DCsportsfan53 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Reading the thread about college loans it strikes me how outdated the hatred for dealerships is. We get ripped off from every direction these days. College loans, health care, mortgages, energy, ect....most with firm prices that are on their terms. With new car buying these dealers are under extreme pressure from manufacturers to hit sales targets and incentivizes them to sell the cars for next to nothing profits. They make their money if they hit the sales target and customer satsifaction survey scores. They make money by moving metal, the business has changed. Sure there are still plenty of sleazy dealers who will rip people off given the opportunity (familiar feeling in all walks these days, ain't it?) but honestly, there's no excuse for it these days. If you can't spend a few hours on the internet figuring out what a fair price is for a particular car before going to a dealer it's really just being lazy, the information is all readily available. Try shopping around your employer health insurance or college loans and see how far you get. You need them. Dealerships need you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 So let me get this straight the Right complains about New York banning super sized drinks but they're all about banning the sale of Tesla cars? If you REALLY want to see what the powers that be are interested in then just look what they ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Didn't read the thread, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Second, let's talk a bit about Musk. He's not trying to solve our transportation problems or our oil/gasoline consumption problems. He has invented a vehicle that will serve as a status symbol among the petite bourgeoisie.. You realize of course that BEFORE Ford came along the cars were the toys of the bourgeoisie. I don't see any one looking back in history condemning the early car manufacturers because only the rich could buy their products. As is the case with most new things, the rich get them first but then as the idea spreads and competition increases demand increases as price decreases. Heck look at flat screen tvs, when they first came out they were $10,000, now everyone has a huge 46"+ in their living room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 challenge away In the United States, however,[/size] direct manufacturer auto sales are prohibited in almost every state [/size]by franchise laws requiring that new cars be sold only by dealers. These bans on direct manufacturer sales are part of a broad array of state laws that bar manufacturer ownership of dealers and regulate entry and exit of dealers through territorial restrictions and provisions on dealer termination.[/size] http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm Telsa is still selling here as well, just not with a waiver This is the same thing hey do with beer sales, the problem is that the manufacturers control the dealers, the powerful always find the way to game the system for themselves. And as one poster mentioned, why car sales and not Apple computers too?These people don't care about anything other than putting more money in their pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 It seems to me that Tesla is trying to position itself as the only car company with an exemption to dealer laws in TX. They want TX to pass this bill, which would make Tesla the sole holder of an exemption in perpetuity, despite not mentioning the Tesla name at all. So that's kind of crappy, even though there is another interpretation of the bill's date clause: protecting existing TX dealers against an unending litany of electric car manufacturers (ha!). That's not as crappy as the goofball laws requiring independent dealerships, though. If I don't need to go to an independent dealership to buy a laptop or a house, then I don't need to go to an independent dealership to buy a car. (No, realtors don't count.) Additionally, doesn't Tesla build your car after you order it? Thereby making bona fide dealerships completely irrelevant, as Tesla wisely isn't pre-building inventory at all and in fact has a substantial backlog of demand vs. production capacity for the foreseeable future? There are almost no cars to even put on a dealer lot in the first place. You buy it, then they build it. Time for dealer nanny laws to hit the road. They're trying to force an innovating company into a distribution network it has no need for, and for what? Given Tesla's business model and the business models of all their known competitors, perhaps Tesla should argue that the exemption be made for manufacturers who only build new cars to order. The presumed dealer-factory collusion issue will be largely moot, there will be a competitive benefit to conventional vehicle pre-builders and their dealers (i.e., drive your car home today!), and Tesla will have a valid reason for having nothing to do with dealers: they will stay out of the dealership business entirely. That would lay bare the protectionist motives for these dealer nanny laws, while allowing.others to compete on even footing as long as they are savvy enough (and build good enough cars) to operate on build-to-order. Of course, that might put Tesla back into battle in 3-10 years when they (possibly) go the conventional route at last and want to have factory-owned dealerships. But by then, build-to-order cars might be a more normative auto business model anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 twa wins this round. I admit it.it really pains folks to say that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 yeah mjah, build to order or smaller lines might be a good general exception to shoot for, Telsa has limited stroke to carve out one alone at least here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 If anyone is interested.. http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric# I saw a few of them at SFO and had to stop and admire. They look gorgeous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 challenge away In the United States, however, direct manufacturer auto sales are prohibited in almost every state by franchise laws requiring that new cars be sold only by dealers. These bans on direct manufacturer sales are part of a broad array of state laws that bar manufacturer ownership of dealers and regulate entry and exit of dealers through territorial restrictions and provisions on dealer termination. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm Telsa is still selling here as well, just not with a waiver You're missing the point. Those laws are big government telling someone how to make a sale. Its a disservice to the consumer and the manufacturer, and a boon for the middle man. It is the definition of picking winners and losers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 It's 4 years old..but this article is money for describing the ridiculousness of protecting the car sales lobby (as well as mentioning that it adds costs to the consumer in the long run). http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/why-you-cant-buy-new-car-online Back in 1973, then-California governor Ronald Reagan signed a law that effectively prohibited any new car dealerships from opening within a 10-mile radius of another existing dealership selling the same make of car. The law was a gift to one of Reagan's "kitchen cabinet" members, Holmes P. Tuttle, and decades later would have made it difficult for hybrid manufacturers to create pickup facilities (which required dealer licenses) for cars ordered online. Tuttle had famously sold a car to Reagan when he was an out-of-work actor. Tuttle went on to create one of the nation's largest car dealerships and helped fund Reagan's first run for governor. Reagan repaid him by signing the dealer franchise law. "A statutorily created monopoly was signed into law by Reagan to help his friend Mr. Tuttle," says Leno. He says Tuttle had been pushing for a law that prohibited the establishment of any new dealership without the majority support of the dealerships in that part of the