backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by LRonaldHubbs.. on Jun 27 at 1:19 PM

Auto dealers are backing the bills in an attempt to uphold current sales models

Tesla Motors may see its stores banned in New York thanks to a pair of bills that look to protect auto dealers. 

Tesla has its own “Tesla Stores”, which act as showrooms for customers. There, they can see the models and even test drive them before making a purchase online from the Tesla website. Tesla does this as opposed to selling its vehicles to auto dealerships

But a new pair of bills, referred to as A07844 in the Assembly and S05725, may put an end to that in the state of New York. The bills would make it illegal to license -- or even renew licenses -- for all Tesla Stores within New York state borders.

In addition to a ban on renewing licenses for existing Tesla sites, the bills also make it illegal to license any future stores; amends New York's vehicle and traffic laws regarding "unfair practices by franchisors," and prevents New York from issuing/renewing the registration of any car dealer where a manufacturer holds a controlling interest (unless that certificate was issued before July 1, 2006).

The bills were submitted just before the New York Legislature adjourned for the summer. This means that they will sit in the New York State Assembly until January 2014 when it returns. No decisions were made regarding the bills before it adjourned.


As you can probably guess, Tesla isn't too happy about this. The electric automaker issued a statement last week regarding the bills:

The bottom line for New York consumers and New York suppliers is that if this bill passes, special interests in Albany will once again have gotten their way while robbing New Yorkers of choices in the marketplace, and Tesla will be put out of business in New York. The result would be that all of Tesla’s New York employees will lose their jobs.  It means that New York-based suppliers to Tesla will lose business and New York consumers cannot buy the most advanced electric car in the world today. Banning Tesla from selling its vehicles is also a step in the wrong direction for reducing carbon vehicle emissions and the green environmental movement in New York.  With the State of New York pushing so hard to lead green innovation supporting entire agencies for energy efficiency like NYSERDA, it is absolutely defies logic to ban Tesla from selling electric cars in New York.

From the beginning, Tesla’s goal has been to catalyze the market for electric vehicles and selling through intermediaries at this stage of the company will not work.  For Auto Dealer Associations to claim that restricting competition is in the best interests of the public is wrong and defies obvious common sense.  If we are kept out of New York, it forestalls progress and defeats innovation.

Tesla has created jobs in New York at both its stores and service centers and the sales of its vehicles go into supporting the local economy. Tesla remains committed to bringing electric vehicle technology and its customer focused sales and ownership experience to New York consumers, while complying with all local and state laws.

Back in April of this year, Tesla CEO Elon Musk openly fought for a Texas bill that would cut out the use of auto dealerships. The bill -- House Bill 3351 -- would allow distributors and manufacturers of electric vehicles (EVs) only to sell directly to customers without the use of dealerships. The bill was filed by Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin). 

Musk even said that if the fight for the Texas bill came down to a federal matter, he would either lobby Congress to pass legislation for the direct sales of EVs made by startup companies like Tesla (and tie it to an energy or transportation bill) or file a federal lawsuit to fight the state restrictions as unconstitutional violations of interstate commerce.

Musk is open to a dealership model at some point when sales increase, since dealerships do promote competition and keep prices down. 

Source: Green Car Reports



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Unbelievable
By Dukeajuke on 6/24/2013 9:57:35 AM , Rating: 5
I can't believe that something as crazy as this could even be considered as a candidate for law in any state. Special interest again rules the day in government. Tesla should put out an ad that includes the names of all the NY politicians who support this bill..




RE: Unbelievable
By Zero_0 on 6/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: Unbelievable
By rudolphna on 6/24/2013 11:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
Um, shut up. I live in Upstate NY and that is far from the reality here. Most areas of NY are pretty moderate and even conservative/republican. (The Saratoga Area for example, where I live).


RE: Unbelievable
By Omega215D on 6/24/2013 12:08:14 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, as someone born and raised in NYC most of the nutjobs come from NYC but as of late a lot of these NYC dwellers usually from flyover states and suburbia where they want people to conform to their way of life.

As for the auto dealers... politicians up for sale as usual.


RE: Unbelievable
By KCjoker on 6/24/2013 6:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
Really? When's the last time NY went for the Repub candidates. And don't say it's because of bad Repub's running for office because Rangel and many other horrible Dem candidates continue to get voted in.


