just talking heads needing to fill airtime with inane babble because covering the events in Crimea would be too depressing.

Re:Plase, not Slashdot too

[MildlyTangy]

In case anybody is curious, the next Presidential election is over two years away, none of the horse race talk means a goddamn thing right now. This is just talking heads needing to fill airtime with inane babble because covering the events in Crimea would be too depressing.

Crimea river.

Irony

[jklovanc]

but the real irony is that conservative politicians ever opposed Tesla at all.

Republicans are more interested in established businesses and their business models. Tesla is trying to break the dealership business model and big GOP contributors do not like that.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly. tesla demonstrates what they really think about the 'free market' - they don't actually want a free market, they just want a way to funnel money to themselves and their friends.

Re:Irony

[rahvin112]

It's been said several times in this thread but I'll repeat it. The Republicans have always been the party of crony capitalism and protecting entrenched businesses. The national dealers association has had their hands so far into state politics that you ignore them at the peril of losing your office. The dealers association has, and will, throw millions into a state political campaign where $100k is the typical election budget when governors or legislators don't tow their line.

To put this in perspective, there are quite a number of members of the dealers association that own major professional sports teams. They are often the wealthiest people in the urban area they operate in and have the ear of the local politicians. The association they operate has had more than 50 years to perfect their ability to wield money to ensure the regulations, both state and federal, that protect them remain in place. They work very aggressively to stomp out any regulation changes that impact their bottom line.

Re:Irony

[readin]

Republicans opposed the giving of government handouts to Tesla. Competition is fine, but it's not a free market if some companies are given discount loans by the government while others aren't.

Re:Irony

[jklovanc]

It is also not a free market if there is a government imposed monopoly for car dealerships. It is difficult to compete if you can not sell the product. The republicans do not oppose giving tax breaks for investing in R&D and certain strategic sectors. I would call that an indirect handout. Would you not call the recent bailout of a few of the big vehicle manufactures preferential treatment? Some automakers got loans and some didn't.

Re:Irony

[readin]

Exactly. Which is why it make sense for a free-market Republican like Rubio to oppose imposing monopolies. Christies supported the monopoly - not surprising for a liberal Republican.

Battery Factory in TX?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perry wants Musk to choose Texas as the next location of their 'GigaFactory'.

It is a good reason to support Tesla's marketing model.

Govt. vs people, not govt. vs Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk, if you're reading this, here's some advice on how to loosen up state restrictions on Tesla dealers: Don't make it seem like a fight of "state governments versus Tesla". Make it seem like a fight of "state governments versus the rights of the states' citizens".

Most people don't care about letting an out-of-state car dealer sell cars in their state. They have other things to worry about. Also, they might root for their own state vs. California. Also, some people have a knee-jerk reaction against high-tech people.

You should put the argument in terms of the "state governments vs their people". Tell the people in New Jersey, Texas, etc. that their state governments are infringing on their people's freedom. In order to protect a special interest, your government won't let you buy a car that you might want to buy. Doesn't your government believe in freedom and in competition?

And if a state makes it hard to get a Tesla repaired, ask the people if they've had any problems in auto repair. Ask, "Wouldn't you like some competition in auto repair, to show the repair places that they can't take customers like you for granted?"

Winning streaks

[sjbe]

Republicans have won the Presidential popular vote only ONCE since 1988 (Bush v, Kerry, and that was an incumbent).

And the democrats only won it once between 1968 and 1992. What's your point? Most of the elections were fairly close and the losses had less to do with demographics than the candidates who were running. Bush Sr kind of blew it against Clinton but that election could have gone either way. Clinton loses and I'm not sure the democrats had anyone who would obviously have won in 1996. Bush Jr could easily have lost in 2004 and arguably did lose in 2000. Neither of Obama's wins were blowouts either. The only real blowouts I can remember are Reagan's wins, particularly in 1984 against Mondale. It wouldn't be shocking to see a republican in the white house in 2016. Just depends on who's running and how things play out.

The biggest problem the republicans have is that they push for policies that tend to repel anyone who isn't older white and usually male. Women, blacks, hispanics, LBGT, and most other minority groups tend to vote democrat. Some very strongly so. The republicans have also tied their mast to conservative religious groups who tie their hands on social issues. They have gotten away from the idea of sensible fiscal policy in order to wage a futile jihad on taxes and have shut the government down twice over the issue.

