Tesla messes with Texas over how to sell its electric cars
gigaom.com
gigaom.com
It's yet another example of where government is used to protect special interests.
Hmm, jewish-friendly blue law? I understand (and disagree with) "closed on sunday" laws, but how did that sort of law come into being?
Let's say I run a liquor store. I get together and collude with all my liquor store running buddies and pass a law that says liquor stores can't be open after 5pm.
Ta-da, we all get to go home at 5pm. We don't lose any sales to people open after 5pm, because no one is allowed to do that.
And if someone wants alcohol after 5pm, fuck 'em.
Used to be you couldn't sell cars at all on Sunday, but they added this "either or" clause a few years ago for some reason. Dealers claim having to be open 7 days a week would drive up costs...go figure.
http://www.texastribune.org/2011/03/11/why-cant-i-buy-a-car-...
From yesterday's experience, I'd be surprised if Tesla didn't get its way.
Either way, I hope this works. I would seriously love to see some Teslas on the road here.
the new bill is pretty narrowly specific for a company like Tesla. [The bill] permits U.S.-based companies that make 100 percent electric cars (so no hybrids) to sell directly to customers.
1) I am still waiting for the equivalent of a "gas tax" on energy used by electric cars to pay for the roads
I hope you're right, but actions are what counts.
As to the rest, I am seriously sick of people using the law as their own weapon against others. A tax break here, a special rule there, and we as voters and consumers lose because there are more law on the books than we need.
These laws originally made sense for car manufacturers that first completely delegated selling and service to dealerships and then tried to undercut them with factory discounts and other things.
The problem here is that Tesla never had any dealerships and does not intent to start any either. So none of these laws should apply to them.
> Every other car manufacturer with no dealerships.
The proposed law doesn't say anything like that.
But you obviously lack any insight into the topic at hand and are just feeding off your "more exceptions!11" reflex. That does not a good discussion make.
I didn't find it that obvious of an extension. If there is a "little sparkle of sense and justification in dealership laws" then the same argument should apply to Tesla and the only justification you give is that they don't currently have dealerships.
For reference, the Confederate Air Force (now Commemorative Air Force) is the "Official Air Force of Texas". Perhaps Elon just need to sell a Dixie Flag commemorative model to get to be Official Car Maker of Texas and he can get in.
Also, the use of the term 'Confederate' in the CAF originally had nothing at all to do with the U.S. Civil War, and later became a kind of running joke the members ran with.
I only spent about 30 years in Texas, so maybe I didn't absorb the culture as much as you. I can assure you I know many people that attended a Robert E. Lee High School in San Antonio (established 1958) and have seen plenty of Dixie flags. Not as common as the Texas flag, sure, but still not that uncommon, especially in rural parts. Another Old South reference in High School was Tascosa, http://thsamaisd.sharpschool.com/news/school_history. I'm certain there are plenty more, it's a big state, those are just two off the top of my head I have personal knowledge of.
They should never have voted something with Confederate in the name as anything state 'Official', but there are still plenty of people there that don't get it.
I've lived here about 25 years combined and spent 5 years in other states (including South Carolina and New York), some city, some rural, and my experience is that the rebel flag is not that common as compared to other places (I even saw several in rural areas of upstate New York). Different experiences, I suppose.
Not saying that's a good reason, just pointing out there's a lot of money and interest in keeping the status quo, as there always is.
From what I have heard, many of these franchise laws date back to the Great Depression, when manufacturers were forcing dealers to buy cars that the dealers could not then sell.
(There was a recent NPR Planet Money episode on exactly this issue, but I can't find a complete link. http://www.wbur.org/npr/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-cha...)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-...
The NPR page also references this paper which goes into a lot more detail, but if you can't listen to the podcast it's a good reference.
http://faculty.som.yale.edu/FionaScottMorton/documents/State...
TLDR: Automakers and their dealerships have lobbied to get laws into place over the last century to ensure that those laws favor car dealers and their preferred way of operating. It will be extremely hard to change the status quo.
I think the reason has to be purely political: it stands to reason that state politicians would benefit more by protecting a local franchise vs. a national car company (even though it is ultimately detrimental to their constituency).
Same thing with Uber and the special taxi law, or the city sponsored DSL monopolies that seems to be the norm in the US.
The state-affiliated monopolies are a different situation. They exist because state and local governments wanted something for nothing. They wanted taxi services to serve poor people and far-flung parts of cities, and they wanted telecom services to do the same. In a free market, all these service providers wouldn't do that--they'd focus their efforts only on the most profitable areas. So the governments reached a bargain: the companies agree to serve everybody, and in return they get a monopoly. That's why Uber isn't allowed to "compete" with the local taxi companies--those taxi companies get a monopoly in exchange for their willingness to venture into the Bronx.
Take a look at airfare. It's dramatically more expensive to fly from Richmond, VA to Eugene, OR than from New York, NY to San Francisco, CA, even though both trips are roughly the same distance. But cab fares are uniform (per mile) throughout a government's service area, as are utility rates usually. How does this happen?
The car dealerships should technically oppose it, because what this creates is a hole in their monopoly. It's not a big hole, but its enought to drive a car right through :)
Also, the proposal also creates another monopoly for Tesla. Until there is another fully electric car maker, Tesla is the only dealership is town. If Tesla can generate enough sales. Who can take them on in Texus without offering a fully electric car? If Tesla can't generate sales, then who cares about electric cars.
Yes. Tesla would have to license to other dealers which is what it doesn't want to do.