Slashdot Mirror


Tesla vs. Car Dealers: the Lobbyist Went Down To Georgia

McGruber writes The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) newspaper's Jim Galloway has an update on the behind-the-scenes battles over who can sell you a new car: "Traditional car dealers are in the midst of a legal fight to push Tesla, the fledgling California electric car company, out of Georgia. Never mind that metro Atlanta is one of the hottest markets for electric vehicles in the nation. Signs point to a parallel battle in the General Assembly. Last week, the National Automobile Dealers Association began trolling for sympathetic lawmakers. While Georgia dealers say they have "no plans" to revisit an anti-Tesla bill that failed last year, Tesla is preparing a defense. It has already hired one of the top lobbying firms in Atlanta."

The Georgia Automobile Dealers Association wields considerable influence in the state Capitol; the AJC determined that the Georgia Auto Dealers Association (GADA) had made over $600,000 in recent campaign contributions to state lawmakers. Despite those contributions, a bill to boot Tesla from Georgia mysteriously died during last year's legislative session. While no legislator would claim credit for killing the bill, Galloway noted that Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who presides over the Senate, drives a Nissan Leaf.

56 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Informative

    An industry is using government regulation to stifle competition? Holy cow NO!!!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Independent GM/Ford/Toyota/whatever dealers don't want to compete with direct manufacturing sales. And they should not have to. Independent Tesla dealers should be protected by the same rules.

      What? You're saying there are no independent Tesla dealers? Then it isn't even the same industry we are talking about.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you mean an industry wanting a new entrant in to that industry to be subject to the same regulations the rest of the industry is forced to follow, right?

      You fail at reading comprehension. In this case, it is the car dealers who are trying to introduce new regulations that would disadvantage Tesla.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not seeing the issue. It's not other automakers wanting to keep Tesla out, it's the dealerships that want to keep them out. And as useless middle men always do, they are fighting hard and dirty. Just like the record companies are.

      If you don't think the bigger automakers are pulling for Tesla, you're wrong. They would love to be able to sell direct and/or put up their own retail stores. They wouldn't have to rely on, at this point completely useless and frequently scummy, middle men to sell their products.

    4. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      many of these rules exist because of scummy tactics by the automakers long ago.

    5. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? You're saying there are no independent Tesla dealers? Then it isn't even the same industry we are talking about.

      Yes it is. If Tesla prevails, other car manufacturers will move to the same direct sales model. Long ago, car dealers actually served a purpose. Today, they are just rent-seeking leeches.

    6. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Or you mean an industry wanting a new entrant in to that industry to be subject to the same regulations the rest of the industry is forced to follow, right?

      Um... no.

      This is a perfect example of what's wrong with government regulation. Usually regulation is introduced for a very real and justifiable reason. The problem is however that once "The law" governs how money is made, those who like money (everyone) get very interested in politics. They cajole and manipulate the regulation until it does nothing more than prevent new competition from entering the market.

      I'd be willing to bet that if you reviewed the regulations in question you'd be rather surprised at how stupid they are. One example from my state is that they can't be open on Sunday. Wow, big consumer protection there... The same goes for a dozen other heavily regulated markets... Cabs, Airlines, liquor distributors (especially liquor distributors) and on and on.

    7. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that the independent franchise dealer model doesn't work for electric cars and the existing dealers know it. Traditional dealerships make their living on repairs/maintenance and electric cars just don't require that much of either. If existing dealers were allowed to sell Tesla they would still be pushing the gas cars for the same reasons.

    8. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Grench · · Score: 2

      Traditional dealerships make their living on repairs/maintenance and electric cars just don't require that much of either

      While the internal combustion engine, gearbox, and fuel tank may not exist on an electric car, they do still have mechanical components that will still need replacement... shocks, springs, anti-roll bars / droplinks, track rod ends, bushes, brake discs / pads / calipers, etc.

      Electrical/electronic components wear and need replacing - fuses and wiring can become damaged or faulty through issues like water ingress. Which also means things like your water drainage needs to work, and your door / window / sunroof seals may need to be replaced. Your key (or keyless ignition system) may fail, with the key needing to be reprogrammed for your Tesla. You might lose your key and need a new one.