Re:Winning streaks

[jedidiah]

> And the democrats only won it once between 1968 and 1992. What's your point?

It's not 1955 anymore, or even 1985. The same old rhetoric won't work because most of your base is dying of old age.

You can't even depend on the "white middle aged male" demographic anymore. Society has changed along with the demographics. You can't depend on crackers to get you elected.

Antagonizing EVERYONE else certainly is not a winning strategy.

Re:Winning streaks

[readin]

Not quite true about "women". It's true Republicans do poorly with unmarried women. Once they get married, and especially once they have kids and have a stake in the future, they swing pretty heavily towards conservative politics.

It's not so much that Republicans have a "woman" problem. Democrats have a problem attracting men and married women.

Romney!

[Anonymous Coward]

Romney was quoting a friend, if you actually bothered to read the quote before pulling the trigger.

That said, as a somewhat right-leaning individual, the apprehension from various politicians, who claim to be fiscally conservative and want a truly free market, to products like those made by Tesla have always disgusted me. The only breath of fresh air, in regard to a less regulated and more free economy, is coming from the libertarian and tea party camp as opposed to any main stream party.

Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[werepants]

Seriously - Tesla and SpaceX have both turned republican ideology on its head.

Case 1: republicans love the military-industrial complex and always protect their cost-plus pork for defense contractors, while simultaneously claiming to support fiscal responsibility and free-market competition. Once someone shows up actually wanting free market competition in these giant aerospace contracts, the republicans are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Case 2: the republican stance is that all regulation is bad. So is environmentalism, and government loans. Rich people are awesome though, and deserve tax cuts and celebration for all the glorious good they do for the economy. Enter Tesla - a product targeted squarely at the upper end of middle class and higher, which is environmentally minded, got started with renewable energy loans, and which is stirring up areas where regulation legitimately is disrupting market efficiency.

The contortions the republican party has to go through to try to reconcile the inconsistencies highlighted by these companies are hilarious, and representative of the entire redefinition the party is going through. I'm hoping they'll get trounced by the dems another time or two and then emerge as something worthy of sharing a name with the party of Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Lincoln.

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[Attila Dimedici]

I won't argue about your "Case 1", because, while I think it is flawed, it has a certain merit. However your "Case 2" is a pure strawman. The Republican stance has NEVER been that all regulation is bad. The Republican stance is that regulation is often bad and has often been introduced to "solve" problems created by previously existing regulations.

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[dbIII]

The Republican stance has NEVER been that all regulation is bad

Is it like the third world approach where the idea is to have just enough regulation to encourage people to pay bribes to avoid the regulation? Or are we just looking at a bad apple here instead of a party line.

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, the third world approach is that taken by the Democratic Party, have so MANY regulations that no one can possibly be in compliance with them all, so that the only way to do business is to pay bribes.

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[MrVictor]

Umm, Roosevelt was a Democrat

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[werepants]

I won't argue about your "Case 1", because, while I think it is flawed, it has a certain merit. However your "Case 2" is a pure strawman. The Republican stance has NEVER been that all regulation is bad. The Republican stance is that regulation is often bad and has often been introduced to "solve" problems created by previously existing regulations.

Tomato, tomahto. There are some tremendously beneficial things (like Glass-Steagall) that have been repealed in the voracious cries of the right for deregulation. The case of Tesla vs. Car Dealers absolutely reveals the truth behind the rhetoric: that Republicans want a regulatory environment that favors their buddies, regardless of whether that is more or less regulation.

Not saying that the democrats are different - just that they don't try as much to pitch themselves as ideological hardliners, and so the left isn't caught in these contortions as much.

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[werepants]

I was talking about Teddy.

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[Attila Dimedici]

just that they don't try as much to pitch themselves as ideological hardliners, and so the left isn't caught in these contortions as much.

Um, you do remember the feminists who said that a sexual relationship between a CEO and a corporate intern could NEVER be consensual who then defended Bill Clinton because his relationship with Monica Lewinski was consensual?
More importantly, you seemed to have missed the fact that Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rick Perry are all Republicans. Chris Christie has never taken an anti-regulatory stance on anything. The two Republicans who are mentioned in the article as taking Tesla's side (or at least saying that it has merit) are also the two Republicans who have taken stances in the past opposing excessive regulation. SO, when two out of the three FAIL to support the regulations which protect their "buddies", how do you conclude that Republicans want a regulatory environment that "favors their buddies"?

