Tesla vs. Car Dealers: the Lobbyist Went Down To Georgia 190
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.
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.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:5, Informative)
An industry is using government regulation to stifle competition? Holy cow NO!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There's a reason for the laws (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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.
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (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.
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (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.
Re: (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 / sunro
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the solution is to set a sales limit. If they sell more than X amount of cars then they must go to a dealer system. It makes no sense for someone selling a handful of cars to have to work the same system as companies moving hundreds of thousands of units.
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:5, 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.
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
shocks, springs
Don't these generally last like a decade if you use quality parts?
Due to regenerative braking, brake pads that have been engineered to last years on a conventional vehicle are pretty much lifetime on a strong electric.
Otherwise I have to ask: There are plenty of independent repair shops out there. Why should I go to a dealer for that stuff when any independent repair place can do the work(or I can even do it myself)? Why combine sales and maintenance?
Re: I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they'd still be trying to sell you undercoating with your new Tesla. In Georgia.
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional dealerships make their living on repairs/maintenance and electric cars just don't require that much of either.
Don't worry, I have faith that GM will come up with a solution to that problem shortly. It's what they do.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect this all boils down to the usual thing - money. Tesla has all the ca
Re: (Score:3)
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 o
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:4, 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?
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:5, Insightful)
As an American, I have no fucking clue other than they don't like competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:5, Insightful)
You fail at reading comprehension. In this case, it is the car dealers who are trying to introduce new regulations that would disadvantage Tesla.
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (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.
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:4, Informative)
many of these rules exist because of scummy tactics by the automakers long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I just went though this shopping online for some higher end hiking and camping equipment. Brands like North Face, REI, Cabelas, etc all have their own brands and it's very difficult to find anything priced differently than the manufacturer sets them out.
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.
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:5, 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.
office space quote! (Score:4, Funny)
They bring the cars from the engineers to the customers. They have people skills damn it!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet there are as many producers of cold weather clothing as there are manufacturers of automobiles.
There are few manufacturers of automobiles for a different reason.
Re:I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
And you'll see a lot of second sites very near the first.
Almost anywhere you live, you likely live within a hundred miles of an "auto mile", where you have 7 or 8 dealerships strung right next to each other. Almost always they're owned by just a couple families, rather than all single person shops.
Dealers are scum. Never liked buying a car from one, and hope to never again buy a car from one.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
What's stopping the company from setting the price and acting in indirect collusion with other companies when selling to or through a dealership? How would removing dealerships result in anything except some combination of lower prices for the consumer and higher profits for the auto industry?
And of course, the consumer could simply buy a used car direct
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't go muddying the issue with pesky facts. Stick to the rants, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 ho
Re: (Score:3)
Or, what's wrong with campaign financing in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: I'm shocked, SHOCKED! (Score:2)
One point that is missed. The dealers are not actually worried about Tesla. They are worried every other manufacturer will switch models and put them out of business.
Lobby = Corruption (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lobby = Corruption (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!
Re:Lobby = Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
How can one compete ...
A single person can not compete but groups can and do. Groups like ACLU [influenceexplorer.com] and AFL-CIO [influenceexplorer.com] lobby and contribute to campaign on behalf of there members all the time. Tesla [opensecrets.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The only way?
It's not the "lobbying" that is the problem. It's the money. Certain lobbyists are the ones that get the appointments to have lunch with the senator because they can drive campaign donations and promises of lucrative jobs after politics.
You know who doesn't promise politicians lucrative jobs after they leave government? The ACLU.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think the $4,734,809 [influenceexplorer.com] spent on lobbying and the $32,811,424 in campaign contributions by the ACLU has influence?
You know who doesn't promise politicians lucrative jobs after they leave government? The ACLU.
Citation needed or it is just conjecture. By the way, the ACLU can and does "drive campaign donations".
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does. That $4,734,809 was over 25 years. Comes to less than $200,000/yr, which considering it probably pays for two full-time lobbyists sitting in the waiting room of a legislator doesn't leave much left over for trips to Hawaii with hookers, does it? But that wasn't my point.
Re:Lobby = Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Each congresscritter has about 725,000 (3.16M / 435) people living in their district. If everyone decides to directly lobby their congresscritter -- and the only thing the congresscritter does 24 hours a day is listen to constituents -- then each person gets less than 44 seconds a year to talk to their congresscritter.
The system needs to group voices together otherwise it would never work.
Re: (Score:3)
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 c
Re: (Score:3)
All of us should have the right to lobby our legislators and legislatures.
...and we do. Its right there in the First Ammendment [wikipedia.org]:
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.
Re:Lobby = Corruption (Score:5, 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.
Re:Lobby = Corruption (Score:5, 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.