      Teslas still have tyres; some people go to their dealer for tyres, rather than going to tyre places. Hell, even alloy wheels can get buckled if you hit a decent-sized pothole.

      That's all stuff that's common between electric cars and combustion engine cars. The electric motors, the charging circuit, etc, may need to be replaced or repaired. Something as simple as a damaged charging socket would ruin your day and need fixing too.

      If a chain of dealerships started carrying Teslas or other electric cars, they'd still manage to make as much money (if not more!) from repairs, servicing, and maintenance as they would from petrol/diesel/LPG models.

      --
      He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
    9. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2

      Commercial regulations are an interesting beast.

      Ostensibly, they exist to improve the functioning of the market. For example, in the US packaged food is required to have nutrition information labels so that customers can distinguish different products nutritionally. And this can be very valuable. If you're on a low salt diet, it's important to be able to find the canned green beans that actually have less salt in them.

      Unfortunately, they have a bunch of other effects as well. They create barriers to market entry. If you want to sell packaged food, you have to make sure every package has identical contents and then have those contents lab tested to determine the exact nutritional ratios. This means very tight manufacturing tolerances, and mean that any packaged food that says "homemade" on it is lying - unless someone has a food production factory in their house. Packaged food that isn't manufactured on a very precise assembly line is illegal. This may not be a bad thing - we expect packaged food to be consistent - but it's a thing.

      And, as we see in the Tesla situation, it locks in established business models. There's no specific benefit to the consumer from the exact model of car sales we have compared to any of the other possibilities. But everyone used that model, so it became mandated by regulation in some places.

      The problem comes when you take into account the way regulations get made. Regulations (and laws) are proposed by people who want some new policy enforced. Then they're evaluated based on the input of experts and stakeholders. In practice, "experts and stakeholders" means paid lobbyists, because nobody else has the time to show up for a hearing on how cars are sold, how food is packaged, or whether there should be a tariff on sugar.

      The study of how this works is a branch of economics called public choice theory. Spoiler: The public interest is not the primary driver of regulation. Regulations where the benefit to existing producers from locked in business models or barriers to entry are greater than the costs are what gets enacted. Any benefit to the public is frequently a side effect, and is very carefully tuned to optimize cost vs. market advantage for the regulated industry.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    10. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by vakuona · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How exactly do dealers prevent manufacturers from setting prices? How do they force BMW and Mercedes from demanding a specific wholesale price. And if a wholesale price is high enough for BMW to not care who sells their car (as long as they take responsibility for service/maintenance) why should they care.

      Tesla doesn't want to be in a showroom where the dealer is trying to sell other cars. It would be too easy for a dealer to push people towards other cars if they believe Teslas are a hard sell. Their success does not depend on selling Teslas. It depends on selling lots of cars, and they don't necessarily care which ones they sell. Unless, of course, Tesla gives them very large inducements to sell their cars.

      Basically, they want to run a protection racket - give us large commissions/discounted wholesale prices, or your lovely electric cars won't sell.

    11. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a lot less periodic maintenance required and maintenance is far easier. The recommended maintenance is every 12K miles. The maintenance includes a wheel alignment, changing the wiper blades, cabin air filter, tire rotation, inspections and any software updates (though the car periodically allows the user to install them when they're downloaded over the air). The electric motor is lubricated for 12 years, according to one of the techs I spoke with at the factory. Many of the items that need maintenance are just not there or need less periodic maintenance. Many things can be diagnosed remotely without even having to bring the car in. My car was one of the early ones that received a defective 12v battery because the battery manufacturer decided to subcontract it out to China who subcontracted it out to Viet Nam. Tesla contacted me about replacing the battery within a couple of days of a weak battery being detected.