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[werepants]

Feminists != democratic party. Plus, you had to reach back 2 administrations to find a (fairly weak) example. The other examples you gave also demonstrated my point: that republicans are divided on this issue - Chris Christie is supporting the regulation (which favors local dealerships who are almost certainly massive donors). Rubio and Perry are against it to try to gain favor of the republican anti-reg ideologues. Things like the repeal of Glass-Steagall were massively beneficial to Wall-street speculators who now had free reign to gamble with previously protected bank money. Getting rid of environmental regulation is a huge boon to many industries for whom it is very profitable to dump waste in rivers and strip huge swaths of the natural landscape with cheap but destructive mining practices.

When it comes to big influencers like the religious right, though, there is no hesitance to regulate marriage, or abortion, or drug use. This is starting to shift thanks to the increasing influence of libertarians, but that's what I'm saying: there are internal inconsistencies within the platform of the right, and Elon Musk's companies are highlighting them. It's going to be tough on the party to figure out how to find its identity coming through this (and the big demographic shifts happening), but it is also an opportunity to take a huge step in the right direction.

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[Attila Dimedici]

I am sorry, but there is no problem for the Republican Party to find its identity on this. The only reason you think there is is because you base your opinion of the Republican Party on what Democrats say about it.
I will admit that it is much harder for Republicans to decide their position on this than for Democrats. Republicans are, for the most part, trying to decide which side is the right side, based on their principles. Not everyone is going to agree on the answer. On the other hand, it is fairly easy for the Democrats to decide, since for them the only question is, "Which side will give us more power?"

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[werepants]

Listen, I appreciate that you think the Democrats are the problem, and the Republicans are the solution, but the reality is that they are both the problem, because they are both primarily working for corporate donors. I like to see the Republicans in a tight spot, but not because I love the Democrats - more because it is always good to shake things up, and because Republicans of the past have been a pretty inspiring bunch, and that could give them incentive to return to their roots - sticking up for the common man, protecting freedom in real ways (civil rights, etc).

Re:Elon Musk = Greatest Republican Troll Ever

[dbIII]

Whatever. Both seem to put up regulations to enforce monopolies by companies that just happen to be donors or waive regulations for those that happen to be donors. See also selectively ignoring tax fraud via offshore tax havens.

biz as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Christie is taking the fall for his party. He is already finished thanks to the bridge; nobody in America could ever possibly trust a person like that. He's posing (well, ok not just posing; he's taken action against the people of New Jersey, but in the big picture you have to break some eggs to make an omelet) in a radical far-left position (far lefter than most Democrats) so that Rubio can come in with a moderate/conservative position and contrast, rather than blending in with everyone else. Republicans are almost certainly tired of everyone seeing them as the anti-American crackpot mystic weirdos, so Rubio wants to score some "mainstream points" and look normal. Christie gets something (whether it's a bag of coke or some money or whatever) and does the job for him.

Tesla (and who likes their cars and who doesn't) is irrelevant. This is about bizarre blatantly-corrupt anti-market laws, not portable-energy-storage techs.

Streisand effect in Play

[Anonymous Coward]

I had never considered buying a Tesla. Now, after reading daily stories about it, it seems quite good. Of course, there's the price...

Re:Streisand effect in Play

[k6mfw]

and maybe also give SpaceX a boost.

Re:Streisand effect in Play

[Anonymous Coward]

and maybe also give SpaceX a boost.

I see what you did there.

Odd logic

[sjbe]

Too many of the general public confuse 'conservatives' with 'Republicans.'

In most cases it is a distinction without a difference. Most conservatives self identify as republicans and vice-versa. There are some outliers but they are the exception that proves the rule.

We of the dark side have been generally suspicious of electric cars because of the perception that most purchases are made with cushy tax subsidies, rather than inherent merit, in mind.

