[Speegleagle]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Actually the mail does work due to what happened with the American Letter Mail Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...r_Mail_Company

A monopoly by law tried to shut down (and eventually did).

It *is* bloat. It would be called muda in Japan and frankly anyone that has looked at Kaizen or Six Sigma would know this. Define the critical path.

No car company is reluctant to invest in electronics as we went to fuel injections and automatic transmission and power everything. If you want to drive a car that's manual everything by all means find something from the early 1970's. I have a cousin with a 72 camero. It's so simple I can understand it.

Tesla and Toyota are considering sharing a small electric SUV platform. Obviously Toyota is doing this to survive. Tesla has the patent wall and any car company can see how they do things so at this point if you can copy why not?

https://www.torquenews.com/1/tesla-a...c-suv-platform

Platforms are made for multiple models so I'm assuming customizing it and some different cosmetics. So yes they have decided and they are going with Tesla.

Where’s the E Mail angle? FYI, I know plenty about the US Mail. I was responsible for a change in Postal Regulations in 1980. It was documented in an article about me in a nationally published magazine. Pulling up a 150 year old lawsuit ?

Toyota doing it to survive ? Tesla is a roller coaster company.

“ considering” “ assuming”
“ have decided” ?

Look, you’re spinning your wheels here.

[synchem]

Originally Posted by Speegleagle

The benefit to consumers is the present system, which has stood the test of time and up until recently, has not been challenged as it is currently , as far as I know . If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

Demonstrate a necessary reason for change and I would be pleased to look it over. Speculation need not apply.

“ Other industries “ are not this Industry.

What is fragile is anticipating superior outcomes when no such reason for change actually exists.

Did we not see that with “ Cash for Clunkers” ? Piles and piles of taxpayer dollars to buy low MPG vehicles , only to have the same people use a lot of the money to purchase another low MPG vehicle.
All to try and get people’s behavior that they are not interested in. And behold, a decade later and the top selling vehicles in America are pick up trucks and SUVs, the same vehicles “ Cash for Clunkers” was supposed to remove from the marketplace.

Please, how is it a benefit to the consumers when no alternative is available. You can't honestly say that is when there is no competition or alternative system allowed. Standing the test of time? It sounds that your just habitually against progress/improvement/competition. No one is saying dealerships have to go away, if it is truly the best system then they will still prevail, what are you afraid of? How would allowing direct to consumer detract from the dealership model if it is so great?

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by Speegleagle

Toyota doing it to survive ? Tesla is a roller coaster company.
.

Roller Coaster? more like a dive bomber. That stock is sinking faster than two Titanics.

Give me my Landcruiser over a Tesla any day and Sunday.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by Speegleagle

It is relevant to CT law. Why change the Law which may result in negative outcomes for the consumer?

It isn’t anyone else now but Tesla. The future is what it will be , so we will see who else gets involved. For now, we have to look at what is the reality.

Testing is fine, but changing existing Law because one company , that represents a tiny percentage of the volume of Business decides to buck the system should not be allowed to potentially create disruption .

It hasn’t been demonstrated to a satisfactorily level that the current system is not in the best in test of the market.

Should not be allowed? Really? You speak for no one but yourself.

What about content and cable for this matter? Cable tv is argued to be a monopoly as frankly companies aren't going to lay new cable and compete. They pretty much agree not to compete. There's no town that it MUST be that company or be one company. Ok but the change in technology meant that content producers would simply shift to go online. Why bother to lobby some tv company for access to a cable platform when you can press "upload" on a major video site like youtube and others Cable was a monopoly in the sense of what it had but it was not the only way to get content. Content is king now. NBC was bought by comcast for a reason, Disney bought out ABC and later Marvel for a reason etc. The argument here is disruption.

The current market does not benefit as having extra people doesn't mean lower prices. Are you aware of what prudent man law is and what acting as a fiduciary is? Let's suppose I run a fleet of vehicles. Why the hell should I deal with a dealership if I can go direct? Where's my extra for the $1,800 more a dealership charges. Do you think that Amway is a good idea too? After all why buy from a store when you can get $30 laundry detergent and pay for for eight people above you in the pyramid their retirement!

"I was responsible for a change in Postal Regulations in 1980. It was documented in an article about me in a nationally published magazine."

Wow that's a big thing to brag about. Something 40 years ago. Did you have a Curtis Mathes TV too? Quadaphonic sound on the stereo? The only big postal change was after the strike in the early 70's it went from postal service to post office.

Potential disruption? that's what capitalism is all about son. Should we have supported the whip and buggy industry? Maybe banned tv's to help out radio? Banned radio to help out newspapers? maybe we should get rid of the internet and go with slow scan tv instead of streaming video. We could also churn our butter and raise chickens while we are at it.

To what manner and what extent would this do (if any) damage to CT? If the rest of the country already allows this what makes this ship of doom so menacing? Are we going to see car salesman holding up signs "Will sell extended plans for food"?

The fact that financially transactions cross state boundaries (most car companies are not incorporated in CT) means that the current law can be considered against the full faith and credit clause and equal protection as it would fall under interstate commerce.

