Ohio Attempting To Stop Tesla From Selling Cars, Again 387
cartechboy writes "Man the automotive dealer associations don't like Tesla. Remember that time the Ohio dealers attempted to block Tesla from selling its electric cars in in the Buckeye State. Now, it's happening again. The car dealers are once again pushing legislation that would keep Tesla from selling cars in Ohio. Senate Bill 260 would prohibit the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles from issuing car-dealer licenses to auto manufacturers. Since Tesla owns and operates its own network of 'dealerships' (aka galleries), this would make it so the automaker couldn't acquire a car-dealer license. Section 11 of the bill lists 'a manufacturer... applying for license to sell or lease new motor vehicles at retail' as one of the types of organization ineligible for a dealership license. On top of all this, the language isn't on the Senate floor as a standalone bill. No, it's inserted as an amendment to Senate Bill 137 which is an unrelated bill requiring Ohio drivers to move to the left while passing roadside maintenance vehicles. Is this yet another slimy tactic to try and undercut the new kid on the block?"
Pretty Much. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Informative)
Ohio has a Republican governor and Republican supermajorities in both chambers of its state legislature. The three sponsors of this are all Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans. Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans. Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.
That's what Republicans claim, but there is very little recent evidence of this.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Informative)
This. The obvious truth is that each party wants the programs they don't like to vanish, and the programs they do like to expand.
Only purist libertarians honestly want the whole government small. Regardless of their rhetoric, the actions of every other party show they want the government to be ginormous, domineering, and bent on shoving their agenda down the world's throat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who's generally socially liberal and maybe slightly left-of-center economically, I also completely agree. The two parties in this country are totally corrupt.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Democrats are less corrupt? Perhaps I have a bias but I don't recall too many Republicans going to jail recently. I do recall quite a few Democrats sitting behind bars right now.
Maybe the Republicans are just better at covering their tracks. If that is true then that just means the Democrats are corrupt, and also stupid.
I'm not someone that is going to come running to defend the GOP. I'm also not going to stand by while someone tries to tell me with a straight face that Democrats are trustworthy. Democrats are notorious for election fraud. I'm just at a loss for words.
Re: (Score:3)
This. The obvious truth is that each party wants the programs they don't like to vanish, and the programs they do like to expand.
Only purist libertarians honestly want the whole government small. Regardless of their rhetoric, the actions of every other party show they want the government to be ginormous, domineering, and bent on shoving their agenda down the world's throat.
The parties don't give a crap about how big the government itself is. They care about power. That means they care about getting their people elected so that they have power. That means they care about their campaign contributions so that the party's people can get elected so that the party has power. That means they care about giving money in the form of government contracts to their compaign contributors so that they party's people can get elected so that the party has power. That also means convolute
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not Free Market vs Bigger Government - it's who's giving us campaign contributions
Re: (Score:2)
So, just to be clear -- in this case and in cases similar to this, we'd like the the Ohio State legislature to act more conservatively than they are currently acting. Excellent. I believe that you'd have agreement from most of the Republican voters across the country.
At least we have a hammer to use against the Republican politicians that are out of step with their constituency (unlike those poor folks that elect Democrat representatives).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ohio rubes and marks need to buy only internal combustion cars I guess. More and more it seems to me as though Republicans (or perhaps it's only their big business sponsors) regard us not as free individuals, but rather as consumers and serfs. They seem to believe that we shouldn't have job flexibility (how awful that because of the ACA we might be free to change jobs, or even quit our jobs), should not control our family size (no birth control for you, they need more consumers and serfs), should not have
Re: (Score:3)
For the most part, the only actions members of congress work hard at taking are those that increase or maintain their own wealth and power (or, indirectly, that of the groups assisting them in this endeavour). Most any other public stance they take is usually theater to distract opposition to these outcomes- If they can keep us occupied, arguing about the theatric details while maintaining the illusion that we actually have a say in what happens, so much the better.