Great logic, because obviously gasoline vehicles never get tax money. Gas companies get TONS of tax subsidies and they are strongly supported by the political right. Lots of industries receive tax subsidies including agriculture, oil, gas, ethanol, coal, steel, aviation, construction, manufacturing, and many more. I find great irony when I hear some rural conservative farmer bitching about subsidies for solar power when he's getting subsidies for the crops he is selling. I guess subsidies are only good when it is for something that benefits you.

There is also a cultural bias factor ("University hippies buy these, so they must be bad...") which works both ways.

Are you really trying to justify hatred by saying "other people do it too"?

I had to explain to her that hating environmental activists doesn't have to mean hating the environment itself.

Why would you hate an environmental activist? Or any other kind of activist for that matter? Arguing passionately for a good cause is no reason to hate someone. Sure there are a few real looney-toons out there but most are basically just trying to push for a healthy planet and a nice place to live.

Re:Odd logic

[blue9steel]

Maybe because environmental activists are often the worst offenders in helping to ensure we destroy the environment? They get so worked up on "the perfect solution" that they block vastly improved but imperfect ones. For example anti-nuclear activists are pretty much responsible for global warming, if it wasn't for them killing the whole atomic energy industry after three mile island we'd be using uranium instead of coal. I find that particularly hilarious because radioactive carbon-14 gets spewed into the atmosphere without any form of control while spent fuel rods are pretty much contained safely on site. (and wouldn't exist at all if we had a proper reprocessing infrastructure)

Re:Odd logic

[Applehu Akbar]

Of course people with specific ties to an industry are going to find arguments for government subsidies to that industry. The rest of us just wish that all the subsidies would go away, so we could make decisions about purchases based on economic merit, rather than figuring some arbitrary fraction of the advertised price that gives us an advantage on some IRS form. Why, indeed, should the oil business get a "depletion allowance" that no one else enjoys? And why should farmers have their crop prices subsidized to match that one halcyon year during WW I when they got what they consider a 'fair' price?

Aaand... any progress we are going to make on cleaning up pollution, creating carbon-free energy, and not having to import our cars' vital body fluids from desert tribes which hate us, will have to be done over the metaphorical dead bodies of "environmentalists." They automatically come out against every single energy project that actually gets built:
(example: http://www.solarindustrymag.co...
and even infrastructure that links projects like this into the grid:
http://www.biologicaldiversity...

They believe in using the court system to enforce their pet opinions on science, rather than using that oh-so-dull scientific method:
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html)

But hey, at least they stand responsible for a lot of new coal mining jobs in Germany.

Re:Odd logic

[fyngyrz]

not having to import our cars' vital body fluids from desert tribes which hate us

[StrangeGlove]not having to import our cars' precious body fluids from desert tribes which hate us[/StrangeGlove]

Re:Odd logic

[Sloppy]

In most cases it is a distinction without a difference.

If you're neither of them, then the distinction is as minor and irrelevant as the difference between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea.

If you're one of them, the difference is as critically important as the difference between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea.

Re:Odd logic

[khallow]

Why, indeed, should the oil business get a "depletion allowance" that no one else enjoys?

I decided to look that up. Turns out a bunch of people get that depletion allowance.

A tax deduction authorized by federal law for the exhaustion of oil and gas wells, mines, timber, mineral deposits or reserves, and other natural deposits.

and not having to import our cars' vital body fluids from desert tribes which hate us

But whose oil is just as good as anyone else's. That's the nice thing about markets, you don't have to care about the beliefs of the other party that you trade with.

Re:Marketing

[DocSavage64109]

Why even market gas? When you have a captive market, why waste the money?

Stop looking for insults where none are intended

[Shakrai]

consumer
noun consumer; plural noun: consumers
1. a person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
2. a person or thing that eats or uses something.

Re:Marketing

[Shakrai]

It's not a captive market per say, there's different companies you can purchase gasoline from. To answer your question, because it's profitable? Market how superior your gas is, reel them into the station to buy that, making some profit, then hope they come inside and buy some overpriced convenience store stuff, making LOTS of profit.

Can we quit abusing the word "monopoly"?

[Radical Moderate]

"The widespread franchise rules giving car dealers virtual monopolies in their territories "

If there were only one or two car manufacturers, sure, that would be a monopoly. Yes, in this case the franchise model is enforced by the government, but that doesn't automatically make it monopolistic. Plenty of franchisers outside of the auto industry have self-imposed rules regarding franchise location. That's why you don't see two McDonalds across the street from each other.