      Sure, you still have tires (which can be rotated or replaced just about anywhere), a cabin air filter, wiper blades, suspension, etc. but these are not the money makers. The number of moving parts is a fraction of what it is in an ICE car.On top of that, much of the maintenance is far easier since many parts are far more accessible without a big engine in the way. Even things like brake pads will last far longer on an EV. There are no spark plugs, no fuel filters, engine air filters, oil changes or belts to change. There's minimal chance of laking oil seals and no smog related work. There's no catalytic converter, oxygen sensors, fuel pumps, fuel injectors, etc to deal with. And if you do need to do something like pull the electric motor, it is a far easier process. They install the entire drive train in the Model S in under 4 minutes since it's all in a single module, including the motor, differential, inverter, rear axels, etc. Removing it is not the huge job it is in an ICE car.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    12. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dealerships will still try to sell you on extended warranty for your Tesla, which assures you will be able to pass any future emissions tests. For 10 years or 3000 miles, whichever comes first.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Independent GM/Ford/Toyota/whatever dealers don't want to compete with direct manufacturing sales. And they should not have to."

      Maybe my naivety comes from not being American but... why not?

      And providing they in fact shouldn't compete with direct sales, what's the benefit for the customer about having dealers instead of direct sales?

    14. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      This is a perfect example of what's wrong with government regulation.

      Or, what's wrong with campaign financing in the US.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "If direct sell is the only available option then the customer gets screwed. The company sets the price and acts in indirect collusion with other companies"

      How the retailer system avoids this? After all, retail price can't be but the company-set price plus the retailer margin.

    16. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "many of the automakers would like to get rid of the old outdated dealership model but can't because they are already entrenched."

      Are you sure? Dealership may be mandatory in USA but, AFAIK that's not the case in Europe but, still, automakers go with the dealership model here also.

    17. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 2

      This is a perfect example of what's wrong with government regulation.

      Or, what's wrong with campaign financing in the US.

      When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P. J. O'Rourke

    18. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an American, I have no fucking clue other than they don't like competition.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    19. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a niche product, so there are few producers of that stuff. Why would you expect to find stock at different prices unless there's something wrong with it? They don't produce a lot of excess stock.

      It's more than just a result of being "niche" -- the same thing happens with Apple products. In order to become an authorized resaler, the stores have to sign an agreement to only sell the products at the manufacturer-specified price. It's done to prevent dealers from getting into price wars with each other, but by the same token it means that the consumer can't get a better deal by shopping around.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    20. Re: I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Dastardly · · Score: 5, Informative

      My Prius is 9 years 130000 miles the brakes only just recently show measurabe wear since most braking is handled by the electric motor except hard braking and under 6 mph.

    21. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      Dealership may be mandatory in USA but, AFAIK that's not the case in Europe but, still, automakers go with the dealership model here also.

      Don't go muddying the issue with pesky facts. Stick to the rants, please.

    22. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by DrXym · · Score: 2
      I don't accept that at all. Electric cars need servicing, new tyres, brakes, repairs, body work and spare parts. They need firmware updates, diagnostics, battery changes too. And of course there are second hand sales. There is plenty of business for an aftermarket to provide. It may well be that Tesla has to sell / licence the training, tools and software to do some of this but that doesn't stop dealers from offering the service.

      I expect this all boils down to the usual thing - money. Tesla has all the cake to itself and doesn't want to let others take a share of it. Problem is, the laws on car sale were put in to enforce competition. Even if dealers are scum (and I think most people would hold that view), they do represent a form of competition. I expect sooner or later Tesla will have to sell their cars whole sale but perhaps access to all the aftermarket servicing kit is the weapon they can use to beat dealers into some form of compliance with standards of ethics, transparency and all the rest.

    23. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by repetty · · Score: 2

      I don't accept that at all. Electric cars need servicing, new tyres, brakes, repairs, body work and spare parts. They need firmware updates, diagnostics, battery changes too. And of course there are second hand sales. There is plenty of business for an aftermarket to provide. It may well be that Tesla has to sell / licence the training, tools and software to do some of this but that doesn't stop dealers from offering the service.

      Speaking in an absolute sense, you are right. Even electric cars need servicing.

      Be practical, though. We aren't talking about just a few degrees of difference between electric cars and old-fashioned cars. The difference will prove to be huge.

