GOP goes anti-capitalism, tries to block Tesla Motors from selling in N. Carolina

[Oldgamer]

The article might have been more interesting to read if the author wasn't one of the more heavily slanted writer's out there.

What happens if you buy your Tesla and it needs warranty work done on it? Ship the car from North Carolina all the way back to California?

It is quite interesting how the progressives now are the ones against protecting local middle-class jobs in favor of higher profits to corporations. I could pretty much guarantee if car dealerships were unionized the Democrats would be introducing bills to ban Tesla's direct sales while Republicans try to prevent that in the name of free markets.

Tesla was trying, still is, to set up their own dealerships. They were shot down in Texas. They lose money, and so do their consumers going through a third party to sell them. Its just nonsense that this is happening. They have a fantastic product, and the dealership lobbies want their cut, and the oil companies and regular car manufacturers do not want them to be successful. If they are it means people will buy these type vehicles and save money on the gas it takes to drive a standard vehicle. Then less gas powered cars get sold, less gas is consumed....so on..

 

[ivwshane]

Manufacturers want to do lots of things that the government doesn't allow.

Welcome to big government.

Cry more.

Oh I didn't know you were a big government supporter! Good to know! I'll be using this post soon I'm sure

 

[Fern]

Tesla was trying, still is, to set up their own dealerships. They were shot down in Texas. They lose money, and so do their consumers going through a third party to sell them. Its just nonsense that this is happening. They have a fantastic product, and the dealership lobbies want their cut, and the oil companies and regular car manufacturers do not want them to be successful. If they are it means people will buy these type vehicles and save money on the gas it takes to drive a standard vehicle. Then less gas powered cars get sold, less gas is consumed....so on..

That strikes me as stupid. No need to build your own dealership from scratch.

Many dealerships around here represent multiple auto manufacturers who are unrelated. E.g., we've got one dealership in my small town that represents Nissan, Volvo, Subaru and Hyundai.

Tesla just needs to hook up with existing dealerships.

IMO, Tesla's just trying get away on the cheap. don't wanna split up any profit with a dealership.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

That strikes me as stupid. No need to build your own dealership from scratch.

Many dealerships around here represent multiple auto manufacturers who are unrelated. E.g., we've got one dealership in my small town that represents Nissan, Volvo, Subaru and Hyundai.

Tesla just needs to hook up with existing dealerships.

IMO, Tesla's just trying get away on the cheap. don't wanna split up any profit with a dealership.

Fern

Fern

Split the profit, pay North Carolina taxes on the profit, and pay expenses.

I would say this is the real reason for the bill rather than consumer concerns, but the bill's author makes it pretty clear that the real reason for the bill is to protect the Automobile Dealers Association.

 

[Fern]

Are you high? Tesla is trying to open a dealership in the state, they aren't saying they won't pay the same taxes everyone else does. They just don't want Bubba Joe to own the dealership.

I haven't seen anything where Tesla wants to set up dealerships here. That would be hella expensive and I don't see that they have the money for that.

Now the Big 3 do. You let Tesla own their own dealerships (assuming that's what they want to do) and you have to let the others do it. You can kiss good bye to a shizz load of small businesses (dealerships) if that happens.

I find it beyond belief that anyone would see that as nothing more than government picking winners and losers through regulation. Something I would imagine most people on the right side of the political sprectrum of which I believe you are one would have an almost visceral reaction to. Except in this case for some odd reason.

Dealers have kind of brought this on themselves if they didn't have a public reputation somewhere between the IRS and lawyers. Regulations that protect certain industries (dealerships are an industry) from disruptive competition are wrong period. I as a crazy liberal say that.

They're not picking "winners and losers". They're regulating how you do it. The govt just wants them to use the traditional model of developed dealerships.

Manufacturers have been prohibited from direct selling in NC since the 70's (When Dems controlled everything).

I seriously doubt NC Dems would allow Tesla, a CA company, to sell directly here either.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You're saying the Dems are are banning direct sales by companies like Tesla? What?

That's exaclty what I'm saying: They passed the law in the 70's

This will not open the floodgates to other manufacturers doing direct sales and you do know why? Because they aren't currently doing it. However, this bill will ensure that even those companies will not have the choice to do direct sales, which is anti-capitalist and hence anti-American!

