How Tesla's Fight With Car Dealers Could Help Decide the Next President
wired.com
wired.com
First, don't underestimate the power of the auto companies along with their associated labour. There are many votes there.
Second, most of the country has no clue who or what Tesla is, and as an "issue" it's the least of their concern. They want jobs, a good economy, sometimes to know whether the president believes in god, and other things. Whether rich people can buy their expensive cars in New Jersey isn't a priority, and that's how this story can be sold.
These laws will fall, eventually, because they're stupid.
>Few capitalists today embody the Ayn Randian entrepreneur-as-hero persona quite as convincingly as Tesla CEO Elon Musk
I don't think John Galt would have taken government subsidies.
Edit: replaced "No it won't" with "Not much", since I'm sure there will be some sort of effect.
The article even backs this up by saying that Rubio and Perry may try to use it against Christie. At the very most it argues that Tesla could help decide who isn't president.
It's the belt way bandit model.
Why not? Ayn Rand did.
Mitt Romney famously called Tesla Motors a “loser” company during
his run for president. He lost, of course, and Tesla is by any
measure winning. And so we see would-be presidential candidates
lining up behind the Silicon Valley carmaker as its fight against
auto dealers becomes a potential breakout issue in the 2016 election.
Note the "I had a friend" and what the other companies mentioned are. The "quote" is like most political quotes, not a literal[1] quote.
1) used in the true definition and not ironically, which probably has a relation to talking about political quotes
[edit: to go even further, it sounds like he was referring to loss of money as losers. Someone might check if Tesla was profitable at the time]
Romney opposed Tesla, but that was because the President supported it. Presidential challengers, regardless of their views, always say that the incumbent President's policies are wrong. They have to give the public a reason to vote for them. You do that by creating contrasts in the public's mind between you and the incumbent.
If Obama hadn't supported Tesla, Romney would have. It's not because Romney is especially corrupt or venal or cynical. It's simply because that's how you try to unseat an incumbent.
When was the last time in a Presidential debate that one guy said "yeah, my opponent is right, and I would do things the same way"?
Most of the foreign policy debate in 2012 between Romney and Obama, except when they were playing pedantics about who said what when.
When was the last time in a Presidential debate that one
guy said "yeah, my opponent is right, and I would do
things the same way"?
No, Romney opposed government subsidies for clean energy companies. He didn't like the government's due diligence and didn't feel it was an appropriate use of tax payer money. He said this in various speeches.
"If Obama hadn't supported Tesla, Romney would have."
Nope, say what you will about the man, but he came by his opinion from his own beliefs.
This remark is stupid regarding how much money the US government spent to protect companies like General Motors. I'm not saying it was a bad thing, just that this remark was too easy.
I called him the front-runner at the time—I ran data for his '09 election re: potential biases—and even now, he's still got a fair chance at securing the nomination. If he can survive (or not compete in) IA and win NH (with no Romney or McCain figure, Christie's NE Republicanism and brash nature might appeal to the Granite State), he'll have the money to power through FL and make a play for locking things up on Super Tuesday.
Christie has no shot of winning Iowa, maybe he can squeak by in New Hampshire, and he will get trounced after that for a bit. He is not liked by the rank and file Republicans.
MartinCron said it best https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7401536 "Yeah, he was always a leading favorite Republican candidate among non-Republicans."
I would like a citation on that. I'm skeptical Christie was an interesting pick to anyone but the people that write headlines.
Both Christie and Romney are deep-blue state governors. Christie wouldn't have turned out the vote in any places Romney couldn't. And he wouldn't lend Romney any conservative credibility either.
> I would like a citation on that
I'm not the guy you replied to, but I remember reading that too. It was in a really long post mortem of the Romney campaign published in one of the mainstream media outlets. I forget where exactly.
However, as a casual follower, I haven't been convinced the problem is that big. Does a franchisee add a large markup? More that Tesla would already assume by opening their own stores? Maybe they want to control the customer experience?
Personally, I'd be happy to be a franchisee and only charge $100 per car sold. Because I believe these cars sell themselves. No negotiations, everyone pays MSRP seems to be the Tesla model and, I like that. I won't need a hoard of sales staff. Tesla can dictate/measure my customer service practices.
I won't carry a big inventory, I'd probably do setups similar to the Tesla shop in the Houston Galleria. Only a few models so people can see and feel the car, do test drives, then the order is placed with the factory. This is the part that is broken with the car industry. Dealers pre-order inventory then try to sell you the stuff they have on the lot. They all have "build your car" tools on the website, but consumers rarely get the opportunity to buy exactly the car they want.
I might not know the full scope of what is required of an auto franchisee. The costs and what-not. But, if Tesla where to give me a market and the rules which to operate. I'd gladly partner with them and provide a high level service at a negligible middle-man fee. I think many other people would too.
So why does this need so much disrupting? I'm starting to think, because there is an opportunity to disrupt is the right answer. This topic is generating a lot of buzz. Politicians are talking about it. Just look at the headline of this post, seriously... Tesla is pushing this to be a presidential candidate talking point? That type of PR would be priceless.
You seem skeptical that dealerships are adding a large markup. Maybe that's true, but then why are the dealer's so adamant that Tesla only be allowed to sell cars through franchise operations? The dealers have nothing to worry about if you're right. It's not as if Tesla is taking away a current franchise. They're simply not franchising in the first place.
I not skeptical and believe dealers do add costs. Significant probably. I don't have the data to know to what degree. I'm just suggesting tesla scrap the current dealers and build their own network with its own set of rules and economics. There may be valid reasons that is a bad idea, but i would be glad to be a part of it
On the micro level, sure most people don't know the Tesla story. On the macro level, people are sick of government entitlement and lobbying. If the Tesla story most simply articulates the fact that companies are lobbying government to stand in the way of progress in the name of their cash cow, I think it definitely has the power to help shape the election.
Anyway this seems to be a battle at the state level I dont really know if the Federal Govt should get involved.
What exactly was the legal reason for the ban in NJ?
A long ago decision that car manufacturers couldn't run their own franchises/dealerships. Tesla's stores in NJ were either provisional ("We'll allow it for now, but we may take it back later") or a goof (some articles suggested one, others suggested the other). By law, they shouldn't have been selling directly in NJ (note: I think it's a dumb law), the controversy is that the deal was supposed to be determined by the legislature. Christie went back on his word and made the decision before the legislature could get around to it. Now, the legislature could still change the law to make the stores legal (at which point they'd be able to sell again, right now they're going to become galleries, showrooms).
That and similar abuses by car makers toward their franchisees led to the first franchise protection laws. Politics wise, it helped that the franchisees were local, but the dealers were not.
-----
I think this is the crucial observation of this article and should be the key take home message. Of course the GOP will claim to champion principles such as innovation, free enterprise, individual choice, etc. but in practice they're ultimately going to pander to their local voter base and its special interest groups.