      Imagine an gasoline car but then remove the piston rings, gaskets, timing chain, water pump, starter motor and alternator (both of which mysteriously often fail), fuel pump, carburetor or fuel injectors. Petroleum burning vehicles have a level of complexity that is an order of magnitude greater than electrical cars. Of course they are going to fail more and require more frequent servicing.

      In the long run, this debate will be moot. People buy whatever is cheapest up front. In the end, the fewer moving parts a device has, the cheaper it is. Count the moving parts.

      The reason some Americans are concerned about this situation is because there is the very real possibility that in 20- or 30-years we could be stuck with automotive distribution regulations that are comically and expensively out of kilter with reality. Here in the colonies, business and government are often the same thing.

    24. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by MooseMiester · · Score: 2

      The article referenced to seems like a pathetic attempt to create a conspiracy theory out of nothing...

      It's not really shocking that business people donate money to politicians - on both the left and the right, big surprise.

      What "scummy tactics" are you referring to? Are you talking about the big 3, or all automakers? I believe with a little research you'll determine that much of the infrastructure that exists here grew out of consumer protection laws and warranty service requirements that started with the safetycrat darling Ralph Nader. So it's the hand of government that led to much of this. And yes, they use scummy tactics too, but let's make sure and spread the blame around where it belongs instead of knee-jerk "Oh those eeeevil corporations" response.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    25. Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! by MooseMiester · · Score: 2

      Dealers are scum.

      I don't work in the business (Although my company does do some automotive web development work). But I've bought cars for 40 years. Some dealers are scum. But certainly not all. The Ford dealership where I bought my last vehicle was absolutely awesome in every respect and they continue to be. The Suzuki dealer where we bought the wife's car, they were lying sleazebags.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  2. Lobby = Corruption by Felgior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lobbying, is corruption clear and simple. They should jail everybody connected to it.

    1. Re:Lobby = Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All of us should have the right to lobby our legislators and legislatures.

      Where it's a problem is when we have these professionals and big money behind them to effectively give them a larger voice than the rest of us.

      How can one compete when you have to take time off of work to drive over, somehow get through security, and then get to talk to an intern; whereas the big money guys, get to take the actually politician out to an expensive meal, rides on their private jets and other attention getting things that are waaayyy beyond you or me?

      And then there's the human nature thing. People take rich people more seriously than regular people. Got a billion bucks? Well, just having it makes your opinion more important even no money or favors are exchanged - because we are all primates and act like it when it comes down to it; bald ape.

      And as a Georgia resident, I can assure you that our current politicians are all Hollywood Stereotypes. No one is called Boss Hogg - yet, though. You want material for a corrupt Southern Politician, come'on down here, boy!

    2. Re:Lobby = Corruption by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lobbying, is corruption clear and simple. They should jail everybody connected to it.

      When you do it in the US, we call it lobbying. When you do it in a foreign country, we call it bribery.

    3. Re:Lobby = Corruption by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How can one compete ...

      A single person can not compete but groups can and do. Groups like ACLU and AFL-CIO lobby and contribute to campaign on behalf of there members all the time. Tesla does it too.

      The thing is that lobbying is necessary as it is the only way to put alternate positions in front of the politicians.

    4. Re:Lobby = Corruption by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lobbying is the act of telling an official how to vote by making a convincing argument.. Bribery is paying money for a vote or action.

    5. Re:Lobby = Corruption by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How else would regulators and lawmakers get input on policy?

      If you're going to pass a law that effects, say, orange juice production then it's important to consult with Dole Food Company to find out what the impact of the proposed law will actually be. Nobody else knows, and you can't just guess.

      Now, you know they're going to give you biased testimony. If you're trying to decide what drinks to subsidize for low-income school lunches, the (completely legitimate) scientist from Dole is going to tell you that sugar isn't the greatest for kids, but that the sugar in orange juice isn't as bad as that in Coca Cola because it's from oranges not corn. And the other nutrients in orange juice totally make up for the disadvantages of fruit sugar - you wouldn't want those disadvantaged kids getting scurvy.

      The guy from Coke is going to tell you that all sugar is the same. It's just a carbohydrate, and in fact it raises blood sugar less by weight than the hot dog rolls the kids are drinking it with.