You may find an outlier here or there (us
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:4, Funny)
The GOP has been fractured by a bunch of progressive lefts that pretend to be conservative. (Boehner, etc).
Uh huh. No TRUE Republican does the things Republicans are currently doing. The only possible explanation is Republicans are really progressives. Thanks for clearing that up.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:4, Insightful)
A "blue dog democrat" is a democrat whose constituency is conservative.
A "republican in name only" is a guy who wants to be a republican but is rejected and disowned by the base when they catch a whiff of non-zealotry regarding their party line.
Re: (Score:3)
No, huge difference. Blue dogs are self-declared.
RINOs are labelled by others. And you don't have to be liberal to be a RINO, you only have to disagree with a talk show host.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Insightful)
The GOP has been fractured by a bunch of progressive lefts that pretend to be conservative. (Boehner, etc).
I love how today's Republicans pretend to worship Ronald Reagan, while calling any existing Reagan Republican a RINO.
Reagan raised taxes and the minimum wage when it was good for the economy, allowed fairly easy immigration for illegals already in the country, and happily met with the leaders of enemy states. Today, even talking about any of these things would have Fox News frothing at the mouth.
Obama is to the right of Reagan on a host of issues, and still we get whining from today's Republicans.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans. Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.
The closer you get to the local level, the less each party matches their stereotype. When you get to small towns, you'll have democrats sounding very conservative, if that's the kind of people who live in the town (or vice-versa). Issues that are important at a national level just don't matter at a city level.
What does the town of Riverbank, CA care about the US military budget? But they might have a strong opinion on whether their local car dealership goes out of business.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You can always tell a liar by comparing the actions to the words. Words aside, Republicrats/Democans have always been the party of big centralized government.
FTFY.
There's no notable difference between the two sides of the One Party, rhetoric aside.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Informative)
1) Parties bill themselves as X all the time without really being all about X. It often even gets built into the conventional wisdom, even though it's bullshit. Good examples are Republicans being about fiscal responsibility and Democrats being all about tolerating the viewpoints of others.
2) These types of laws are bought by the dealerships. The independant dealerships are owned by local wealthy entrepeneurs. Local wealthy entrepeneurs are usually the biggest political donors, and they swing Republican, so when they want to place a phone call to their pet legislators, they're calling the Republican whose seat their advertising helped to win.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans are friends of big business. Not of the free market. Over the years the Republican Party has transformed from "conservative" and "liberal" to the Corporate Lobbyists Party. In essence they use the party as a means to pave their way into management level once they retire from politics, happily kissing asses along the way.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:4, Informative)
While true, it's also true of the Democrats. Notice how cozy the Democrats are with the Wall Street financial firms, not to mention the media corporations. The only difference between the parties is which industries they're in the pocket of.
Re: (Score:3)
You are probably right. But it seems to me that the Democrats have been the lesser of two evils for decades now. There seem to be more people of integrity and common sense on the democratic side than on the republican side, be it the politicians themselves or the news commentators vying for them. Also, I can't abide the constant stream of disinformation that right-leaning sources love to spread in their efforts to cause FUD.
It's just greedy middlemen (Score:2)
Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans
The republicans aren't about the free market any more than the dems are despite lip service to the contrary. This is clear evidence of that. We do not need car dealers as middlemen anymore. No, this is simply them pushing the agenda of some monied interests. Same as it ever was. The dems do the same thing, just for different constituents.
Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.
This doesn't expand the government any. It simply is an attempt by some greedy middlemen to limit competition by legislation. Both parties do this. There is no reas
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is even more baffling, I usually associate free market to republicans. Dems are usually supporters of bigger government.
Don't buy the talking points of the parties. Each party has a number of conflicting interest groups within them, and which group is on top varies from region to region. Some conservatives believe in the free market almost religiously, while many others believe in the free market is only a great idea to apply *outside* of their industry. Furthermore, the lower you go down from the national level, the more an individual politician's interests will be tied into which big fish is willing to dribble money into their campaign, and that will more often than not be tied to the local rich guy.