RE: Unbelievable
By Samus on 6/25/2013 2:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
Did you ever notice all the big cities are liberal democrats? Even in Texas? Take a guess why that is...

The only "liberal" place in NY is the NYC area. Go to Albany or upstate NY and things change considerably. Much like Chicago. Enter just about any suburb of the city, and it's Fox News in every living room.

But that isn't to say the fat cats on wall street are liberal. Quite the opposite actually. Most investors favor republicans because they value free market and deregulation. Obviously Clinton was a huge exception in completely deregulating banks in the late 90's, but you can guess who put that bill on his desk.


RE: Unbelievable
By lolmuly on 6/24/2013 10:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
I usually find the ayn rand view a bit naive, but in this case... just let that man sell his steel!


RE: Unbelievable
By GotThumbs on 6/24/2013 6:46:47 PM , Rating: 3
Ever heard of Tucker? He got squeezed by US Auto makers in the 1940's. Google it if you haven't. There's a movie on it as well.

Ayn Rand fears may seem far fetched, but it's getting closer to becoming a reality if you look at the fact that she wrote Atlas Shrugged in the late 1950's.

If you remain distracted...you won't see it happen until it's coming into your own home.


RE: Unbelievable
By lolmuly on 6/25/2013 11:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
Ayn Rand's fears are completely valid, it's her solutions that I find naive.

The big flaw in her capitalist utopia is business ethics. Take a look at the kieretsu system in japan. Imagine ditching a big client and bankrupting your company. If that client refuses to pay on time, breaks its obligations, and pays you barely above cost for your product, what can you do? You can't sue, you can't expand, you can't innovate. This isn't just a japanese phenomenon, it happens all the time on large and small scales, businesses will always jump at the opportunity to enslave one another.

Now there's a fair argument to be made that allowing your business to be put in that situation should be punished, but why should doing business with a company larger than your own be so suicidally risky? Take away the regulations, take away the protections, and very few companies will move up or down the chain.

Should somebody ever be forbidden from selling to whomever they wish? Never, but businesses who employ these practices should be liable (within demonstratable reason) for the destruction of a business they've chosen to engage with.


RE: Unbelievable
By Schadenfroh on 6/24/2013 10:58:40 AM , Rating: 2
This happens more often than you think, why do you think that there is a lack of self-service gas stations in New Jersey?


RE: Unbelievable
By karimtemple on 6/24/2013 11:11:27 AM , Rating: 2
This is a pretty bad example lol. A plurality of New Jersey residents prefer full service gas, and anyone who does complain about it isn't doing so because they get bad service or it'll get them cheaper gas.


RE: Unbelievable
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/24/2013 11:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
This I just don't get. Why the hell do I need someone to pump my gas?


RE: Unbelievable
By rudolphna on 6/24/2013 11:31:39 AM , Rating: 2
It's an old law from the 50s/60s when NJ was worried that people would blow themselves up while pumping gas and required people to have a "transfer of hazardous liquid" license. The law hasn't gone anywhere, because people in NJ prefer to sit in their car while someone pumps the gas for them.


RE: Unbelievable
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/24/2013 11:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
To each his own I guess. They've been conditioned to be waited on hand and foot ;)

Question, do you have to tip the gas attendants?


RE: Unbelievable
By stm1185 on 6/24/2013 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, sadly the people of New Jersey are too stupid to be able to handle putting something in a hole, squeezing the handle until it stops, then taking it out. Their government had to step in and make sure that super dangerous task was accomplished by a professional.


RE: Unbelievable
By Omega215D on 6/24/2013 12:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
well idiot drivers do have the tendency to drive off with the gas nozzle still connected to the tank intake.


RE: Unbelievable
By Pneumothorax on 6/24/2013 1:59:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
By stm1185 on 6/24/2013 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, sadly the people of New Jersey are too stupid to be able to handle putting something in a hole, squeezing the handle until it stops, then taking it out. Their government had to step in and make sure that super dangerous task was accomplished by a professional.


Last time I checked NJ doesn't have a monopoly on welfare/teenage pregnancies...


RE: Unbelievable
By stm1185 on 6/24/2013 7:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well maybe they can give the gas station attendants overtime as Condom fitters.