      And there's no real way to get an unbiased voice. You could use government funds to fly a scientist out to the hearing, but then you have to pick who to fly out. You're a lawmaker, and you're not going to be able to pick a sugar metabolism scientist. That's not your field. All you can do is try to find a stakeholder to suggest someone. Who are you going to call? The American Medical Association now finally might send someone who says "kids shouldn't be drinking sugar", but how do you balance that against the orange juice guys and chocolate milk guys saying that the sugar isn't a big deal compared to the other nutrients in the drinks?

      If you create a government science board, it'll have to hire established scientists. They got funding somewhere for their previous research. Unless you want to fund someone to find out why sugar is bad, you won't find someone who will say it. And then all you've got is the thing you asked for - it's obviously not worth anything.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    6. Re:Lobby = Corruption by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3

      Lobbying is the act of telling an official how to vote by making a convincing argument.. Bribery is paying money for a vote or action.

      Are you under the dillusion that nothing of value exchanges between a lobbyist and a politician? No favors or future benefits? Bribery is giving something of value for a vote or action.

    7. Re:Lobby = Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And it's a complete coincidence that the most convincing arguments are frequently followed up with large campaign donations... There's no link at all.

    8. Re:Lobby = Corruption by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of us should have the right to lobby our legislators and legislatures.

      But money should not be the controlling factor for access to those legislators and legislatures.

      If you can afford to go to those $50,000 plate campaign events, you get more access to the politicians and they listen to you more.

      Our Constitution is designed to make sure only the wealthy elite can influence government. It was designed that way in 1789 and nobody should be surprised that it's only gotten worse.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Lobby = Corruption by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Are you under the dillusion that nothing of value exchanges between a lobbyist and a politician? No favors or future benefits? Bribery is giving something of value for a vote or action.

      You've oversimplified the situation. Yes bribery results in future benefits for the lobbyist and the politician. But good policies also result in future benefits for both lobbyist and the politician. Your litmus test is incapable of distinguishing between bribery and good policy.

      You need to evaluate three parties to determine if there's bribery going on. The lobbyist, politician, and public at large. If the policy being lobbied benefits the public at large, then there is no problem. If it benefits the lobbyist (and those he represents) while disadvantaging the public at large, then the politician has been swayed to abandon his duty to serve the public by a bribe.

      Throw in the fact that sometimes it's as clear as mud which policy will actually benefit the public at large, and you get modern politics. I do believe though that prohibiting all lobbying (i.e. calling all lobbying corruption) is cutting off your nose to spite yourself. If you don't allow dissenting opinions to express themselves politically, then you end up with a static government where only general elections matter, and regular citizens cannot voice their opinions on specific issues. That type of environment breeds cronyism among politicians. In other words, lobbying may suck, but it's the lesser evil of the alternates.

    10. Re:Lobby = Corruption by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      You're presuming that all 725k people in the district want to lobby their critter. We can barely muster 1/2 of eligible voters to vote in a presidential election. The last midterm election had just over 1/3 the people voting. If you consider that it's likely that households would have a similar or common voice, then the numbers get even smaller. Factor in apathy and you can calculate the number of constituents that actually have a need, want to talk to, and eventually follow through with talking to their congress critters at 10 people. Maybe. That might be higher than actual though.

    11. Re:Lobby = Corruption by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      All of us should have the right to lobby our legislators and legislatures.

      ...and we do. Its right there in the First Ammendment:

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

    12. Re:Lobby = Corruption by MooseMiester · · Score: 2

      Donations to PAC's do not have to be reported, thanks to Citizen's United. Which benefited both Democrats and Republicans...

      And in the 2014 Cromnibus spending bill, individual yearly donation limits were raised. Funny you didn't hear a peep from either party about how evil that was. Not much in the news about that either.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    13. Re:Lobby = Corruption by MooseMiester · · Score: 2

      I think it's a very bad law. But it benefits Unions just as much as Corporations, and guess where the Democrats get boatloads of money?