Car dealerships are local businesses that pull in a lot of money and which have long had a history of being big donors to local politics. There are a number of ideological reasons that Republicans would support protection of a local elite at the expense of what the public wants, but let's face it, a Democrat would probably support the same bill if his town had a politically active car dealership in it and just use different rhetoric for it.
The "free market" is a principle, and principles frequently go AWOL when reelection funding is on the line. Or if you want to be even more cynical, you can consider it just the Republican's "branding" rather than beliefs. Something to keep the common voters rooting for the team, while the business of politics continues to be business.
Re: (Score:2)
Big government is just peachy, when your biggest donors can use it to lock out their competition.
And no, this is not only a problem for Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about the party that screams about deficits and the federal debt when they do not control the white house, yet passes measures that raise the deficit when they are in power.
Thinking logically won't help you understand politics. Here are the rough priorities of the GOP party (and Dems for that matter):
- Tell voters whatever it takes to get (re)elected,
- Promote legislation that satisfies their campaign contributors (i.e. big business),
- Do whatever it takes to block the other party from getti
Re: (Score:3)
It's a split.
Broadly speaking, the Republican party is really a coalition of two conservative groups, but two very different, almost diametrically opposed conservative groups.
You have the "fiscal conservatives" who think everybody should be hands off anything economically. This is the "free markets" Republican you tend to think of.
Then you have the "social conservative" who think everyone should be righteous and whatnot. They want not only themselves to be righteous, but you as well. To force you to live by
Re: (Score:3)
Clinton/Gingrich had one projected surplus. They had no actual surpluses.
If you factor the SS trust in, they weren't even close to surplus.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow what a bizarre, moronic comment.
So dealerships are actually money losers, eh? And the people who own them are just so committed to their LOVE of community that they run them anyway.
So having independent dealerships would just save Tesla rafts of money, but they don't want to do it? And so we need laws, to what, protect Tesla from making such a bad decision?
Why don't we let Tesla decide how Tesla wants to s
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:4, Insightful)
Car sales direct to consumer are entirely a localized business all around the US, and for good reason! Car dealers are often active in their communities (mine are) and understand the unique needs of customers within a given region, making them better salesmen. They can reduce costs for both Honda and the consumer by ordering in bulk from the factory, which maximizes efficiency from the plant.
This would be true for large manufacturers of vehicles that have several models, as regional tastes should be considered when dealing with a large inventory and/or model selection. Telsa is a boutique manufacturer. They currently have exactly 1 model that has a handful of options. Most if not all are built to order. There's a rather large gulf between these two situations. While there will be 2 in the near future, and possibly 3 a while after that, they're not going to approach the size and model lineup of any of the major manufacturers anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
The three sponsors of this are all Republicans.
The party of less government and pro-business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The three sponsors of this are all Republicans.
The party of less government and pro-donors.
FTFY. They use big-government regulation to favor of businesses that "play the game" and donate to their campaigns. The rest of them are upstarts that they couldn't care less about.
Less government? Yeah right... (Score:5, Interesting)
The party of less government and pro-business.
Pro-business. Mostly yes. Less government? Not so much. The republican party only wants less government when it suits them and keeps them in power. If the republicans REALLY were for less government they would be pushing to reduce the size of the military, reduce medicare, reduce social security and stay out of morality debates like stem cell research and gay marriage. They can pay lip services to "less government" all they want but their actions are not those of a party which actually wants less government.
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Interesting)
The history of why the car dealership system exists as it does is actually quite interesting. Back in the day, car dealerships were the good guy underdogs, and car manufacturers were pretty much the devil. The "Planet Money" podcast has a great episode on this:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-435-why-buying-a-car-is-so-awful
Basically explains why buying a car in general sucks (consistently ranked as one of the worst consumer experiences), and why there isn't a "new car supermaket" where you can browse & buy cars from multiple manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Funny)
You don't know many new car buyers.