RE: Unbelievable
By Lord 666 on 6/24/2013 12:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
It works out great; provides employment while not getting stinky... especially from the diesel pump.

No, you don't have to tip.


RE: Unbelievable
By Motoman on 6/24/2013 12:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
On the rare occasion that I accidentally pull into a full-service gas station, I'm basically like "get the f%ck away from my car."

And then I never go back.


RE: Unbelievable
By GotThumbs on 6/24/2013 6:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Of course to reduce the number of unemployed. Lets be honest....pumping gas does not even take a HS diploma, but if your state government pass a law mandating that you can't pump you own gas......that's government control 101.

Atlas Shrugged....Written in 1957 by a Russian immigrant who saw first hand how poorly government control over commerce was. Read the book or watch the movies.


RE: Unbelievable
By nafhan on 6/24/2013 12:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
I would prefer full service gas if it was free...
"Do you like full service?" And "Do you like paying for full service?" are two very different questions that I would imagine most people would answer: yes and no.


RE: Unbelievable
By GotThumbs on 6/24/2013 6:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. I prefer to do it myself. That way I know no one will scratch my vehicle or put the wrong fuel in my diesel truck or god knows what else could happen.

There are too many idiots out there to blindly trust IMO. Overall, I"m an optimist, but with realist tendencies.

Best wishes,


RE: Unbelievable
By Mitch101 on 6/24/2013 11:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
But then how will some of those crooks get my credit card information if they dont leave my credit card fully exposed to people behind me when he leaves it in the pump hanging out for them take a picture of it? Think about the low level crooks first instead of the high level ones. How will they feed thier families at the beach when your at work. So Insensitive.


RE: Unbelievable
By Makaveli on 6/24/2013 12:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
Haha I use to work at a gas station back in the day and saw that first hand by co workers. The one guy was from europe on a work visa I swear he cleared like $5000 in a month double swiping people's credit cards. It didn't help when the driver was stay at home mom's could barely drive their husband second jag to the station they would never see an extra $20 on the gold visa card. You do that to enough people in a week you just double your salary.

If you are going to go full service always pay cash I don't care where you are!!!!


RE: Unbelievable
By dgingerich on 6/24/2013 11:37:19 AM , Rating: 2
That's New York for you: can't compete, so they use the government to keep others out. "Oh, please, mr. government, we don't want to bother with taking care of ourselves, so take care of us!"


RE: Unbelievable
By Motoman on 6/24/2013 11:56:09 AM , Rating: 3
It's a horrible abuse of the market. Pure political BS. There is *no* benefit to the consumer by requiring car sales go through a 3rd party intermediary between the manufacturer and the consumer. If there was, it would be required for all goods - not just cars.

Nothing but good-old-boyism and the corruption that is lobbying.

Outlaw lobbying. Let Tesla sell their cars however they want. And stop being d-bags in general.


RE: Unbelievable
By Shig on 6/24/2013 4:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone shouldn't really worry. Tesla Motors has fans that are similar to Apple's fans. Except when Tesla fans say the model S is *multiple* times better than the next closest competitor (EV tech wise), it's not an exaggeration.

If anything this will only make cars sell faster in NY, the state will say you can't buy it, and if you already wanted the car you're going to get it some how anyways. Remember most people buying the Model S atm know what they're doing with finance and laws of this nature or they have friends that do.

Plus the fact that this is an issue in such a big state means this will probably end up in the supreme court, which was inevitable.


RE: Unbelievable
By Shig on 6/24/2013 4:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
As an added tid bit, Tesla Motors is now worth more than Fiat (lol)


RE: Unbelievable
By Mr Perfect on 6/24/2013 7:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'd actually love to see the current car purchasing model change, the dealers and sales people are generally snakes.


RE: Unbelievable
By marvdmartian on 6/25/2013 7:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
They should also use the Freedom of Information Act, to find out who is contributing to the politicians who introduce these bills, and see if there's a conflicting interest involved (alsmost certainly so).

If so, put out ads to the public, explaining who is financing the politicians, and what interest they would have in the proposed law. Hopefully, a grassroots campaign would then erupt against the bill, and squash it.

Tesla should also line the state borders with their stores, so New Yorkers can still find one within a relatively short driving distance. Maybe one store each, in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont?