state. Instead, he got the 10-mile exclusionary zone. Leno notes that the law was vigorously opposed by California state senator George Moscone, who was later assassinated, along with Harvey Milk, when he was mayor of San Francisco. Moscone labeled the bill "the turkey of the year," and issued a prescient statement observing that the bill would "freeze, for all time, the ability of new car dealers to make money without worrying about competition…How in the name of free enterprise could the governor even consider signing a bill that shuts off any future competition?" Moscone's objections fell on deaf ears. Today, Tuttle's son Robert, who still owns the family auto chain, is the outgoiong US ambassador to the UK, an indication of just how strong the political clout of the car dealers—and the Tuttle clan—remains. Needless to say, Leno's bill to amend the franchise law never even made it out of a Democrat-controlled policy committee. In 1999, as governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed what was then the nation's toughest law in the country banning new car sales online. Egged on by local car dealerships, state regulators invoked the law to help shut down Ford's fledgling attempt to sell used cars online. Ford had started letting people buy used cars on its website; local dealerships delivered them. But Texas regulators cracked down, threatening Ford with $10,000 daily fines for allegedly violating a state law banning manufacturers from selling their products directly to the public. Ford tried to fight back in court, arguing that the state franchise law was a restraint on interstate commerce, but the court was no more sympathetic than the governor. The federal judge hearing the case wrote that if Ford were allowed to sell cars online, "all state regulatory schemes would be nullified" as they "fall before the mighty altar of the Internet." Texas regulators, never known for regulating much of anything, also forced GM to abandon its foray into e-commerce. The automaker had bought a handful of dealerships in the state to use as distributors for cars bought online, but regulators refused to give GM a dealer license. GM gave up and sold off the dealerships. Texas inspired car dealers in other states to seek similar protections from competition. Arizona, for instance, passed a law that not only blocked manufacturers from selling cars online but also restricted manufacturers from offering other services online, such as financing. Other states followed suit, as car dealers feared predictions that only half of them would survive the next seven years thanks to competition from the Internet. Since then, the manufacturers have largely given up the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 You're missing the point. Those laws are big government telling someone how to make a sale. Its a disservice to the consumer and the manufacturer, and a boon for the middle man. It is the definition of picking winners and losers. You can certainly make that argument,and I will probably agree.....but I see no reason Telsa should be singled out for a special waiver in fact my earlier link showing most states have that law was arguing just that point http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm I think I get their point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 You realize of course that BEFORE Ford came along the cars were the toys of the bourgeoisie. I don't see any one looking back in history condemning the early car manufacturers because only the rich could buy their products. As is the case with most new things, the rich get them first but then as the idea spreads and competition increases demand increases as price decreases. Heck look at flat screen tvs, when they first came out they were $10,000, now everyone has a huge 46"+ in their living room. Yes. Yes I do realize that. Which is why I pointed it out and compared the efforts of Musk to that of... Ford... and Musk hasn't gotten there yet. I've been a fan of Tesla Motors for many years. When bassist Flea became an owner of a Roadster a number of years ago (who I would rank in the category of the petite bourgeoisie), I knew then that it was only a matter of time before the car became affordable. The car was finally breaking below the 6-figure range around that time. It's been a few months since I've kept up with Tesla Motors and this thread has shed some light on the latest efforts of Tesla Motors. I knew earlier this year the car was finally at a price base that the masses could justify and that Tesla Motors had big plans for rolling out charging stations all over the East coast. Yesterday, I learned through this thread that Tesla Motors was pushing to get the car to the $30K range by 2015... and comparisons of Musk to Ford can only happen once that price has been achieved. $60K is still too high for the everyday man/woman to afford. $30K on the other hand, is a price that I believe any full time working adult could afford. "Quality" electric cars have been the toys of the rich. The price of that technology is finally coming down to a reasonable price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Thanks for the article Genius. What political party is all about free enterprise again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 "Quality" electric cars have been the toys of the rich. The price of that technology is finally coming down to a reasonable price. They are toys of the rich in the same sense that the S-Class, 7 series, LS, and A8 are toys of the rich. (...And the Model S quite comfortably outsells all four.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 The Model X isn't the one that's going to be selling in the $30k range, is it? If so..it looks impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 The Model X isn't the one that's going to be selling in the $30k range, is it? If so..it looks impressive. No its not. I am not sure what the model is called that will be in the 35k range. My brother recently test drove the Model S, it is a ridiculously amazing car, even with acceleration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Thanks for the article Genius. What political party is all about free enterprise again? so you blame the Dems that passed the law here decades ago or the ones seeking special favors now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 No its not. I am not sure what the model is called that will be in the 35k range. My brother recently test drove the Model S, it is a ridiculously amazing car, even with acceleration I was going to say..the X is being touted as 0-60 in less than 5 seconds..and it has the cool (in concept) gull wing doors. so you blame the Dems that passed the law here decades ago or the ones seeking special favors now? Dubya was a Dem in Texas? How did I miss that!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Surprise, surprise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 so you blame the Dems that passed the law here decades ago or the ones seeking special favors now? Curious how "the folks who actually have the power to repeal this law, and instead are demanding that it be followed" wasn't one of the items you chose to put on your list of choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 it really pains folks to say that! Well, it doesn't happen that often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Curious how "the folks who actually have the power to repeal this law, and instead are demanding that it be followed" wasn't one of the items you chose to put on your list of choices. curious that the bill wasn't to repeal it eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 curious that the bill wasn't to repeal it eh? Granted, it was a vote on only partially repealing it. How was the vote on completely repealing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Granted, it was a vote on only partially repealing it. How was the vote on completely repealing it? No,there was no vote to partially repeal(just on someone seeking a exemption from the laws we all are under) ,nor totally repealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.