Around here (N Cal) apartment parking lots are full of brand new cars. Buying a new car that costs your entire yearly take home is common.
It's all about status symbols. You can get a fairly reliable old Honda for well under 5K$.
There is no group with a lower aggregate IQ then new car buyers. Not even 'audiophiles'.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have to watch that later. But here's my opinion on the whole "why buying a car is awful". The reason it's awful, is that for most people, a car is the most expensive item (apart from real estate) that they will ever buy, by a huge margin. And, unlike real estate, cars depreciate at an exceptional rate. A car that costs as much as 1/4 of your yearly salary (which might even be low balling it a little, for people buying new), is going to be a huge decision. Plus people depend on their car. They need it to get back and forth to work. No car means they can't go to work, which means they won't get paid. So people are willing to spend large amounts of money to ensure they get something that will be dependable. Also, cars have become a status item. Half the reason most people buy a car, is probably just to show off to their friends which car they have.
None of those things you mentioned make the experience awful, just increasingly strenuous. The reason it's awful is (in a nutshell) face to face sales + lack of selection + lack of loan transparency = confusion from start to finish which leads to opportunity for buyers remorse.
Dealers are (mostly) rip off artists (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason it's awful, is that for most people, a car is the most expensive item (apart from real estate) that they will ever buy, by a huge margin.
The reason it is awful is because lots of dealers have a VERY well deserved reputation for trying to rip people off. If you've ever been through a negotiation to buy or sell a car through a dealer, you probably know that they will use every underhanded tactic in the book to try to get you to pay more than you need to. They try to sell you add ons that you do not need (like undercoating) or are overpriced. They try to take advantage of you and as a result, people resent them.
Buying online gets around all of that (Score:3)
Re:Pretty Much. (Score:5, Informative)
Republican governor, Republican general assembly, not to mention a Republican introduced this amendment.
Don't let facts get in your way.
Now, since I happen to be a voter here, I'll make sure no bozos like these get elected in my district come November.
Re: (Score:2)
Not meaning to sound nasty here, but let me know how that turns out for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, tho... of course it's an underhanded tactic. It's not even new. The big "3" did the same thing when Tucker tried to revolutionize the industry. Automakers don't like change at anyone's pace but their own glacial plodding.
Re:Ask... (Score:4, Informative)
This kind of abusive segregation-of-vendor-and-producer legislation goes back even further, to 1936: General Motors bought laws that prohibited power companies from owning transit services [wikipedia.org], gradually and systematically destroying the streetcar systems in almost every city in the United States. If that hadn't happened, I suspect combustion engine vehicles would not have attained the dominance they enjoyed during the latter half of the 20th century. The impacts this would have on the energy and ecological situations are hard to predict, but I'm willing to bet the world would've been better off by a significant margin.
The moral of this tale: any time anyone involved in the automotive industry wants something legislated, it's probably really, really fucking evil.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Dice doesn't care: they think that /. isn't worth anything to them: http://www.twst.com/update/388... [twst.com]
Meh... (Score:4, Informative)
Ostensibly these laws exist to stop manufacturers and distributes from cutting out the middle-man. If Ford or Honda can sell directly, they can get rid of the dealerships, and then charge whatever they want for a Ford, since there won't be any competition. They are, on the face, anti-monopoly laws. [The oft-mentioned Texas law does the same thing for theaters - preventing Paramount from eventually owning all the theaters and then stopping showing MGM movies to anyone in the Lone Star State.]
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be the problem if Ford or Honda sold directly to the consumer? Are you suggesting that it's anti-competitive to set the price of your own product? In a scenario without dealerships, there would still be competition... not between dealerships, but between manufactures instead. If you could only buy a Ford from Ford, and the only cars on the market were Ford, then there could be a problem, but there is no shortage of auto manufactures to keep the market competitive.