RE: Unbelievable
By vFunct on 6/25/2013 8:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
Conservatives & Republicans are such corrupt people.

They need to be banned.

New York State is full of corrupt conservative lawmakers in Upstate & Western NY.

We need to ban them and replace them with liberals, since conservatives are so worthless.

Might as well arrest all these conservatives and send them to jail.


Question,
By mugiebahar on 6/24/2013 10:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
To tell you the truth, I read the article and I thought I was going to feel 1 way on the subject and turns out I'm 50/50. I would love to hear all input as a great discussion (please no mud slinging) I know having dealerships in today's age may not be needed, Not like we have now. But by the same token we help employe people on a cost that we have perceived already. They get to buy the cars @ wholesale and sell it for whatever price. (Yeah it can be higher, but can be lower as well)

Truthfully asking, would the average dealership pass on the savings to you that would be negated from removing the dealership? (I'm really asking so its not a direct rhetorically) would losing jobs right now hurt us more then a sit down look on how to improve and set better guidelines?

I love Musk, to me he's a recent day businessman a la Tesla (ok not even as close, but the closest as we've come when blending business and science. But agreed there will never be another Tesla, he was the greatest)

I'm just interested in the opinion of everybody. And yes I think the idiots in government should go, they are hands down idiots. They jump to an idea hoping to get RE-elected rather then sitting down discussing ideas.




RE: Question,
By karimtemple on 6/24/2013 10:30:22 AM , Rating: 3
The argument to protect dealerships is sensational. It panders to the feeling of losing your own job.

This situation is not complicated. The Internet has been destroying legacy business models for the last decade, so any business that hasn't been able to keep up either:

A) can only blame themselves, or

B) it isn't their fault because until recently they were stuck in an alternate dimension where news of the invention of the Internet hadn't gotten out yet.

They had their chance to get it together, and they blew it. If you don't like the future, you should've killed yourself yesterday.


RE: Question,
By Ammohunt on 6/24/2013 10:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
Personally my experience at dealerships has led me to believe that car salesmen are the lowest forms of life. Its mostly BS sales tactics and the best interests of the customer are second to the almighty dollar(e.g. extended warranties,undercoating). In the case of GM once the car is off the lot they purposefully try to avoid warranty work(or any work at all on the vehicle). The death of the dealership protection model is long past due. If this government is truly about consumer protection they would abolish it.


RE: Question,
By lelias2k on 6/24/2013 11:22:47 AM , Rating: 3
You see, that's an example where generalizing is just wrong. Especially when you are putting the blame where it usually doesn't exist. I worked at a Chevy dealer for 6 months as a salesman. Here are my thoughts:

- The tactics are usually not from the salesperson. Most of the time it comes from management. I'd say 95% of the time.

- Yes, there are some sleaze balls who lie through their arses just to get a sale, but this I'd say it is in the same level you find anywhere. Gosh, how many Best Buy salespeople talk crap on a daily basis just to sell something more expensive to people who don't know better?

- We never tried to avoid warranty work, as far as I could witness. I think this depends a lot on the dealership, and once again it goes back to management.

So in the end, the salesperson is the one who takes the blame for everything, simply because he's the person you have most of the contact with. He/she doesn't set the price, doesn't define who much discount to give, doesn't close the deal (and in the process closes you on you all the extras you mentioned). But because he/she is dealing directly with you from the beginning, guess who takes the blame for everything?

All that said, I completely agree that we don't need dealerships, especially when it comes to electric cars, which have much less maintenance than ICE cars.

But the fact is that the world is changing at a pace that is much faster than society can keep up with. We are losing thousands of jobs every year to new technology, and we are neither replacing them nor reorganizing our society to deal with it. It is a time bomb, and I just hope it doesn't explode in my lifetime, because it will be ugly.


RE: Question,
By spamreader1 on 6/24/2013 12:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree, generalizing is right even if it is not PC some times. Most best buy salesmen I've met were car salesmen at some point in their lives. Sales managers are still salesmen. Granted you might not want to blame the guy in your face, but you can as they choose to continue to work in that condition.

Another point to me is if I want to buy a car, what's the point of pissing away 3-4 hours of my day with some guy who can't answer any questions without going back and forth to another guy in a glass room who is obviously the guy to make the decisions? Why can't I just talk to the guy who can make the decisions and be done in 10 minutes? Simple logistics.

