N. Carolina May Ban Tesla Sales To Prevent "Unfair Competition" 555
nametaken writes with this excerpt from Slate: "From the state that brought you the nation's first ban on climate science comes another legislative gem: a bill that would prohibit automakers from selling their cars in the state. The proposal, which the Raleigh News & Observer reports was unanimously approved by the state's Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, would apply to all car manufacturers, but the intended target is clear. It's aimed at Tesla, the only U.S. automaker whose business model relies on selling cars directly to consumers, rather than through a network of third-party dealerships. ... [The article adds] it's easy to understand why some car dealers might feel a little threatened: Tesla's Model S outsold the Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8 last quarter without any help from them. If its business model were to catch on, consumers might find that they don't need the middle-men as much as they thought."
State laws imposing restrictions on manufacturers in favor of dealers aren't new, though; For more on ways that franchise operations have "used state regulations to protect their profits" long before Tesla was in the picture, check out this 2009 interview with Duke University's Michael Munger.
Re:No middle man (Score:5, Interesting)
yep, the middle mans job is to offer a service that the manufacture can't or doesn't want to do. Usually due to cost.
If that cost goes away, so do middlemen.
From what I have read, manufacture owned dealers in the past were always better for consumers then private owned dealerships.
This is akin to not allowing digital books because they hurt book stores.
Why cant Tesla create a dealership? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cherry-picking (Score:5, Interesting)
So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?
When you outsell the 5-series, the E-class, and the Audi A6, then you'll have something to talk about, as all three manufacturers sell an order of magnitude more of those.
Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand the dealership model anyway - when you're the only Toyota dealer in a fifty mile radius and Toyota is having a banner year, you're all set. But if Toyota dealerships open all around you, then what? Or say you're a Saturn dealership, and then General Motors closes the brand. Or you're a Lincoln dealership, and Lincoln demands that you pay for a multi-million dollar remodel of your showrooms at your own expense. Or you're a Nissan dealership, and they release a run of shoddy products nobody wants to buy (for the sake of argument - I have nothing against Nissan). I guess it makes sense if you're already wealthy - open franchises for six different brands at once, and unless the economy tanks any losses in one place might be offset by gains elsewhere. But for someone launching an individual franchise? You are at the mercy of the manufacturer, choose carefully.
Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom (Score:5, Interesting)
A compromise system might be the best solution. When you contribute funds to a campaign, half of your contribution goes into the fund which is evenly distributed between all candidates with enough petition signatures or whatever to get on the ballot. Getting on the ballot is gamed as it is, but I'm not sure on what other basis you can reasonably and meaningfully disburse funds.
Why Buying A Car Is So Awful (Score:5, Interesting)
"Episode 435: Why Buying A Car Is So Awful"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-435-why-buying-a-car-is-so-awful [npr.org]
Re:Why cant Tesla create a dealership? (Score:5, Interesting)
It can be owned by Elon himself.
Leadership should be about ideas not bankrolls (Score:5, Interesting)
why? why should I not be allowed to support the candidate I believe in? why should my money be pooled and given to politicians I dont agree with??
For the same reason your money shouldn't go (solely) to a candidate *I* agree with. Because the debate should be about ideas and leadership, not who has the biggest bankroll. It is well established that special interest funding causes politicians to listen disproportionately to certain parties. If you fund a specific candidate then he is (potentially) obligated to you but he has to govern everyone. Why should he listen to your needs more than any other constituent just because you happened to fund the winning candidate?
Money gives people a disproportionate voice in the political system. I think the Supreme Court erred greatly when it said that money = speech. One should not prohibit people from spending money on political activities but one should not give someone a bigger voice simply because they have access to more money either. While I don't think you can take money completely out of the equation, we don't have to let it dominate the conversation the way we have either. Our congressional representatives spend virtually all their time fundraising instead of thinking about how to make this country a better place. As soon as they win one election they start fundraising for the next. That cannot possibly be good for the country as a whole.
Re:And we don't need the man in the middle indeed. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand the dealership model anyway
It's basically a legalized pyramid scheme, that was created in the hopes of ensuring that the local municipality has some "good" jobs. Episode 435: Why Buying A Car Is So Awful [npr.org] is a very informative listen.
Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps, but my freedom to spend my money as i see fit, on the candidate or candidates of my choosing, is protected under the 1st Amendment.
True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.
Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom (Score:4, Interesting)
Why don't manufacturers just set up their own storefronts, with a few models to try, and let you just do build to order. Seems like this model would save them money on inventory, etc...?
I understand the dealership model in years gone by...but with todays tech and internet savvy mkt, why haven't they abandoned this in favor of a more streamlined, direct to consumer marketing/sales strategy?
Re:The best part of the article is at the bottom (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't have to alter the First Amendment. What you need to do is fix Corporate Law that explicitly identifies them as not being people. Then, you should grant corporations every right they have, rather than implicitly giving them every right that actual people have.
Entities whose existence is purely a result of government actions should not be able to pervert the course and actions of said same government. Otherwise you end up with the disaster we have now.