Which is more monopolistic: A system that forces car manufacturers to sell to consumers through independent dealers--many of whom carry more than one brand, or a system where the manufacturer owns the whole distribution chain, including the dealer?

I actually don't have a problem with Tesla's model, and am no fan of dealerships, but let's stop misusing the term "monopoly" to describe the current situation.

Re:Can we quit abusing the word "monopoly"?

[Scowler]

That depends on how you define your market. If you are just buying a "car" or "truck", you're right. If buying a brand new Honda Civic, and looking for available means of buying a Civic locally, then your regional selection may or may not be large enough such that a particular dealer might have a "monopoly" on selling Civics in your area. Truthfully, when it comes to purchasing NEW cars, I think a majority of shoppers are in between these two extremes... they may have narrowed down their choice of vehicles to two or three models, and start talking to salespeople at that stage.

Re:Can we quit abusing the word "monopoly"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you do see two McDonalds, time you visited an actual city and not what passes for a city in whatever flyover state you're from. Even London, which is fairly pedestrian friendly, has streets with a McDonalds on each side so you don't have to cross.

but they're not a "general energy" company

[Chirs]

They are basically an "oil and gas" energy company.

To me, a true "energy company" should be producing energy from multiple sources: oil, gas, wind, solar, coal, nuclear, tidal, hydrogen, alcohol, etc.

Re:but they're not a "general energy" company

[Bing Tsher E]

You forgot "biomass digesters conveniently located near the bird carcass piles surrounding wind farms."

Re:but they're not a "general energy" company

[Anonymous Coward]

Shell was a serious player in solar before China drove them out. I believe they don't do coal and uranium because that's bad image-wise. Wind and alcohol are subsidy-dependent which screws up long-term planning, and tidal just too much of a niche (big companies can't efficiently play in niche markets)

Electric car complexity health care complexity

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Look electric car is not like health insurance. Health insurance must be sold across the state lines and nationwide. Healthcare companies should be able to find states with friendly regulators. They need to set up shop at a place where the judges, juries and arbitrators would be friendly to the company not the claimants. So that is why we should support healthcare being sold nationwide.

But the electric car is a very complex product. Most users don't know how to drive a car. They need to be trained and licensed to use one. Remember you don't need a license to be a patient to a doctor or in a hospital. Shows you how complex the automobile is. And you add on top of this electricity, which you can't see. They say Tesla runs on electricity. But I don't want to cars trailing miles and miles of extension cords. They will tangle up in the road and create fire hazard. So electric cars must be sold only via authorized dealers and you should not even be able to buy one across county lines, leave alone state lines.

What is this "major service"?

[Chirs]

Most cars require a "major service" every couple of years, which can easily run into a couple thousand bucks

Huh? I've got a 9-year old Toyota Matrix. It gets an oil change twice a year at about $50 each time, and has had one transmission oil flush at a few hundred bucks, one radiator fluid flush, and new low beam bulbs. I just replaced the clock spring myself for a few hundred bucks. Soonish it'll need new brake pads and new spark plugs.

What is this "major service" you speak of?

Re:What is this "major service"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I also guess he considers the battery swap that will be necessary on a 9 year old tesla minor service too.

Re:What is this "major service"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you guys are from, but around here (mid-Iowa) every new car dealership (not the simple used car lots) with a service department will push a maintenance schedule on you that's around $350 to $550 per quarter (yeah, that's every three months). Obviously it's a big rip, but it's also significantly more than Tesla is pushing, on a car that's a much higher value. For example, I bought a 2006 Accord back in 2011 for around $19,500, and the "maintenance program" they wanted to enroll us in for that vehicle was $425 every three months. I didn't do it and have kept maintenance on the vehicle similar to yours, but that doesn't change the fact that a) these optional programs are "offered" by such dealers and b) they tend in my experience to be sold at a much higher cost ratio to vehicle value.

Especially if it also covers the batteries, that $600/yr sounds like a pretty fair deal to me.

Re:What is this "major service"?

[TooMuchToDo]

You are not the target market.

$600? For you to come pickup the car and give me a loaner? And do over the air software updates? And provide telematics like OnStar?

Shut Up And Take My Money. (I make ~$150K/year, $600 is only a couple hours of time)

Re:What is this "major service"?

