Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another example on how Republicans aren't anymore free market than Democrats and in many ways they are even more restrictive. Whatever happened to supporting free markets?!
Legislative favors being sold to the highest bidder IS a free market, you commie.
These laws go way back. Now since people asked.....
There are two problems. Start with the old one......GM couldn't expect GM dealers to be service centers only. A dealer with all their overhead couldn't compete with the factory with basically none. GM wasn't going to buy 500 dealerships, provide benefits etc for all these people so they weren't allowed to undercut their dealers.
Now Tesla might have been able to avoid this as a start up but they didn't. They asked dealers to start selling their cars for them. Make room for them, floor plan them etc. Now they want to undercut them?
Tesla could likely decide to pull all franchises, open their own stores etc but its unlikely.
Its pretty scummy to want to undercut those they helped you grow.
These laws just protect franchised dealers. NJ is not much different from other states - these dealers are politically strong and don't want a new kind of competition.
I think it is wrong. Christie is bowing to political forces. Just like other politicians. Rick Perry will do the same thing in Texas.
NJ after all, is one of only two states that doesn't allow self service gas stations. That is a job protection scheme.
These laws go way back. Now since people asked.....
There are two problems. Start with the old one......GM couldn't expect GM dealers to be service centers only. A dealer with all their overhead couldn't compete with the factory with basically none. GM wasn't going to buy 500 dealerships, provide benefits etc for all these people so they weren't allowed to undercut their dealers.
Now Tesla might have been able to avoid this as a start up but they didn't. They asked dealers to start selling their cars for them. Make room for them, floor plan them etc. Now they want to undercut them?
Tesla could likely decide to pull all franchises, open their own stores etc but its unlikely.
Its pretty scummy to want to undercut those they helped you grow.
Can you expand on the bold? I thought it was illegal for dealers to sell direct to consumers.
Can you expand on the bold? I thought it was illegal for dealers to sell direct to consumers.
I am not an expert here so perhaps I should have worded that differently. It is illegal for the reasons I note. I imagine the discussion changes if Tesla wasn't competing with their own dealers. So I should use the argument that this is what they will have to do IMO to sell direct.
These laws go way back. Now since people asked.....
There are two problems. Start with the old one......GM couldn't expect GM dealers to be service centers only. A dealer with all their overhead couldn't compete with the factory with basically none. GM wasn't going to buy 500 dealerships, provide benefits etc for all these people so they weren't allowed to undercut their dealers.
Now Tesla might have been able to avoid this as a start up but they didn't. They asked dealers to start selling their cars for them. Make room for them, floor plan them etc. Now they want to undercut them?
Tesla could likely decide to pull all franchises, open their own stores etc but its unlikely.
Its pretty scummy to want to undercut those they helped you grow.
I thought Tesla's were always only ever sold from Tesla stores. I didn't think that there were dealerships that carried Teslas. Hmm, I agree that screwing people that helped you get to where you were is a fairly dick move and if true that sucks for the dealers, but then if the dealers are getting undercut then all they do is immediately stop selling Teslas b/c screw that.
As far as the problems handled between Dealer and Supplier I can't see why this needed extra-legislation for something that would be a practice in free market economics. Yeah GM could probably undercut dealers, but they are also only located a few choice places. Unless they decided to open their own dealerships and now they've just cut into their own profits b/c now like you said they have to handle all the overhead where before they didn't.
Ah well, I don't know, I'm kind of against it b/c I hate lots of extra laws complicating things, but sure I can see how that could be a problem.
I thought Tesla's were always only ever sold from Tesla stores. I didn't think that there were dealerships that carried Teslas. Hmm, I agree that screwing people that helped you get to where you were is a fairly dick move and if true that sucks for the dealers, but then if the dealers are getting undercut then all they do is immediately stop selling Teslas b/c screw that.
I believed they were sold out of existing dealers. If I am wrong I have no problem with them setting up their own network. If not the dealers have invested on them already. It wouldn't be right to just pull them.
I believed they were sold out of existing dealers. If I am wrong I have no problem with them setting up their own network. If not the dealers have invested on them already. It wouldn't be right to just pull them.
So this got me interested so now after a bit of googling I see here and on wikipedia that apparently Tesla has Stores and Galleries but neither of them actually really sells vehicles
Quote:
Tesla operates stores or galleries,[36][37] both of which are usually located in shopping malls, in 22 U.S. states and Washington DC. Customers cannot purchase vehicles from the stores,[38][39][40] customers must order their vehicles on the Tesla Motors website.[41] The stores act as showrooms that allow people to learn more about Tesla Motors and its vehicles. The galleries are located in states with more restrictive dealership protection laws, which prevent discussing prices, finances, test drives, and other restrictions.
So from there it seems that the situation you were referring to with the undercutting of current dealers doesn't exist. So from there I'm seeing the Tesla issue as being lesser than it seemed before. Maybe its that it would set a "precedence", but like you said it would be pretty tough for the big guys to make any more money than they are if they wanted to go through the whole process of direct sales as opposed to what happens now.
... it would be pretty tough for the big guys to make any more money than they are if they wanted to go through the whole process of direct sales as opposed to what happens now.
In isolation, I'm sure the manufacturers would love to sell direct and get a slice of the dealership profit. In practice, they'd suffer through the pain of a major upheaval in their distribution chain. Tesla is much more nimble in that regard, and that has to terrify them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