Re:Meh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cutting out the middle man is not a crime, its an achievement.
It kind of depends on how you make your own living.
If you make your living as a middle man, it doesn't seem like an achievement; it looks more like a disaster.
And while I dislike getting pedantic, the _definition_ of crime is based on law, not morals or economics.
If the law says cutting out the middle man is a crime, then it is.
Note that I am not arguing pro or con, merely perception vs social reality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still an achievement. If you look at it objectively the middle man only exists to expedite sales of cars from the manufacturer to the end user. If it's now more efficent to get the product to the end user directly than working through a proxy, you've cut out a step. In the era before instantanious cheap/free communication the middle man was an important center of local product knowledge, now we have wikis and fedex. I can troubleshoot and order an alternator for a rare car on the internet and install i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Meh... (Score:2)
I don't see how that can be remotely so?
Does ford not already run its own dealerships in ohio?
If not why not?
Re: (Score:3)
In the early days dealerships made sense. It made it so that manufacturers didn't have to hold onto inventory and deal with all the individual financing or service.
In the case of Tesla dealerships would be a big problem.
To give you an example, back in 2006 I decided to get a Prius. I researched and decided what options I wanted, what color, etc. The problem was that for many months the only cars I could get were white or sometimes black. I didn't want white or black and I wanted a certain set of options. I
Re: (Score:2)
It does happen.
Here's what happens to vehicles as they leave an assembly plant.
1. Vehicle goes on a rail car.
2. Rail car gets transported to the depot nearest a dealership that can handle offloading.
3. Vehicle gets places on a car carrier.
4. Car carrier transports vehicle to dealership.
5. Vehicle is sold to customer.
There's a huge cost savings that can be injected between step 1 and 2 with upfitting a vehicle with after-production upgrades. Most of the auto-makers engage in a program called ship-thru. Vehic
Protecting businesses again? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the first time politics try to protect businesses, but it's hardly been THIS blatant before.
Free market is a thing of the past. Today you don't buy and sell goods and compete with your competitor with quality and price, you buy and sell laws and compete in who can bribe more politicians.
It's a bit like papal elections in medieval times.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the first time politics try to protect businesses, but it's hardly been THIS blatant before.
Just after the civil war the big traincompanies lobbies the US federal goverment and recieved shit tons of money to build a transcontinental rail road. The companies convinced the enough people that it was in the best interest of the country to connect it together.
What you'll see, if you look closer is a set of laws passed to ensure the train companies made money, mostly at the expense of tax payers. They manipulated stock prices. They used the power of where the railroad would go exactly to extract favo
Re: (Score:2)
When a group of business men/women lobby the government for special rules on behalf of their own private interests, and those of their companies (or bribe/buy special rules) - I suppose that's a kind of "politics protecting business." I never understand who exactly is supposed to protect "the free market" from this kind of behavior in this quirky American libertarian dream world that IT specialists seem so fond of.
After a "free market' has run it's course to it's predictable - and predicted - consolidated e
Re: (Score:2)
An ideal free market is much like the ideal anarchy. In theory, a great concept. In practice, both fail because man is greedy.
Communism failed because man is also lazy, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that markets degrade fairly gracefully.
There is no such thing as an ideal free market with perfect information for everyone. But real world markets still work well. Real world anarchy, not at all. Real world Communism, not at all.
Re: (Score:3)
No, a free market tends towards monopolies - it's the ultimate end game.
What you're describing as competition and such is just an idealized situation. It's how free markets SHOULD work. You know, like how communism SHOULD work. But like communism, there are unintended consequences, and the free market producing mon
Re: (Score:2)
Because in a democracy (or republic, for you nitpickers) the idea isn't that might makes right but to find a balance between satisfying the majority and protecting the minority.
Satisfying a rich/influential/aristocratic/entitled minority on the expense of a majority is as far from the ideals of a representation of the people as possible.