It's the business model itself that tend to take issue with.
1. You have cars to sell 2. I want to buy car 3.Set a price, if I like the car and price I buy it, if I don't like either I walk away. Why is that so freaking complicated an issue? But then again the whole concept of haggling is idiotic to me anyway, neither party feels like they win at the end of the day. The seller is left feeling they could have gotten more, and buyer leaves feeling they could have gotten more for less, it's a lose lose situation >90% of the time.


RE: Question,
By Ammohunt on 6/24/2013 1:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another point to me is if I want to buy a car, what's the point of pissing away 3-4 hours of my day with some guy who can't answer any questions without going back and forth to another guy in a glass room who is obviously the guy to make the decisions? Why can't I just talk to the guy who can make the decisions and be done in 10 minutes? Simple logistics.


Could not agree more my favorite is the drama! and the serious looks like you are robbing him. Cost plus 10% sounds fair! lets do this thing.


RE: Question,
By lelias2k on 6/24/2013 5:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
When I said management, I meant upper management. Not the a**holes that sit behind the sales desks. Those are puppets too.

And I don't know why you were babbling about the whole experience, when I said in my post that I don't think we need dealerships either. Did you just need to vent? :)


RE: Question,
By BRB29 on 6/24/2013 12:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he tactics are usually not from the salesperson. Most of the time it comes from management. I'd say 95% of the time.


And yet when some of you guys that make it to management, you still do nothing about it knowing the problems you faced and what customers endured. That's why most people think car salesmen are sleazeballs.


RE: Question,
By lelias2k on 6/24/2013 5:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, please don't say "some of you guys". I'm out of that business and I don't like the way you're pointing your finger at me.

Second, just because salespeople become sales managers, that doesn't mean that they own the business.

When I say management, I mean general manager. The guys that were salesmen 30-40 years ago and don't seem to understand how fast the market is changing.

And last of all, you can blame the salesperson as much as you want, but the uneducated customer is to blame too. Years before becoming a salesperson I already knew I couldn't step into a dealership without good research. You shouldn't do that while buying ANYTHING, much less a car.

If you're not smart enough to realize that, don't blame when other people take advantage of you. Because they will.


RE: Question,
By TSS on 6/24/2013 11:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
Wether it's benificial or not is very simple:
Manufacturer sells to dealership at cost+profit,
Dealership sells to you at cost+profit.

Manufacturer sells to you at cost+ profit.

Which of the 2 will be cheaper for you?

It's really as simple as that. Want stuff to be cheaper cut out the middleman. Or, if you want to make money try to become the middle man. Trust me, i'm dutch, i should know.

You're still going to need show rooms with salesmen, you don't buy something as expensive as a car without research and a test drive. So there's still going to be employment. But i imagine the atmosphere is better as they don't have to sell the car to you specifically (to get a comission i mean), they just have to praise the car.

That said, dealerships won't go away. This because dealerships while a detriment to the consumer are a benifit to the manufacturer. It allows them to sell more cars.

In part because of dealership salesmen but what i'm talking about is channel stuffing. Car companies count sales to dealerships as sales, what happens to the car next isn't the manufacturers problem. If the dealership goes bust because they bought too many cars, the manufacturer isn't affected.

GM dealership inventory right now is hovering around 800,000 cars. that's more then double since the bankrupcy and enough cars to shut down GM completly for half a year and nobody would notice.

In a way this could be benificial. Dealerships are like a buffer to manufacturers, should a paticular model be a flop maybe a few dealerships go bust but not the company itself. That said, the system is far more susceptible to abuse so i'd say it should go. Afterall one could argue that if the car company isn't able to continue producing succesfull cars why should they be allowed to continue to exist? I see no reason why a cash buffer couldn't do exactly the same job as a dealership for a buffer in case of bad times...


RE: Question,
By BRB29 on 6/24/2013 12:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That said, dealerships won't go away. This because dealerships while a detriment to the consumer are a benifit to the manufacturer. It allows them to sell more cars.

No, once again you are commenting on a country you know nothing about.