[Barsteward]

That doesn't sound like a major service to me, that's just routine maintenance. Now if you had a car of a comparable price/complexity of a Telsa like a BMW or Jaguar or Mercedes, see if you can do a major service for the prices you quote that include a loan car and a visit to your car.

Re:What is this "major service"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, your toyota will need new brakes front/rear, not to mention your plugs. I'd replace your PCV valve by now, and your O2 sensor and MAF wouldn't hurt. New drive belts. You could do all this yourself for say- 5-6 hundred. A garage would charge you 2k.

Your matrix probably has a timing chain, which is a lifetime part, but lots of cars need a new belt every couple of years, along with grease fittings, belts and hoses. Toyota's tend to not need these items as much, which is why they have that reputation.

Marco Rubio

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not want Rubio in office. You don't want Rubio as President. Do your research.

We're not used to negotiating...

[Chirs]

The problem with negotiating the price is that it makes people feel like they might have gotten a worse deal then the next guy, and it eats at them.

We in North America generally don't negotiate prices for new items. You go to the store, you buy the item, you pay the same as the next guy. (Unless you're buying high volume, or are a contractor, or something.) Generally the only new things we negotiate on are cars. Even most new houses have a set price.

government controls

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans only despise them when they benefit someone else more than themselves.

Car Dealerships are like AOL

[Pro923]

As time goes on, old business models lose their justification to exist. When cable modems first showed up, AOL became an artifact - and I was blown away that they were trying to change the law to make themselves relevant and were actually managing to confuse people enough to make it a debate. Car dealerships seem to me to be the same sort of thing. Even as a kid, before the internet was prevalent, I wondered why we needed these glorified middlemen. Everyone buys cars - if you know what you want, why should you have to pay a fee to a middleman instead of ordering direct from the factory? The fact that a good percentage of commercials on TV are produced by car dealerships tells me that they're big business. So I ask again, why do we need people between me and my product taking a LARGE amount of money just to facilitate a transaction? So... They're going to try to change the rules to keep themselves relevant. I think this is a serious miscarriage of justice. Go Tesla Motors. Shame on any politician that supports this nonsense.

Mileage = not the motivating factor to go electric

[rsborg]

Repair? Tesla themselves, free of charge in many cases. They'll even come get the car for you if needed, most dealerships won't do that.
Regular maintenance? *What* regular maintenance? Les Schwab or your preferred local alternative can rotate the tires and check the brakes for you. Not much else is needed... no oil, no spark plugs, no transmission (in the conventional sense), etc.

Most folks not into the electric/hybrid ownership thang just don't get this - the dividends for a hybrid (and doubly so for a pure electric) are in the small things - great acceleration "curves", quieter cabin, keyless entry, reduced maintenance, no transmission changes ever, oil changes that always came back clean even when I do them yearly, etc etc. And the Tesla takes it to a whole new level.

It's not the MPG that sold me on the Prius 10 years ago (and that I still drive daily with 50+mpg), it the fact that it felt like spaceship when it "booted" and all the other things that no other car at the time could do. The new Telsa faux-mercial exemplifies this: http://www.thecarconnection.co...

Imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't possibly imagine how frustrating it has to be having mastered the design and construction and mass production of the greatest car on the planet and not be able to sell it yourself without paying all the wolves out there wanting a piece of it. Stifling American ingenuity is unAmerican.

Customer != consumer

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The conflict of interest between the customer and the consumer is very big. For example a physics simulation company would sell design analysis tools. Its customer is the company that buys those tools, your Intel, Apple, BMW, Toyota... whatever. The consumer is an employee of that corporation. The customer wants the tools to be easy to use, and produce accurate reliable answers all the time. But the consumer wants the product to be easy to use on some parts but very difficult to use in other parts. He/she wants a tough learning curve to create a barrier to entry, and the results to get more accurate using less resources depending on experience. Customer wants even newbies to learn to use it quickly and produce as good a result as the veterans. There is a conflict of interest between customer and the user.

Politics = Free Marketing

[Tablizer]

After all, the sales of guns and PDF inspection software went way up because of the prez election.

Drugs ! I want some of what Slashdot editors use !

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in order to come up with headlines like the one
on this article, you need to be so high you could hunt ducks
with a rake.