Jeebus, they aren't currently doing it because of laws passed back in 1970.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

So what happens when you need warrantee service or there is a recall and no dealership exists in the state?

Drive 600 miles to the nearest dealership?
Oh wait, the rang on their top-top-top end car is 310 miles. Woops.

 

[Slew Foot]

The Party of Jesus needs to die right now.

FTFY, the party of Lincoln died a long time ago

 

[Fern]

Wow, I've never seen such a BS post fron you before.

First off tesla isn't asking for anything or any kind of hand out. What it is doing is trying to prevent NC from passing a law that would essentially Bar it's sales model. How you came to the conclusion that that equaled some free government benefit is beyond me.

They want special treatment.

As far as "if they let tesla do it they would have to let everyone do it" argument, lol! They can already do it they choose not to.

No, other auto manufacturers cannot "already do it". Direct sales by manufacturers has been outlawed since the 1970's

Tesla has showrooms from which they could not sell cara from, if they could they would certainly be paying taxes in NC for cars sold in their NC showroom.

See above.

As far as service goes, how does tesla currently handle service issues? How do any manufactures handle service issues when there isn't a service center nearby? If that was such an issue why not mandate that a service center be located in the state?

0 for four buddy

How does any manufacturer handle service issues if no facitlity is nearby?

Really? You've got to ask that?

You take it back to the place you bought it. Home Depot, Lowes, Sears etc all use the 'dealership' model in that they are 3rd parties who represent the manufacturer through legal agreements.

0/4? Your math is as poor as your understanding of the issue.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

Fern, a point of clarification here. If in fact these practices of direct sales were outlawed decades ago, why was it necessary to pass a new law banning it? Perhaps the article is incorrect. Something doesn't jive here.

 

[Fern]

Split the profit, pay North Carolina taxes on the profit, and pay expenses.

That's legally impossible.

I would say this is the real reason for the bill rather than consumer concerns, but the bill's author makes it pretty clear that the real reason for the bill is to protect the Automobile Dealers Association.

I've no doubt there is an aspect of protecting local/state businesses. But is at all surprising that a state legislature would move to protect state businesses? WTH else are they suppose to do? It's exactly what they should be doing. And dealerships are not the only industry where this occurs, nor NC the only state.

But I think it wrong to readily dismiss the consumer side. E.g., look at health insurance. We can't buy HI from out-of-state. The reason is that if you get in a dispute with your HI company the state dept of regulation can't do a damn thing for you. You're screwed. Same for auto insurance.

Same with cars/dealerships.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Fern, a point of clarification here. If in fact these practices of direct sales were outlawed decades ago, why was it necessary to pass a new law banning it? Perhaps the article is incorrect. Something doesn't jive here.

I'm not entirely sure. it hasn't been adequately explained IMO.

Read this article, it's only slightly more helpful:

Robert Glaser, president of the North Carolina Automobile Dealers' Association, which supports the legislation, told ABC News that car manufacturers have been barred from selling directly to consumers in North Carolina since the mid-1970s.

The only thing the bill changes, he said, is who qualifies as a dealer, which was updated to include manufacturers like Tesla that eliminate the use of in-state dealers.

"This bill doesn't change the law at all. Somehow, they've been selling cars in North Carolina, you know, and I don't know how it compares to that law," he said.

Glaser said ABC News that while the bill wasn't changed to directly target Tesla, the association wants the company to abide by state protocols.

"We believe that Tesla, like all the other auto dealers in the state, should get a license, appoint a dealer, fall under the protection of the Department of Motor Vehicles, and sell cars," Glaser said. 'We just want them to play by the same set of rules that the other 7,000 dealers in the state do."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nc-b...y-selling-cars/story?id=19176424#.UdSoXazMSho

Tesla's found a loophole? IDK.

Fern

 

[waggy]

ugh. the laws saying that dealers can't sale directly is fucking insane.

they need to change them. BUT since they are the law (agian they need changed) then tesla should not be able to open its own dealerships.

but again this law needs to be changed i hate it (btw i grew up on car lots. we have owned them for a long time)

 

[Wreckem]

Why not just start a second company called Tesla Dealership Inc? Keep them separate and they are no longer directly selling.