The US is a very large country with a lot of people. Our mass transit is horrible. We say "driving is a privilege" but it's really a necessity of life. Just about everyone in this country needs to drive to live. The only city with an adequate metro system is NYC and it's surrounding cities. Even places like Baltimore and DC are mostly unreliable for mass transit. You cannot get everywhere you need and the wait is horrible(sometimes dangerous) at off peak times.

That being said, the number of vehicles sold every year will not go up or down because a dealer exist or not because we have to buy the cars anyways. At least not a significant change. Removing the dealerships can decrease price and cause a shift to more premium trims/models.


RE: Question,
By Spuke on 6/24/2013 5:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Removing the dealerships can decrease price and cause a shift to more premium trims/models.
I could see this happening. If you've seen the difference between dealer cost and even MSRP, especially on luxury vehicles, eliminating the middleman would definitely move a lot of people upmarket on their purchases. The manufacturers are already satisfied with their profit margins so prices would only go down. Granted like someone else mentioned, manufacturers would have to have showrooms (to see the cars and for test drives) but servicing could remain separate.


RE: Question,
By foolsgambit11 on 6/24/2013 7:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
The price of cars (or any good) isn't set (only) by how many people mark up the price, it's set by how much consumers are willing to pay (the demand curve), which doesn't change based on who owns the point of sale. So your two scenarios would be:

Manufacturer sells to dealership at cost + profit,
Dealership sells to you at cost + profit.
and
Manufacturer sells to you at cost + (2x profit).

Assuming the supply side remains constant, which it may or may not. The question would be, is it cheaper for dealerships to have control over all their dealerships, with the bureaucracy that entails (middle management, oversight, accountants, setting prices for different markets, dealing with the variance in local laws, etc.) or to offload that to experts at the local level by use of an independent dealership system? My guess is that central control is more efficient up to a certain size, then a dealership model becomes more cost efficient - which is exactly what Musk meant with his comment that, as the company grows, they plan on going to an independent dealership model.

None of this, however, suggests that government should mandate one model over the other - in fact, it suggests the opposite. Mandating a dealership model is about setting up barriers to entry for small competitors, who can't get their models into showrooms. Those barriers to entry ensure that the major manufacturers AND the dealerships can make economic profit (by restricting substitutes for their goods, ECON 101 folks, which would shift the demand curve, resulting in lower prices and fewer units sold).

Ultimately, then, this isn't about sales models at all (either which is better for the consumer, or which is better for the sellers) it's about removing competitors from the market - which is always better for the seller.


RE: Question,
By 1prophet on 6/25/2013 12:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That said, dealerships won't go away. This because dealerships while a detriment to the consumer are a benefit to the manufacturer. It allows them to sell more cars.


The greatest benefit to the manufacturers that dealers provide is the offloading of personnel, infrastructure, liability, and equipment costs to an independent entity known as the dealer, while still maintaining a lot of control through the franchise contract.

They also buy the vehicles using an open ended loan called a floorplan from the manufacturer, thus moving the vehicles accounting wise off the manufacturers books.

It's a win win for the auto manufacturers,

why would they want to own their own stores and have their own employees with all the hassles that go with it?


RE: Question,
By BRB29 on 6/24/2013 12:40:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But by the same token we help employe people on a cost that we have perceived already


Those people wouldn't really lose jobs. Not all dealers will close. The ones that close will be replaced by the automaker's Stores. Those guys will just get a job there doing the same damn thing.

The only difference now is there's no rich guy taking a huge chunk of the purchase price.


The Best Government Money Can Buy
By DaveLessnau on 6/24/2013 10:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
The subject line says it all. I can't believe this is what's happened to the United States.




RE: The Best Government Money Can Buy
By DaveLessnau on 6/24/2013 11:35:25 AM , Rating: 2
I've just got to wonder why, at every level of government (from school boards up to the Federal level), this kind of stuff keeps on happening. In this particular case, why didn't the sponsors of the bills look at themselves in mirrors and ask:

"What's it to me (and the government) if someone wants to sell cars without dealerships and people want to buy them that way? This isn't 1908 anymore. There are all kinds of people and organizations that test cars and publish the results. There are all kinds of information outlets that will let people compare and contrast the cars and prices. And, there's that thing Al Gore invented, called the internet, where anyone can find more information than they could possible use on these things. Do I really need those "perks" and "contributions" the other car companies, dealerships and labor unions are offering me? Is this worth my integrity, honor, and soul? Is it worth the rule of law?"