Once again ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, companies try to prevent competition through legislation ... and apparently some lawmakers aren't above giving it to them.
This is just buggy whip makers trying to ensure they still get their cut.
Free market my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the rest of us, those with non-market driven interests (life, liberty, happiness, etc.), may have to actually get involved in government! If all politicians are getting is lobbied from private interest A and private interest B, well, they have a decision to make - A or B!
They'll need an option C.
Not just targetting Tesla (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly: for anyone turning around and telling us that we need dealers: let them show what value they can add to the marketplace. If they're giving people something, then they'll continue to survive and turn a profit. If they are indeed just middlemen that we no longer need, then we should not be subsidizing them, and we should force them into more productive lines of work.
Re: (Score:3)
Some dealers have value added service but that's mostly restricted to trucks and vans.
They also, to an extent, greatly simplify the logistics of warranty issues for the manufacturers.
Re: (Score:3)
Q: Do car dealerships add value?
A: I have to go ask my manager.
Missed Opprutunity (Score:5, Insightful)
But the fact that the sponsor and co sponsors of the bill are all (R)s contradicts that long held (R) stance. What gives? And why aren't there any reporters pointing out this contradiction?
Re: (Score:3)
Because no one with a brain believes the propaganda ^w premise that underlies the apparent contradiction. Anyone the press might report to who would believe such a report already knows. Anyone the press might report to which doesn't already know wouldn't believe.
In other words, it's not news.
More importantly, it wouldn't push up circulation/sales/page views/ad impressions/other all-important sales metrics.
In my country the solution would be simple... (Score:3)
Wouldn't that work in the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
The Ohio law bans subsidiaries and affiliate companies. It's in the linked document.
Re: (Score:2)
The owners of Tesla Motors would also be the owners of ANOTHER company that controls the network of dealerships.
Wouldn't that work in the USA?
You would think it would. It does in other industries. [wikipedia.org]
But not when lobbyists induce politicians to protect their clients' business models with legislation.
Why is the Republican's concept of a "free market" (Score:2)
different then their implementation?
Cat and mouse (Score:2)
The simple solution for Tesla is to outsource their galleries to some degree. I believe Tesla did that in some states and the Ohio law bans "affiliated entities" as well, but this really will become a "cat and mouse" game.
Regular dealerships are "affiliated" with the manufacturer at some level, so it sounds like Tesla will have to find that balance as well.
This is why (Score:2)
riders need to be done away with.
There abuse far out weighs any advantages.
Tesla will not cave on this (Score:3)
It is not a coincidence that Tesla has no dealerships. It likely never will.
This strong-arming is a perfect example for the reason. Dealerships wield in an inordinate amount of political power in their regions. The result hash been that once a manufacturer grants a dealership license to a dealership in a certain area, it is perpetual, geographically exclusive and irrevocable by the manufacturer. Unheard of conditions in practically any other business.
Tesla will sooner open its own dealerships across Ohio's state lines. The lost sales taxes will eventually prove irresistible to the coin operated legislature.
On behalf of an Ohio resident... (Score:2)
...my apologies for the stupidity and protectionism being displayed by the auto dealers in my state. Ohio has enough problem without something this stupid.
Can't They End Run? (Score:2)
So, from what I can tell, the main problem with this Ohio law (aside the fact it's an obvious, blatantly stupid attempt to stop one particular company from selling in the state) is that they want to prevent auto manufacturers from owning dealerships, right?
So, then, why doesn't Tesla just franchise out the dealerships in Ohio?
NADA (Score:2)
"Man the automotive dealer associations don't like Tesla.
They have a name: NADA [nada.com]. Hate them, they are evil.
Text book case of rent-seeking (Score:2)
Rent-seeking [wikipedia.org]
Still arguing Republican-vs-Democrat? (Score:3)
Re: It's disgusting how much control... (Score:2)
How is this a Republican thing? The car dealer regulations are a national thing that has been around for years which is the entire reason car dealerships exist. Everybody else has played by those rules for years even though the rules themselves are fairly stupid. Companies like GM have unions on one end and car dealerships on the other end completely milking them dry.