Isn't Christie politically doomed anyway?

[dbIII]

Didn't Christie take a bridge too far, piss off everyone who drives and show he is not fit for any position of responsibility?

Re:SpaceX

[mbkennel]

SpaceX is not doing space exploration. It's doing space logistics.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory---government partnership between NASA and Caltech, filled heavily with scientists & engineers, is doing space exploration and they're reasonably good at it. (the loss of Mars mission due to the famous units problem came about because Congress required a certain piece to go to a typical MIC contractor in a midwest state, and they were using archaic units and assigned the task to an inexperienced fresh graduate to save money. Missions that JPL runs heavily tend to be successful, and sometimes spectacularly successful---Mars Exploration Rovers).

In a nutshell, the change in NASA's attitude and the cancellation of the old Constellation program---which was government doing it poorly, and in particular with money going to deep-red Alabama employees and contractors---came under and with the support of the Obama administration.

Is there any Democratic angst about SpaceX? No, none. And funny enough, they manufacture most of their equipment in Los Angeles area.

Re:SpaceX

[F34nor]

Everyone admits NASA is a job engine and not a serious space exploration platform. That is party agnostic.

Perry? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I feel a need to chime in here.

The ONLY reason Perry got around to commenting on Tesla's in Texas, is becuase his neurons finally made the round trip. Perry is out of the Governors seat as of November of this year. At MOST, he's doing this to save whatever legacy is left of his Governorship. Which, if anyone has been paying attention, mostly consisted of stripping away the medical rights from women, praying for rain, and burning down the Governors mansion. If you know anyone in Texas, there are Tesla's in almost every town with a population over 80000. Unless you live a VERY rural area, you'll see one almost every day. In short, my left shoe has a more authoritative opinion on Tesla in Texas than what Governor 'good hair' could muster if he was hopped up on adderall, caffeine, and nootropics.

nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering so few people want an electric car... who cares. I would rather pay for gas then have the inconvenience of using an electric car. I would be forced to have a second car that can use gas so I can take vacations somewhere.

This whole thing is a very minor issue when it comes to the next president. We really can't afford to have another president like Obama, he has done enough damage to this country as it is.

Re:Marketing

[fyngyrz]

It's "per se", not "per say."

Of course idiot's like Perry and the like-minded o

[geezenslaw]

Unlike the U.S. Norway has a very good economy, a higher standard of living and lots of money so consumers don't pay for the recharge (this is called an incentive for the Perry minded types). Nuff said: http://www.npr.org/blogs/paral...

The much hated car dealerships

[Anonymous Coward]

Car dealerships are a product of the Reagan presidency; he signed a bill into law so that his friends wouldn't be out of a job once cars could be ordered online.

Re:SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

What? NASA is and has been the *only* serious space exploration platform in the history of humankind. Nobody else even comes close. The distant second place is the ESA. The USSR in its heyday never accomplished as much for exploration/science by a landslide, it was all about ego for them. All other government and private endeavors have amounted to, at most, a handful of small scientific missions of varying success which don't hold a candle to NASA's achievements over the past several decades.

You may have all sorts of ideas about how to do it better, but the fact remains that nobody has ever successfully done it better.

Make me laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah lets forget she voted for the Patriot Act, voted yes without even bothering to think when it came to going to war in Iraq she helped to start up numerous censorship groups, shes has a neo-communist mentality, no porn, no video games, no music, that doesn't get her stamp of approval.

What else could have gone wrong with her running the Country? Its bad enough people vote for someone out of sympathy, considering she had no credibility to even be a Senator.

I am not against --anyone-- running, simply for the fact you have nothing but over educated idiots already in office who are doing nothing more then cashing out.

Not to mention it is very easy for any politician to make something go away.....
And people wondered [scratch that the shits in media/press] why she isn't President!!!! Even more disturbing is how the mainstream press ignored all of this while she ran.

Tesla is a solution for libertarians.

[sg_oneill]

Whilst the tea-party wing of the GOP might be more or less unredeamable wing-nuts, I've never quite understood why the libertarians have tolerated the anti Tesla thing.