And, even if the sponsors fails to ask themselves that question (or get the answer wrong), what about all the others in that house of government? Assuming it gets through that house (and assuming NY is bicameral), why don't the members of the other house ask that? If it gets through that, why doesn't the governor ask himself that? If it get through that, why don't the courts ask themselves that?

This stuff seems to happen all the time. Is there no one in government who isn't in it just for the bribes and the power? Do none of these people look at the various constitutions to see what they're supposed to be doing and how they're supposed to be limited? Why are they never held accountable? Not only are they never impeached (or whatever) and thrown out of office for abuse of power, their constituents keep sending them back for more. Is that chicken in every pot worth their freedom? Why does the press not hound the originators and signers of these bills like they do some random football player who might have killed his girl friend? Why aren't they swarming all over them like flies on poo every time they stick their noses out of their houses?

Why does this stuff KEEP happening?

I'm sorry. I'm going to have a lie-down, now.


RE: The Best Government Money Can Buy
By Spuke on 6/24/2013 3:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does this stuff KEEP happening?
Because WE (the royal We) don't like change and we'll defend the old way to the death even if we hate it. Listen to all the Win8 hate. That is EXACT same reason why NY (and Texas and probably every other state) wants to keep the dealership model.


Blatant admission
By Masospaghetti on 6/24/2013 10:30:48 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that dealerships are claiming Tesla's business model is "unfair" is an admission that the buying public doesn't want dealerships.

If dealerships really added any value to the car buying process, people would continue to use them.

Personally, I dread going to a dealership and the experience there is usually not a pleasant one. I'd much rather avoid the sales staff and buy online.




RE: Blatant admission
By spamreader1 on 6/24/2013 11:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
Amen. I've never had a pleasant experience at any new car dealership. CarMax is the closest thing to a non-harassment dealership as I've seen and I still don't care for them.


Auto DoucherShips
By Mitch101 on 6/24/2013 9:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone need further proof that auto dealerships are just Auto DoucherShips. Cant make it on an education and like to con people then get into a career of auto sales where you can be a con artist in plain site. Eliminate car dealerships and offer flat pricing on cars/trucks and move away from this ancient method of sales.

To be more on subject are dealerships that worried about such a small niche market that the tesla is or do they see what the potential is and fight so they don't have to compete. Your showing your corruption level NY if this passes.




Bill number
By chris2 on 6/24/2013 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
The bill number in the senate is actually 5725A. Here's a link to it but there isn't really a point in looking at it since the text is identical to the assembly bill:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S...




NY is all about protectionism
By Lord 666 on 6/24/2013 12:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Specifically transportation. Name the subway line that goes to either JFK or LaGuardia... trick question as there is none. Can take the subway to Jamaica station and then the Air tran for JFK, but no such option for LaGuardia.

Why did they do this? To appease the taxi union.




By GotThumbs on 6/24/2013 6:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Tesla is a successful business and is huge competition to traditional autos....thus YOU KNOW the Auto industry is pulling all its favors to get this form of punishment into law.

This trend is bad for Americans. Read Atlas Shrugged or simply watch the movie to see how business innovators will be/are worked against by old industry fellows (AUTO UNIONS) and corrupt government officials.




This is BS
By Dug on 6/24/2013 7:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Is there any other manufacturer that can't sell direct to consumers?

Why don't they shut down all the Apple stores, Starbucks, etc. because it's unfair for them to sell their own product.

It's like they are trying to stifle what makes America great.

These lobbyists sound like whiny little kids that don't get their way. Just because someone is smart enough to do it the right way and produce a product better than you, doesn't give you the right to try to shut them down. They fully know Tesla can't afford to sell to dealerships. Not only does it cost Tesla more money, but it costs the consumers more money. And selling to dealerships would tarnish their reputation (as they have no control over who works at the dealerships.) So no one wins but the middle man. They're acting like sore losers.




Petition
dealers
By BRB29 on 6/24/2013 9:41:15 AM , Rating: 1
Dealers are lobbying hard in NY




Nazis
By Shadowmaster625 on 6/24/13, Rating: -1
"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki