How Car Dealership Lobbyists Successfully Banned Tesla Motors From Texas 688
Funksaw writes "In a political op-ed on his blog, long time Slashdot reader and contributor Brian Boyko (the guy who did that animated Windows 8 video) — now a candidate for state representative — explains how lobbyists from car dealerships successfully banned Tesla Motors from selling cars in Texas. From the article: 'Tesla Motors doesn't just present a case study of why a lack of campaign finance reform blocks meaningful reform on the issues that Democrats care about, like climate change and health care. A lack of campaign finance reform blocks reforms on both the Left and the Right. Here's the big elephant in the room I'd like to point out to all the "elephants" in the room: With a Republican-controlled legislature, a Republican executive, and many conservatives in our judiciary, why the hell don't we have free markets in Texas? Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used? I'm not saying the conservatives are right in these assumptions; but I am saying that our broken campaign finance system makes a mockery of them.'"
Free Market? LoL (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, with how I saw Red McCombs screwing around San Antonio while I lived in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.
Big oil (Score:1, Insightful)
Texas doesn't want electric cars because it goes against their oil industry, which pretty much runs the state.
Re:Free Market? LoL (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. Anyone can describe a utopian economic system ("Under communism, everyone will work together for the common good!" "Under capitalism, competition and individual choice will lead to the greatest possible efficiency!") but in the real world, they all tend toward cronyism and corruption. Every single time.
Free market, LOL! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ever see the shirt with the outline of an elephant humping the outline of a donkey? Republicans have NO desire for free market. They push corporatism. Demoncrats have NO desire for free market. They push socialism.
Simple, apt explanation. Are you stuck in primary school, Funksaw? This is sort of common-knowledge these days.
Wrong party (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats don't want free-market.
They both want different lobbys to pay them (in campaign donations) for the "privilege" of not being encumbered by regulations of the other party.
Libertarians (both big "L" and little "l") generally want free-markets.
What he's discovering here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's cute that the synopsis above thinks Texas has a lot of conservatives in its government. Republicans != conservatives, at least not universially.
Nobody is Banning Tesla (Score:1, Insightful)
It's hard for me to have sympathy for tesla when every article claims that X state or Y state is ZOMG BANNING TESLA. No one is banning Tesla. It's intellectually dishonest. Tesla is whining that they don't like the rules, so they're just going to take their ball and go home. Look. It's the law. Want to sell cars? Get dealerships. Don't like the law? Lobby to change it. I would be a lot more interested in what Tesla and their supporters have to say if they would just present the facts honestly. It strikes me as a lot of whining and crying "unfair," when changing the law specifically for Tesla strikes me as less fair (however inevitable and necessary for that to happen *in due time*).
Re:Free Market? LoL (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans aren't free market libertarians, they are corporatists. Corporatists go complaining to the government when their long standing business model is challenged. Look throughout US history and you'll see examples going all the way back to the decline of the railroad empires.
Not a new law... (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't a new law that kept Tesla out of Texas. The law that car makers couldn't sell direct to consumers in the state has been there for years. Tesla can sell all the cars he wants in Texas. He just has to get someone to open dealerships just like GM, Ford, Toyota and all the others.
Re:What he's discovering here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anytime you put a label on a group, you've lost. Politicians have been developing ways to twist into or out of various labels for millennia. You want an actual debate, talk about the issues, with real data, and ban all labels.
It's how I would say that I used to share an office with Nate, and he liked to ski and drive fast cars, not that I used to share an office with that liberal white guy. In one description, I mentioned some information about him. In the other, I mentioned some labels that will make half the world hate him even though they don't know a thing about him.
Re:Nobody is Banning Tesla (Score:3, Insightful)
Protesting by not doing business in the state sure sounds a lot like lobbying.
Re:Wrong party (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that Libertarians want corporations to be unencumbered by regulations to the extent that they can harm people and the environment without oversight.
The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue what they're on about (because they aren't Libertarians, and/or they have a vested interest in marginalizing them).
FWIW, unlike Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians are allowed to think for themselves, and don't get beaten with a rubber hose for stepping out of the party line. I will admit, the official party plank regarding economics is a bit antiquated and unrealistic, but hardly the poison-our-food-and-water free-for-all you're making it out to be.
Re:Free market, LOL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism, lol.
Re:Big oil (Score:1, Insightful)
I just knew I'd get a +5 if I invoked Big Oil, whether they had anything to do with it or not. Just goes to show how useless the Slashdot scoring system is.
Re:Nobody is Banning Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's "dishonest" to frame this as "Tesla can't sell cars in Texas" then it's equally "dishonest" to frame it as "Tesla can sell cars in Texas if the follow 'the rules'". Both of those statements are true. Neither tells the whole story. And there's no reason whatever to accept one version over the other.
In 1960 blacks it was true to say "blacks in MS can vote if they follow 'the rules'". Of course "the rules" were desperately unfair both in conception and enforcement so in practice kept blacks from voting. Hence it was also true to say "blacks in MS are not allowed to vote". Just like in the Tesla case neither simplistic statement tells the whole story, but neither is any more "dishonest" than the other, they're just framed from different points of view.
Re:Free Market? LoL (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly the same thing can be said about Democrats. Don't play partisan politics. They are both the same.
Re:Read the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Tesla could probably sell their cars just fine if they contracted with the local dealerships. Why they don't... I do not know.
$$$$$$$
Dealerships don't work for free. They would either need to add at least $3k to the price of a bottom-end Model S or Tesla would have to eat that cost.
Also, I wouldn't rule out the dealers saying no to electrics on the basis of the lack of maintenance revenue. The stealerships wouldn't be able to charge Tesla drivers obscene rates for oil changes and such.
Re:Wrong party (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nobody is Banning Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the basis of the franchise laws as they exist to be: Car companies needed to expand in the old days, but lacked the capitol. Franchisees bought the rights to sell cars from a given company, put their name on the door, and started selling Ford, GM, whatever. Once the car companies themselves were in better shape (with cash kicking around) it would have been trivial for them to open their own dealership down the road, then either stop selling cars to the franchisee, or undercut their prices, etc. etc. Without those laws it would have been easy, and economically beneficial, for the car companies to kill their dealer network and replace it with corporate stores once they had the money to do so.
No franchisee has given money to Telsa to start selling their cars, so there's no one who needs those protections.
Re:Wrong party (Score:5, Insightful)
There ain't no such thing as a free market.
Either there's government enforcing at least basic rules about how the market operates (e.g. no "offers you can't refuse"), or there's non-market influences on the decisions of actors in that market (e.g. "I'm bleeding to death, it doesn't matter that the hospital in the next town offers cheaper service").
What Libertarians tend to actually want is the ability for the more powerful private actor to take advantage of the less powerful private actor with impunity. The more powerful private actor has a key advantage: They have a better ability to research and organize alternative transactions. That allows them to control the pricing in a way that the less powerful actor cannot.
For a concrete example, consider farmer Bob deciding whether to sell his corn to Archer Daniels Midland for $4.75 per bushel. Look at his options:
- Sell at the offered price.
- Not sell at all. That will probably cause him to lose his farm, because without this sale, he doesn't pay off the bank.
- Try to sell to someone else. But since there's no one besides ADM who buys corn in his area, the only way Bob could pull this off is to invent his own transport and distribution network, from scratch.
So what you have is not a free market, but a ADM-controlled market that is only free to ADM.
Re:Wrong party (Score:2, Insightful)
> The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue
No. That's not the other case at all. The other guy had your number right on the money.
Libertarians are so busy trying to make everyone afraid of Big Government that they overlook Big Business.
Re:Free Market? LoL (Score:5, Insightful)
But Democrats don't sell themselves as wanting completely free and unregulated markets. That's not to say they are hypocrites about other things but in this case it is more about Republicans.
Re:Free market, LOL! (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that there is anything at all socialist about it is laughable. It's the most corporate healthcare proposal ever devised, which isn't a surprise since it was devised by Republicans. All of the parts that were even vaguely socialist (single payer system for example) were quickly excised because they were a threat to the profit margins of drug makers, insurance companies, and other healthcare services. Most of the real cost saving opportunities were lost because the healthcare industry has a lot of lobbyists and a strong desire not to stop the gravy train.
Re:Wrong party (Score:5, Insightful)
And that goes double for Libertarians.
Just in the past week, we've had "Libertarians" support restrictions on abortions, both for and against the Keystone XL pipeline (private property rights, yes!, private property rights for anyone but corporations, no!) and both for and against gay marriage.
Read Reason Magazine for six months if you really want to learn how childish and confused what passes for "Libertarianism" really is. It's the political philosophy of undergrads, and the only reason it has as much currency in the US as it currently does is because some very rich people think they can use it to further erode economic and social liberty. And because it's the political philosophy of undergrads, some very cynical people are manipulating it to create and maintain a feudal system.
History will look back at the early 21st century Libertarianism about the way it looks back on the Utopianism of the late 19th century, another childish and confused political philosophy.
Re:Free Market? LoL (Score:4, Insightful)
I can imagine someone arguing this is the free market working. Lobbying and representation is a product, and those with the most money are purchasing it.
Re:Wrong party (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Free Market" in Action
(1) Free Market
(2) Monopolies
(3) Consolidation
(4) Business Oligarchy
(5) Political Oligarchy
(6) Collapse
GOTO (1)
Holy Fuck People! (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, RTFA.
EXISTING laws proscribe direct sale to the consumers. Argue if you want about how those laws cam into existence, but they are in fact, the law and predate Tesla.
Tesla wanted the laws changed. So they were actually the ones lobbying for a special exemption.
Texas didn't ban Tesla cars, they didn't change the existing laws to accommodate Tesla's sales model. You can argue about that being smart or not, but Telas's cars are NOT banned.
Re:Wrong party (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution presented is "Don't have commons, designate an owner for everything, and make them responsible for it." Basically, mass private ownership of everything, even the environment. You would have an air baron whom is in charge of the atmosphere and whom you have to pay to use it. Because he owns it, he would want it to be clean as possible and wouldn't allow people to pollute it without paying him. But that doesn't work because it assumes the owner is deeply concerned with long term sustainability instead of short term profits--a proven falsehood when examining corporate behavior today, plus it arbitrarily gives enormous amounts of power to individuals. If you're going to do that, you might will probably want elect them, and if you're electing them, you're basically talking about a government and suddenly it's socialism writ large. If you don't elect them, then you're back to water barons, which is a monumental failure from a socioeconomic perspective.
There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.
Re:Free Market? LoL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Canidate (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two kinds of Libertarians.
Idiots who are too naive to understand that libertarianism leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism, and
Monopolist Vulture Capitalists.
Re:This is a "Free Market" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free market, LOL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Healthcare would be nationalized. Welfare would pay more and have fewer strings attached. Labor rights would be much stronger. Public education would go through at least undergrad level. Community/municipal ISPs wouldn't be banned in any state.
Re:Free market, LOL! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Holy Fuck People! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla doesn't want these buffoons selling Teslas because dealers don't really want to say them.
Sure, they'll pay lip service to the idea. But the problem is that Tesla's have very few moving parts. There's no money to be made off of Tesla services. And that's where these guys make their money. So they will use Tesla's to draw people in, but they'll sell something else.
By the way, who cares why? What if it is just because Elon hates TADA? In a free market, he should be able to sell direct if he wants.
Re:Slashdot Canidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Most Slashdotters can understand that being a Liberal does not necessarily make one a Socialist or Communist. Why then do we accept the pigeonholing of all Libertarians as Anarchists/Anarcho-Capitalists? Those among the political right who cast the diverse group we know as Liberals into Socialist/Communist box are mocked for their ignorance -- and rightfully so. Yet, those among the political left who cast the diverse group we know as Libertarians into the Anarchist/Anarcho-Capitalist box are applauded, rewarded as is the case here through moderation.
Re:Holy Fuck People! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Canidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the basic assumptions of Libertarianism are flawed. Libertarianism as expressed by Rand, and economic theories based on or expounded by Libertarianism are flawed from the beginning because it assumes people will always act rationally and without fraud. Hence the ACposter was right, there are 2 kinds of Libertarians.
That is not to say that elements of Libertarian philosophy aren't useful in tempering over-reach by government regulators. For example, I think regulations strictly designed to limit competition such as limits on taxi vehicles should be reduced or eliminated. I think regulations that create undo barriers to entry for trades are unnecessary. For example, the state where I reside wants people who do hair weaving to be licensed as barbers which requires extensive training and apprenticeships. I think beyond the reasonable expectation that persons doing tasks that require "intimate" contact with people should be competent and not be a health hazard, the other requirements are designed as a barrier to entry and result in protected markets that do not function well.
But Libertarians these days spend their time demonizing government on all levels, and not recognizing the role that government does and should play in our society. They do not recognize economic terms like "public good" "excludability" "Rivalrous" to distinguish between markets that can only be public and non-exploitable. Everything to them should be privatized. That is a flawed understanding of economics.
Re:Free Market? LoL (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, a system corrupted by cronyism should not be confused with free market capitalism and should not be considered the natural end of free market capitalism -- it's simply a system corrupted by cronyism.
Thank you for illustrating my point so neatly. Just as die-hard communists insist that real communism looks nothing like was practiced in the USSR, so do free-market fundamentalists insist that real capitalism looks nothing like what we have in the US ... both groups neatly ignoring the fact that in the real world, this is how their preferred system behaves. You can talk all you want about how it should work, or how you think it would work if certain conditions were met, but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to how it actually works.
Re:Big oil (Score:5, Insightful)
"Invoice price" is entirely a marketing gimmick to make people think they got a great price these days. It works surprisingly well. It shows the skill of the salesmen when people genuinely believe they bought a car for less than it cost the dealership.
Re:Holy Fuck People! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Canidate (Score:5, Insightful)
"""Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible"."""
Some issues here.
First, it is Classic Liberalism. For the lack of a better description Classic Liberalism waned as a political force as implementation of its policies led to the Victorian workhouses. This led to Liberalism gaining a more social approach, leading to Social Liberalism which became the leading faction of Liberalism in the 20th century.
It is Libertarianism (ie. Neo-Classical Liberalism) that is concerned with minimalising government intervention. Libertarianism is basically Classical Liberalism in new clothing.
Re:Slashdot Canidate (Score:5, Insightful)
leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism
What's the case for your claim that libertarianism leads to "monopolism"? The ideology deliberately weaken government which is the both the most powerful sort of monopoly out there and the principal creator of monopolies historically.
And what's supposed to be wrong with vulture capitalism? Capitalism has always been fairly good at disposing of dying businesses and obsolete capital. I think part of the problem here is arbitrary moral rules that don't actually help anyone.
There is an old business adage: "Nothing Succeeds like Success". It breeds corollaries such as "Nobody got fired for buying IBM". (Microsoft, for the younger generation).
A successful business breeds a positive feedback process just as failing businesses tend to nosedive. As a business becomes more and more successful, it attracts more and more customers. It also can afford to negotiate for favorable supply contracts, buy up smaller competitors, and do other things that accelerate the growth curve even more by diving it an edge on the competition. Eventually, it gets so big that it can buy government on its own terms.
It doesn't need government to get there. Government - with the sometimes exception of local government - actually prefers to avoid dealing with smaller businesses, so you have to be well on your way towards monopoly before you can even start getting governmental favors.
And "moral rules" generally do help people. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. Even (or perhaps, especially) the ones that seem anti-common-sense. One of the most dangerous business fallacies is the pseudo-Darwinistic conceit that only the strong and the nasty survive. In the natural world which Darwin formulated his theories on, we have cute fluffy bunnies, delicate pretty butterflies and ape tribes which prosper because some members take care of others progeny instead of breeding themselves.
Re:Holy Fuck People! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Teslas would cost even more than they already do?
Re:Not corporatists (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a corporatist it does not mean you want *every* corporation to control the government. It just means you want to be part of the group of corporations that does. In fact it is important that most corporations are losers to concentrate wealth at the top.
A warlord doesn't want democracy. A warlord wants the world to be ruled by warlords. This doesn't mean he wants every warlord to succeed. He wants most to fail, so he can be as near to the top of the food chain as possible.
Re:Slashdot Canidate (Score:4, Insightful)
He's talking about the only two kinds that ever existed though.
Re:Free market, LOL! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's doing decently enough [dollars.com] compared to the dollar. Perhaps those 'entitlements' don't weigh as much as America's fat bankers.
Here's why that doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
When the rich have nothing to stop them creating barriers to entry for those that threaten to take away their riches it's only human nature for them to protect the livelihood of themselves and their families. Unchecked and you end up with feudalism.
I really don't understand why so many Americans want to throw away what George Washington and others fought to give them. I suppose it's a good old American style confidence trick to hide such a thing under a name with "liberty" in it.