You can give public comment if you want. Most wants the bill to pass. Read comments yourself
https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/Comm...&doc_year=2021

As a stock TSLA isn't for the faint of heart but it has gone up about 5x in the past 18 months. I wouldn't own it directly. toyota is higher by about 20% In term of market cap Tesla is bigger by far it's about 1.75x But again there's also profit and loss etc. Toyota has to make deals with companies in order to surive. Where tesla actually is, is where NUMMI was which was GM and Toyota. So that reliable '98 Corolla you have was probably made there.

[Reilly1017]

I suspect speeeagle owns a dealership. I’m glad he’s had amazing experiences at family dealerships and sees the value they bring to his car purchases. I don’t advocate this change.

Fundamentally, a company SHOULD be able to sell direct to consumer, period. It’s illogical to have a law mandating a middle man.

To say a business cannot have a storefront that markets their product and sells directly to consumer is so absurd. It exists with no other product or service. If the business finds value in having a middleman (increase reach, marketing, service, etc) then GREAT. It’s why restaurants, gyms, hair salons, etc franchise out. It benefits both parties. If a Ford dealership benefits Ford and the franchise owner, great. However it should NOT be mandated that you HAVE TO use the middleman.

I’m sorry but I don’t see how this is debatable.

[JGBigGreen]

The transportation committee passed the bill with broad bi-partisan support. That sounds more like the will of the people than lobbyists for the dealerships paying to maintain the status quo. If you did a survey of the Connecticut populace there would likely be overwhelming support for Tesla and other manufacturers selling direct to consumers. And it’s not just Tesla. Other EV manufacturers are behind this push as well.

Originally Posted by Speegleagle

Really? The entire system is based on lobbyists across the board. So far, after all these years it is said to be at the expense of the consumer ? However no clear preponderance of facts to support a change have been presented. The only change to the present scenario has been one company , fully aware of the Law, that seeks an exception for their own” corporate socialism”.

We live in a Democratic Republic. The Law on the books regarding direct sales by car dealers is long standing, accepted , and adhered to. Sounds like the Will of the People to me.

[Speegleagle]

Originally Posted by synchem

Please, how is it a benefit to the consumers when no alternative is available. You can't honestly say that is when there is no competition or alternative system allowed. Standing the test of time? It sounds that your just habitually against progress/improvement/competition. No one is saying dealerships have to go away, if it is truly the best system then they will still prevail, what are you afraid of? How would allowing direct to consumer detract from the dealership model if it is so great?

The benefit is that what exists is a known. Traditional, understood, easier to navigate than change simply for the reason of adaptability.

I didn’t create the model. I only know what exists. Again, an “ alternate system” may or may not be better , so it is speculative.

I am never against progressive /improvement /competition. What I am against is change for change sake, without substantial foundational support for that change.

If the Law changes, it opens the door for other manufacturers to follow suit. The consequences? Unknown.

I’m not afraid of change. If you can prove to me that starting the gears that could potentially turn the present system upside down is superior in the end run, go ahead.

The starting price for a Tesla is what 40K ? Most are 60 K if you want to get more battery capacity. If I am spending that kind of money, a bit more than an Apple Product, a Forever Stamp , and other consumer items, I prefer a dealership rather than a kiosk , website or similar.

[Speegleagle]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

The transportation committee passed the bill with broad bi-partisan support. That sounds more like the will of the people than lobbyists for the dealerships paying to maintain the status quo. If you did a survey of the Connecticut populace there would likely be overwhelming support for Tesla and other manufacturers selling direct to consumers. And it’s not just Tesla. Other EV manufacturers are behind this push as well.

If I did a survey? “ Likely” ? More speculation.
Look, Tesla is seeking to go around existing Law. Until the Law is changed in the Legislature, they remain in the category of being sued.

“ other EV manufacturers are behind this push as well”
So what makes their lobbying efforts to upset the status quo okay, but not the dealership’s?

[Speegleagle]

Originally Posted by Reilly1017

I suspect speeeagle owns a dealership. I’m glad he’s had amazing experiences at family dealerships and sees the value they bring to his car purchases. I don’t advocate this change.

Fundamentally, a company SHOULD be able to sell direct to consumer, period. It’s illogical to have a law mandating a middle man.

To say a business cannot have a storefront that markets their product and sells directly to consumer is so absurd. It exists with no other product or service. If the business finds value in having a middleman (increase reach, marketing, service, etc) then GREAT. It’s why restaurants, gyms, hair salons, etc franchise out. It benefits both parties. If a Ford dealership benefits Ford and the franchise owner, great. However it should NOT be mandated that you HAVE TO use the middleman.

I’m sorry but I don’t see how this is debatable.

You are so incorrect. There are hundreds if not thousands of businesses that are prevented from selling direct to the end user, as it is referred to in many industries.

It’s called “ the trade” .

Thanks for your participation.

[mdovell]

CT doesn't have the political will to go after Tesla. They would be the laughing stock of the country