 

[woolfe9998]

Fern, thanks, that does make more sense. They're closing a possible loophole in an earlier law. I have a few other comments, however.

First, as to this passing in the 1970's under democrats, I have no trouble believing that. Either party is subject to influence from the same lobbying interests. The difference is that democrats do not sell themselves as the party that opposes government regulation of business. A democrat could ideologically support telling a business how it may market and distribute its product, if he thinks it is in the public's interest (or the interest of the lobby, whichever you choose.) This, however, seems ideologically at odds with conservatism.

Second, to the issue itself. You are arguing that protecting the local dealerships is common sense. However, I see this as very analogous to the debate about international free trade vs. protectionism. The policy in question is, in fact, protectionism from inter-state trade. And it has the same pluses and minuses. If direct sales are allowed, some people in dealerships will lose their jobs. But the prices will be cheaper for residents. These residents then have more money to spend on other goods and services, which creates jobs in other sectors. It's a debatable point at the very least. I don't really see how people who support free trade, whether D or R, would support this particular policy.

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

Well, I've never seen Democrats be anti capitalist, and unaligned liberals like myself tend to be pro regulated capitalism. I'm anti laissez faire, but that's because I know Ayn Rand's philosophy is bullshit for the stupid.

I honestly don't care what you say about Democrats, to me they're just the less conservative version of Republicans. We honestly need a real liberal party if we want things to get better. Regardless though, having seen your posts, you really are in no position to be calling anyone stupid (except maybe Incorruptible, michal1980, nehalem, or Matt1970 ... all other sentient life forms can call them stupid).

What do you think we're talking about here? It's regulated capitalism. Protecting the economy from the evils of massive corporations and promoting employment.

But here the Democrat faithful are, bleating against anything the GOP are backing without even considering where it came from, even if it means sticking up for corporations.

You imbeciles don't even realize how stupid you look.

 

[BoberFett]

Oh I didn't know you were a big government supporter! Good to know! I'll be using this post soon I'm sure

I would eliminate most if not all protectionist laws, but thanks for playing, wingnut.

I'm just amused to see you idiots in here defending a corporation.

"Waaaahhhh, Tesla needs to cut dealerships out so they can profit more!! Waaaahhhhh!"

 

[Fern]

Fern, thanks, that does make more sense. They're closing a possible loophole in an earlier law. I have a few other comments, however.

First, as to this passing in the 1970's under democrats, I have no trouble believing that. Either party is subject to influence from the same lobbying interests. The difference is that democrats do not sell themselves as the party that opposes government regulation of business. A democrat could ideologically support telling a business how it may market and distribute its product, if he thinks it is in the public's interest (or the interest of the lobby, whichever you choose.) This, however, seems ideologically at odds with conservatism.

Second, to the issue itself. You are arguing that protecting the local dealerships is common sense. However, I see this as very analogous to the debate about international free trade vs. protectionism. The policy in question is, in fact, protectionism from inter-state trade. And it has the same pluses and minuses. If direct sales are allowed, some people in dealerships will lose their jobs. But the prices will be cheaper for residents. These residents then have more money to spend on other goods and services, which creates jobs in other sectors. It's a debatable point at the very least. I don't really see how people who support free trade, whether D or R, would support this particular policy.

- wolf

IMO, the state is doing what we as a nation should always be doing: Protecting our own interests.

I've lived as an working adult in several states, from the Red to the Blue and they all do it. I mean state politicians on both sides of the aisle.

IMO, anyone claiming this an ideological thing is wrong.

Anyone claiming Free Trade is wholly embraced by conservatives is just factually incorrect. Many were opposed to free trade agreements such as NAFTA way back when. Many who weren't back then are now opposed after seeing what 'free trade' has done to our businesses.

And I still many are ignoring the many practical aspects for consumers/purchasers of autos.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Why not just start a second company called Tesla Dealership Inc? Keep them separate and they are no longer directly selling.

IDK.

IDK if Tesla would want to do that but this law prohibits it. (I have trouble imagining that's the case, but would need to read the law or see some serious analysis.)

IDK if Tesla doesn't want to set up a NC corporation but is still selling (or trying to sell) here.