Re:Lobby = Corruption (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're not suggesting that just because a politician goes on to a wealthy consultancy with a large corporation after he leaves office that it has anything to do with the fact that he pushed legislation that was favorable to that corporation after playing golf with that corporation's lobbyist. In Hawaii. With topless
Re: (Score:3)
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 det
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
A convincing argument as in "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbying and campaign contributions are done by every large group. Take at look at the ACLU [influenceexplorer.com] or AFL-CIO [influenceexplorer.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to take a chill pill.
make offtopic rants
My post is in response to the "Lobbying, is corruption clear and simple" statement and therefore on topic.
about the groups they hate just to score mod points.
Where does it say that I hate those groups? I just picked two groups that are not industry based.
Way to get your irrelevant political points in.
The point, that you seemed to have missed, is that when any representative of any group talks to a politician it is defined as "lobbying". When Tesla talks to a politician it is called lobbying and every group talks to politicians therefore every group lobbies. The issue is
Re:Lobby = Corruption (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Territory protection at its finest (Score:5, 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.
NADA is very powerful. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Still car buying is the most unsatisfactory part of car buying.
Sorry for the dumb editing. I mean car ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why did GM not do this in its recent bankruptcy in every state that allows direct sales?
Re:NADA is very powerful. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would bet that the laws that split manufacturers, distributors and resellers had more than a little of its origins in Prohibition morality politics versus some market control designed to prevent monopoly abuse. Although I'm sure now it's kept in place more for its ability to protect market niches than for any specific lingering notions of alcohol control.
Re: (Score:2)
My knowledge of this comes mostly from Wikipedia and a movie I saw called Beer Wars. I took an interest some years ago when Surly Brewing [startribune.com] had a long battle with the three tier system in MN. Mostly I just wanted to be able to buy a pint locally.
I've been trying to pay attention to the Tesla vs Dealership battle for a while. Mostly with the hopes that some day I could afford to comfortably pay $90k for a vehicle some day. Though I'd be more than happy to get the Model 3 when it becomes available. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right there. The amendment establishing prohibition was obviously flawed. The one repealing it was almost worse. It enshrined in the Constitution the ability of states to come up with whatever bullshit laws they want to concerning alcohol.
That ability was already present in the 10th amendment.
$$$ == Influence (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.
Scum (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"
Re: (Score:2)
Will Tesla be able to provide at least one or two service centers in every city/town big or small, in the entire US? That sounds hard to accomplish and people often service their cars at their dealership.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see them having roaming technicians for minor issues. With a car that's basically a computer the diagnostic codes should be able to tell them what the problem is before they even arrive to service it. So unless it's something severe it seems like on-site maintenance at your work or home would be possible. (For severe issues they could pick up your car on a flatbed and drop off a working model, either temporarily or permanently like they planned to do with battery swaps)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds hard to accomplish and people often service their cars at their dealership.
What service? Have you ever looked at the recommended service schedule for an electric vehicle? It's basically tires and brakes, which clueful people don't have serviced at a dealership.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I did not read the schedule before I wrote that post. But $600 for changing brake pads and windshield wipers seems a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
And why should the consumer care whether Tesla sells cars directly or through a dealer? Is Tesla offering a significant discount in direct sales compared to dealer price? For all we know, it could pull an amazon and sell the car at the same price as dealership price and pocket the increased profit from lowered costs, in which case consumers should not care since it's Tesla's problem.
Cross State Lines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to get a desk where the seller is in State A and the buyer is in State B. Therefore, the state the dealer is in gets to regulate sales.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to get a desk where the seller is in State A and the buyer is in State B. Therefore, the state the dealer is in gets to regulate sales.
Regulation is always bad.
Except when it isn't.
I know this is snarky, but for people who preach to us about the value of the free market, such as it is,and rail about the liberals and their socialiism, but to ban sales of something in your state isn't just socialism, it's showing a creamy core of hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only socialist when it helps the common man. If it helps the rich or other aristocratic type, then it is not socialist and therefore good.
Another State Incentive (Score:3)
It might not be just lobbying and and campaign contributions that turn legislators' heads. It could be tax revenue as well. According to this [yale.edu] 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.
Re:Another State Incentive (Score:5, 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.
Re:Another State Incentive (Score:4, Informative)
I have a Tesla, and I assure you I paid my share of state AND city taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
To which state?
Re: (Score:2)
To which state?
You always pay auto sales taxes and property taxes in your state of residence, not the state you purchased the vehicle. I've bought several vehicles from out-of-state dealers.
Y'all Jess Gota Understand ..... (Score:2)
Regulations is bad! (Score:3, Insightful)
Whipping my startup really hard (Score:2)
I was in a restaurant a few months ago with a friend and at a nearby table there were a group of guys who all fit some st
Fledgling California electric car company? (Score:2)
(Fledgling)
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
I actually have sympathy for the dealers (Score:2)
The problem for car dealers are they are one of the the slimiest and contemptible professions around. Buying a car is an ordeal thanks to the upselling, misleading prices, nickel and diming, fine print and sales pressure that goes with it. Car salesmen are on a commission and quotas and they will
Re: (Score:3)
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.
"the Lobbyist Went Down To Georgia" (Score:3)
The analogy doesn't work. In the song, the Devil accepted when he'd lost.