      Unions

      And many of these setups involve situations where people are forced to join, and then the wages are artificially inflated to account for Union dues, and then the Unions are not required to disclose how much of their take goes back to the party. When you consider that just about all the Federal Workforce belongs to the mandated Federal Employees Union, it is a money laundering/theft from the taxpayer scheme of massive proportions and Citizens United allows this to continue. The result is an ever increasing death spiral of massive unfunded liabilities. This is EXACTLY what killed my home town, who's name begins with D. Took 40 years, but they bled the thing dry and guess who got fucked? The little people of course.

      Democrats have just as many dark money PACS as the Republicans do. Democrats pretend they are all indignant over the PAC money, but say nothing about the Union money, and big surprise every time there's some rider/something slipped into some bill that allows more money to flow into the parties, and the PACS, Democrats make a big stink about something ELSE but approve the theft in large numbers. Did you hear a single politician complaining about the increased contribution allowance in the Cromnibus? A single one from either party? Who's lying to you now?

      I am no fan of either party, and am as anti-corruption as they come. But to pretend that one side is less guilty than the other one, I'm sorry my new slashdot friend, it's just naive. One party lies one way, the other party lies a different way, but when it comes to money, they are both insanely greedy, just as much so as the "evil corporations" they claim to be protecting us from, or the "evil bankers" they are in bed with... Dividing people over party lines is exactly what keeps the corrupt money train rolling. If everybody stood up and said ENOUGH then it would stop. The Tea Party people tried, look what happened to them... Not that I'm a Tea Party person...

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  3. Territory protection at its finest by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So much for "free market" and "competition". Screw that old fashioned shit, let's get back to territory protection and arbitrary monopolies to screw over the custom... I mean, to protect the customer and ensure the highest possible quality.

    No, you're not encouraged to try to find out how it should increase quality and create the best product for you when a monopolist can pretty much sell you any crap and you have to buy it, lacking any options.

    Politicians? You expect politicians to do anything against that? For real? They're doing exactly the same and benefit from the same monopolizing, anti-competitive mechanisms in their area, you honestly expect them to do something against what they learned is good for them?

    Face it, we're fucked.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. NADA is very powerful. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    NADA vs Tesla battle is not really about Tesla. It is NADA vs gas car makers.

    I have friends who have worked as IT consultants in Detroit. Their inside story is that NADA is more powerful than the automakers. It is not that the auto makers are saints, but the laws governing data sharing between the dealers and the auto makers is very heavily biased in favor of dealers. Even very minor data gathering projects have to go through several layers of approval from NADA. NADA is very suspicious of the automatkers.

    There is very good reason for the strained relationship. The automakers would dearly love to ditch the dealership model of sales and go for direct sales. The auto makers believe the dealers are acting in bad faith and against the interests of the makers. Many dealerships are actually selling cars from different vendors. Even when the dealerships are nominally different they are owned by same clan or extended family in a market. They demand the automakers to cut deals with them and they are not above promoting one maker to punish another maker. The present set up is so biased in favor of the dealers, if it at all it is possible to ditch them, the auto makers will boot them in no time.

    What NADA is really afraid of is setting a precedent allowing Tesla to sell cars directly breaking their monopoly of access to auto buyers. Americans love cars. Automobile is the second most expensive thing a person buys, after home. (Slowly slipping into third place, behind college tuition). Still car buying is the most unsatisfactory part of car buying. We can thank NADA and its selfish policies for this anomaly. Once Tesla breaks the dike, so NADA believes, all automakers will sue for equal access to the market and the dealerships will be at a huge disadvantage.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:NADA is very powerful. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they'd be punished by dealers for it, and they can't go to pure direct sales all at once, especially not when some states disallow it.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:NADA is very powerful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because even if it's legal, doesn't mean its feasible given the current state of affairs. Here's what would happen:

      1. GM says they are going to sell direct in the few states that allow it
      2. Immediately following that action, dealers in ALL states take action such as pushing other brands they sell more or even stopping sales of GM vehicles to punish GM for this action.
      3. Gm loses a large chunk of its , and goes out of business.