The article that I linked says one thing I understand: NC doesn't want people buying over the internet directly from Tesla. Buying from Tesla over the 'net means an out-of-state seller. And it means "direct sales" by the manufacturer.

I do not see clearly where it says Tesla can't up NC companies (or a single NC company) to be a licensed dealership. So, I don't fully understand what's actually going here.

Fern

 

[waggy]

I think its time to allow them to sale directly. I would like to be able to log in and order what i want. no haggle with the dealer or other bullshit.

 

[woolfe9998]

IMO, the state is doing what we as a nation should always be doing: Protecting our own interests.

I've lived as an working adult in several states, from the Red to the Blue and they all do it. I mean state politicians on both sides of the aisle.

IMO, anyone claiming this an ideological thing is wrong.

Anyone claiming Free Trade is wholly embraced by conservatives is just factually incorrect. Many were opposed to free trade agreements such as NAFTA way back when. Many who weren't back then are now opposed after seeing what 'free trade' has done to our businesses.

And I still many are ignoring the many practical aspects for consumers/purchasers of autos.

Fern

Point of clarification. I do not see free trade as necessarily conservative nor do I see protectionism as necessarily liberal. There is a lot of cross-over on that particular issue. My second paragraph was addressing the merits of the issue in general, not from a party standpoint.

My first paragraph, however, was addressing what I view as an inconsistency in conservatives believing that business should not be regulated and then supporting such a thing here. If conservatives think it is OK to regulate business for pragmatic reasons, then we shouldn't be hearing so much general anti-regulation rhetoric. Instead, the discussion should be confined to a cost-benefit analysis of particular regulations. But we both know the discussion is hardly confined to particulars.

 

[werepossum]

That's legally impossible.

I've no doubt there is an aspect of protecting local/state businesses. But is at all surprising that a state legislature would move to protect state businesses? WTH else are they suppose to do? It's exactly what they should be doing. And dealerships are not the only industry where this occurs, nor NC the only state.

But I think it wrong to readily dismiss the consumer side. E.g., look at health insurance. We can't buy HI from out-of-state. The reason is that if you get in a dispute with your HI company the state dept of regulation can't do a damn thing for you. You're screwed. Same for auto insurance.

Same with cars/dealerships.

Fern

Why is it legally impossible? A North Carolina dealership has to be licensed by the state; unless Tesla is going to own the dealership, then whomever owns the dealership must get a share of the profit. North Carolina has a state business income tax, a flat 6.9% on gross. That's a cool $6,969 which must be paid on every $101,000 Tesla. And certainly any dealership is going to have expenses, and the more services offered the more expenses so a dealership that shows and sells cars is going to have more expenses than a showroom which only shows cars.

I wouldn't completely discount the consumer protection aspect, but I would suggest that it's a small part. These are people who can buy a ~$100,000 electric car without even driving it. They deserve the same protection as anyone else, but I don't think that protecting them from themselves is a key government function.

 

[Fern]

I think its time to allow them to sale directly. I would like to be able to log in and order what i want. no haggle with the dealer or other bullshit.

What are you going to do if they fail to honor the warranty, for example?

You made an out-of-state purchase with an out-of-state seller. You're going to have to go file suit in CA if you have a disagreement with them. You have no grounds to sue them in your state, it has no jurisdiction.

NC is a damn long way from CA.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

I wouldn't completely discount the consumer protection aspect, but I would suggest that it's a small part. These are people who can buy a ~$100,000 electric car without even driving it. They deserve the same protection as anyone else, but I don't think that protecting them from themselves is a key government function.

There are also federal statutes which protect consumers in the context of inter-state transactions, right? The point being that the state of N. Carolina isn't the only legal protection for resident consumers.

 

[Fern]

Why is it legally impossible?
-snip-

I suppose I misunderstood you. I was referring to prospect of taxation on an out-of-state sell by an out-of-state seller.

I wouldn't completely discount the consumer protection aspect, but I would suggest that it's a small part. These are people who can buy a ~$100,000 electric car without even driving it. They deserve the same protection as anyone else, but I don't think that protecting them from themselves is a key government function.

Yet if you're an NC Congressperson who exactly is the type that can literally raise the most hell with you? These people, the ones with the money.

Fern