Like it or not this is a huge issue nationwide and Tesla is looking for special treatment. It's not big bad republicans getting in the way of
ignorance of the law is no excuse (Score:2)
Like it or not this is a huge issue nationwide and Tesla is looking for special treatment. It's not big bad republicans getting in the way of progress here. Tesla is crying because they don't want to play by the same rules everybody else has to and trying to pretend they are innovative because of it.
So this is like the Uber thing, where outsiders come in to innovate, and are willfully clueless about how things currently work, and why.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a Republican thing?
Perhaps because the Senator who proposed the amendment to Senate Bill 137 is a republican? Or that the two cosponsors are also republicans? (Senators Patton, Balderson and Hite)
I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your overall statement but a quick check on the linked article and the bill [state.oh.us] itself makes it obvious that the republicans are the ones going to bat for the existing dealerships.
in this case it seems that free market = freedom to collect campaign funding from the market.
Re: (Score:2)
A half trillion dollar loan (trillion with a T) is not just a thumb on the scale weighing free market equality. The scales were artificially tipped in favor of Tesla before they tried to sell the first v
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's disgusting how much control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I am very much against this protection of dealerships. But it has nothing to do with Tesla, or political parties. You'll find plenty of protectionism in both parties. It stifles competition. While there may be a few legitimate consumer protection concerns involving unscrupulous car sellers, it doesn't really measure up, and there other ways to afford those protections if they think they are needed.
But anyone who jumps on the "republicans want to ban Tesla" wagon isn't really thinking very much about what really is at the core.
Re:It's disgusting how much control... (Score:4, Informative)
The guys pushing this [slashdot.org] have R's next to their names.
Re:It's disgusting how much control... (Score:5, Informative)
No, they're Republicans in name too.
They don't have D's next to their name.
Re: (Score:3)
I most certainly will not stop trying to build the best damned monkeys this world has ever seen.
They will be able to fling poo with great accuracy across vast distances.
People won't know I've released the monkeys until they get monkey poo in the face and have NO idea of where it came from.
And when not flinging poo from afar, they will entertain me by choreographing monkey dance numbers.
I shall never give up my quest for a better monkey.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what repairs have to do with showrooms. Having the manufacturer own the dealership has nothing to do with where I take my car to get it repaired.
Re:This is a legitimate complaint (Score:4, Informative)
But, uh, there is?
There's lots of non-dealership places that I can go to fix my car, and those would exist no matter who owned the dealership I bought my car at (and might be more prevalent, even, if more car selling was direct from manufacturer).
Similarly, there's already manufacturer original parts and parts made by other companies. This has even less to do with who owns the dealership. It's not like the independent dealerships are making all the parts they use.
Re: (Score:2)
The markets size and modern shipping has eliminated the original problem.
These days stealerships are a problem.
Tesla will fix a Gordian knot left in the laws because of conditions that no longer exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Corepirate is actually kinda cool. I think I'll find a place to use that one.
Re: (Score:2)
well, not every one:
“Tesla’s embrace of a direct, open competition sales approach is exactly what we say we want from old style, traditional industries to survive—innovation, creativity and an entrepreneurial spirit. The ridiculous notion that the political process in the Legislature should intervene in the marketplace of ideas in the automobile industry to prevent Tesla from direct sales is patronizing at best, and many of us are committed to defeating this special interest legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
A rear wheel drive sports car is a fun toy. A Tesla is a status symbol.
You don't buy status symbols to leave them in the garage.
Re: (Score:3)
Automakers should sell their own products. Then you don't have a middleman who try to pass the blame to the auto maker and an auto maker who will try to pass the blame to the dealer.
If the manufacture misleads the dealer about their cars, there's nothing the customer can do about it but complain to the dealer.