      There's a reason most dealerships "partner" with multiple makers, it's to be able to leverage the makers against each other. The only way breaking the model works is if its made legal everywhere and most makers go for it.

    3. Re:NADA is very powerful. by steveo777 · · Score: 2

      Nice summary! Off topic, but this really reminds me of the way that alcohol industry is set up. Originally people felt like it was a good idea because the manufacturers had way too much power. But in the end the manufacturers are sorta getting screwed, and the public is really getting screwed.

      I try to buy my beer from independent brewers (mmm... growlers...) because the distributors can make or break them, and I'd I'd leave dealerships in the dust if I could, too.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    4. Re:NADA is very powerful. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the clarification. Before that, reading that sentence was the most unsatisfactory part of reading that sentence.

  5. $$$ == Influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's like we're not even trying to hide anymore how bribes work in this country. Saying that the association holds influence, and then backing up that claim with exactly how much they've "donated"... Payola is still illegal, prostitution is still illegal, yet, bribing politicians is considered par for the course. Business as usual. I think it's time we called politicians in America what they are. Whores. And they will turn tricks for the measliest of sums.

  6. Scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All those dealers are pissing in their pants that they won't be able to as easily provide "value" such as $1000 detail/wax jobs, $10/gallon gas, and ridiculously structured "protection plans"

  7. Another State Incentive by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    It might not be just lobbying and and campaign contributions that turn legislators' heads. It could be tax revenue as well. According to this document a lot ff tax revenue is created by car dealerships.

    States earn about 20 percent of all state sales taxes from auto dealers, and auto dealerships easily can account for 7–8 percent of all retail employment. The bulk of these taxes (89 percent) are generated by new car dealerships, those with whom manufacturers deal directly.

    If States allow direct sales there goes the tax revenue. I am not saying it is a good thing just another incentive for States to keep the franchise laws.

    1. Re:Another State Incentive by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      In all cases I know of, they'd still get the tax revenue - you pay sales tax in the state where you first register the vehicle, not where you actually buy it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Another State Incentive by dbitter1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have a Tesla, and I assure you I paid my share of state AND city taxes.

      --
      For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
  8. Regulations is bad! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except when God fearing, free marketing, red states can use them to stifle competition.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  9. There's a reason for the laws by Kagato · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason the laws existed in the first place was because at the dawn of the industry the franchise fees were used for capital by the manufactures. Without the legal protections car makers could simply run the franchisees out of business once they became big enough. To a similar extent when foreign makers moved into the USA the franchise fees helped build the infrastructure.

    Now we have a conundrum where Tesla doesn't see itself needing the dealers and is going on it's own. A large chunk of that is based on most buyers are going to be in big cities. They only need need 1 or 2 showrooms per state for the foreseeable future. They don't see the need to build out the showroom network which would require having franchisees. For Tesla the Franchisee system would certainly add another 3-4K to the cost of each car. They'll never get the model 3 to fit into the expected price range going that route.

    At the same time you can't just get rid of all the dealer protections because Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc would be more than happy to cherry pick the most profitable areas for corporate dealerships. Those dealerships are owed that exclusivity because they invested in the company at the beginning. I personally don't think the dealers give a crap about selling Tesla, but they foresee the big auto makers suing to get rid of franchise laws if Tesla is allowed an exemption.

  10. "the Lobbyist Went Down To Georgia" by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

    The analogy doesn't work. In the song, the Devil accepted when he'd lost.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  11. Re:I actually have sympathy for the dealers by holmstar · · Score: 2

    the kind of competition lacking if the manufacture sets the price and there are no negotiations over that price.

    Really? I would love to be able to shop for a car and know that no matter where I shopped I was getting the exact same price. I absolutely HATE having to negotiate on the price, and the popularity of services like truecar suggest that a huge number of people agree with me.

    I think Tesla will have to sell cars via dealers

    Why? Tesla sees dealers for the unnecessary middle men that they are. They've already shown that they would rather not enter a market than open a franchised dealership. I don't see any reason that this would change.

  12. office space quote! by schlachter · · Score: 3, Funny

    They bring the cars from the engineers to the customers. They have people skills damn it!

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.