Libertarians in recent years have found themselves in the untennable situation of being forced to side with the climate change denialist flat earther society, having to weave weirder and wilder conspiracy theories whilst discarding more and more fundamental science to try and dismiss an unfortunate fact of chemistry and science that was largely proven over a century, because the suggested solution doesnt fit neatly at all into their "no government interventions ever" mindset. The more thoughtful libertarians must surely find this a situation as difficult as the smarter minds in the left find the anti-nuclear power sentiment. A troublesom matter of faith not reason.

So things like the Tesla would seem an obvious way out of this mess. It provides a market based solution, creates jobs, and generally ticks all the boxes that the libertarians want ticked, without forcing them to share the same podium with the creationists and "smoking DOESNT cause cancer!" whackjobs by reluctantly feining a belief that scientists are in some 100 year old sinister global conspiracy to lie about physics for some undeteriminable reason.

Let the political pandering begin

[Anonymous Coward]

"If elected, I will be the Tesla "

If it pisses off car salesmen..

[BVis]

it can only be a good thing. Fuck the car dealer paradigm, the need for such protectionist nonsense went away decades ago. Now the laws just make it profitable for dealers to rip off everyone as much as they can, because they have a monopoly on the supply. Yes, you could buy a Ford instead of a Honda, or buy from Joe's Honda instead of Fred's Honda down the road.. but they're all just as bad as the others. They don't have any incentive to change under the current system. If I could buy a car without dealing with dealership sleaze I would gladly pay another couple thousand dollars. And before all of you start telling me how I'm stupid for negotiating or not buying through a service, remember that ultimately you're signing a contract in a showroom of a dealership, and therefore they have at least one chance at making the entire process miserable in the effort to make a few more dollars.

ummm... the government mandates franchise areas?

[mr_mischief]

No, the government doesn't decide how many car dealerships for a manufacturer there are in a region. That's between the manufacturer and the dealers.

"The widespread franchise rules giving car dealers virtual monopolies in their territories epitomize the government-controlled marketplace Republicans purportedly despise". No. The regulation we're talking about here is whether or not car dealers can ban direct manufacturer-to-consumer sales. There is no government regulation of which I'm aware on geographical monopoly areas for dealerships.

In states that ban direct sales of cars to consumers there's an enforced oligopoly of dealers for new cars. It is nothing close to a monopoly. There is a distinct difference.

Re:Take the pulse

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Troll, hehe. was my description inaccurate?

See, "evil giant corp", by the way, let's limit the amount any one corp can donate. Wut? Each dealer counts as a corp so we can get more from them? Gosh, what a coincidence.

Tex

[Anonymous Coward]

Rick Perry's sudden change of heart is fueled by the potential $5 billion battery plant that Tesla is considering building in Texas.

Louis CK ponders this question.

[F34nor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

That's why the EV1 died per the movie.

[F34nor]

GM lost money on cars and made it on financing.
Dealers lost money on cars and made it on service.
Electric = no maintenance = dealer veto

Most US sectors would know a free market if it bitch slapped them .

Dumb tool?

[sudnshok]

Kind of ironic that you would label me as "dumb" when you can't seem to comprehend my simple response to the parent. I merely corrected what was stated as an incorrect fact. Nowhere did I express my opinion nor state this incident was acceptable. You go on to say "Christie's actions", which at this point is libelous and ignorant. Despite 3 investigations, testimony, thousands of documents and months of time, not a single piece of evidence has shown that he knew or had anything to do with this. There is evidence of 3 people involved, 2 of which worked for Christie and do not anymore (one resigned and one was fired). As for my opinion... I do not find this incident acceptable and if crimes were proven to be committed, the people who committed them should be punished. So far Christie is not one of those people.

Re:SpaceX

[F34nor]

No I am saying they have been turned into a jobs machine by congress simply as a change in focus and allocation of spending. I agree they have no peer.

Stop sales of everything trying to make a profit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course stopping sales of things makes perfect sense. Companies like Tesla are backed by Communist and Socialist manifestos declaring the overthrow of the U.S. government. Countries like Norway should be bombed out of existence for subsidizing the sale and use of cars like the Tesla and the Nissan Leaf. Recharging a Tesla or a Leaf in Norway is free including free toll roads and ferry crossings are free. What the hell is wrong with a country like that anyway? We need to preserve the good ol' American way of doing things and not disturb those making money the good ol' fashion way here in America.