5 ms·
"Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up" You can't write a balanced article on car dealerships without researching why these
by joosters 11y ago
"Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up"
You can't write a balanced article on car dealerships without researching why these laws were enacted in the first place. So many people here just assume "oh, it's because of greed" - but perhaps you should spend a short time first of all investigating why these laws were created and the problems they were trying to solve.
Likewise, you can't write a convincing article about removing these laws if you don't speak of the reasons why the laws were created. You need to show why these reasons are no longer good.
- lawstudent2 11y agoWe know why it was put up. This is not a mystery. It was lobbied for by car dealerships in order to procure monopoly status, under the guise of 'consumer protection.' This is kind of a bullshit response, honestly. This is a very, very well plumbed, documented and reported on issue. The corollary to your statement about fences is: "About which you do not know, be silent." Car dealership laws may have served a purpose, but their primary purpose these days is to enrich car dealership owners: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-b... http://www.americanbar.org/publications/franchise_lawyer/2013/summer_2013/has_traditional_automobile_franchise_system_run_out_gas.html http://www.americanbar.org/publications/franchise_lawyer/201... Their passing will be a net gain for the consumer.
- GhotiFish 11y agoOh... so I'm one of those ignorant masses that should be silent, I hope that rule doesn't extend to asking to asking a few questions? If not, I hope you can forgive me for this: Why were they made before? Why does this not apply now? This whole thing seems to be lifted on it's own bootstraps, and I think the grandparent post and I want this paradox addressed.
- lawstudent2 11y agoAs posted in another thread: > These laws that were passed to prop up car dealerships and came about in an era without mass marketing, but, very importantly, and self-acknowledgledly, these laws existed to prevent the manufacturer from undercutting prices offered by dealers - under the theory that dealers were of critical importance to customers for servicing and selling cars. Which is a combination of circular and dumb. And even if it was once true, because people could not comparison shop without the internet, it is now no longer true, because people can comparison shop with the internet and can visit manufacturers directly for servicing. These laws are literally anti-competitive monopolies that, if they never existed, would not need to be invented now to protect consumers. Instead they operate as enforceable licenses, dividing the country up into fiefdoms, in which each little fiefdom the local car dealer is the ensconced baron, operating with a monopoly on all original cars sales from that manufacturer in that territory - and if another dealer tries to sell new cars from that manufacturer in that territory, they can be stopped by the state and sued out of existence. In other words, it was once thought that car dealerships offered critically important services to consumers - and even if that were once the case - and I deny that it was ever the case, it was just an excuse to pass these laws - it is no longer the case, because of carfax, bluebook, rigorously licensed repair shops, and car manufacturers that have figured out how to create and operate manufacturer owned dealerships. This is the vestige of a bygone - and I argue, wholly credulous - era. It is a straight-up tax on the consumer, and it benefits no one but the car dealerships to make it literally illegal for two people to be selling new cars from the same manufacturer within the same territory. That is what those laws do - let that sink in, because that is fucking ri-goddamn-diculous. Car dealerships, and their territories, literally become heritable assets like a barony. It's insane. And no, my sarcasm aside, the point about being silent in areas of ignorance was made out of frustration that because the person I was replying to was personally ignorant it meant that there was a bona fide debate in this area. There isn't. And it is pretty easy to do the research. I find all to common, however, it being a very fashionable and vogue statement for someone to make to prove how intellectual and cultured they are that, if they aren't familiar with an area of discussion, then surely there must be a legitimate debate to be had. Well, no. That is sometimes true, and very often not. This is one of those cases. You will find two sides in this debate: car dealers and the people paid by car dealers; literally everyone else.
- manaskarekar 11y agoNice quote, led me to https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/. > The quotation you’re looking for is from Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing, in the chapter entitled, “The Drift from Domesticity”: In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
- venning 11y agoThe following [1] is an article that explains a bit of the supposed corruption behind the franchise protection laws. It is from a very biased source (Mother Jones), but the underlying facts can be sourced from many places. Essentially, California pioneered the idea of protecting existing franchises from being cannibalized by the manufacturer that they were dependent on. But other states have taken the idea to an extreme. [1] http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/why-you-cant-buy-new-car-online http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/why-you-cant-buy-new...
- fulafel 11y agoWhat makes you say MJ is very biased? I've been finding their articles pretty good and can't spot any links (or allegations thereof) to interest groups in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_%28magazine%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_%28magazine%29
- venning 11y agoI should not have said "very" biased. I also did not mean it as an indictment, only to prep the reader that there may be a bit of a slant. Google can point out some allegedly biased reporting they have done [1], but I'm certainly no expert on it. My concern, in this particular case, is that Mother Jones has, by most accounts, a left-leaning bias [2, among others]. Dealership associations have, by most accounts, a right-leaning bias [3, among others]. The conflict there raises my internal alarm when reading them on this issue. Moreover, you can't talk about franchise protections without talking about two major recent presidents during their tenure as governors. That those presidents are generally referred to negatively by MJ (in my personal estimation) and that casting their political legacies in a negative light makes a naturally-appealing target, needs to be considered. That said, I agree with you. I find MJ's articles generally good and I believe their reporting on this issue was very enlightening. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=mother+jones+bias https://www.google.com/search?q=mother+jones+bias [2] http://www.allsides.com/news-source/mother-jones http://www.allsides.com/news-source/mother-jones [3] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/news-flash-car-dealers-a...
- rtehfm 11y agoThere are several, really good discussions on this topic as well as the issues with the current state of the auto suppliers and their agreements with automakers that stifle progress in development. Unfortunately, I was only able to find one of them (linked below). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5819825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5819825
- nothrabannosir 11y ago"Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up" This is the most frustrating thing about uncommented sleep() calls sprinkled through a codebase.
- Spooky23 11y agoThat's very logical. But the en vogue approach today is to disrupt everyone out of business because technology entrepreneurs and capitalists are "good guys". The argument for this stuff is mostly "OMG Tesla is awesome!". But folks forget/ignore that having to deal with A fortune 50 company as a consumer isn't fun either (recall: AT&T in the old days). Your local car dealer may have annoying commercials, but the folks who allowed a defective $0.50 ignition switch to kill people didn't work for a Chevy dealer... They were GM engineers.
- aianus 11y agoThen buy a Tesla instead of a GM shitbox. What's your point?
- harmegido 11y agoI'm pretty sure the point is that if everyone buys a Tesla, they become the big company.
- stepanhruda 11y agoYou just knocked a strawman down
- arbitrage 11y agoGood thing this isn't a formal debate, or else he might lose points.
- gotchange 11y ago> "Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up" Why would you assume that such a fence was erected for a good reason and not out of malice or for personal gains?
- ssharp 11y agoThat's the exact idea -- you don't know, so don't assume and do your research.
- lawstudent2 11y agoYeah, but this is bullshit. We do know. The laws are garbage and should go the way of the dodo.
- braythwayt 11y agoI’d be very careful about using the argument “Go the way of the Dodo.” Contemporary thought is that it was a bad thing that humans hunted the Dodo to death. I’d use the analogy “Go the way of the dinosaurs,” it speaks to the fact that those who adapted, the avians, survived, without the baggage of debating the morality of hunting a species to death.
- oldmanjay 11y ago"Trust me, my opinion is the right one" is not a terrifically compelling stance on HN.
- lawstudent2 11y agoIt isn't my opinion. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-b... http://www.americanbar.org/publications/franchise_lawyer/2013/summer_2013/has_traditional_automobile_franchise_system_run_out_gas.html http://www.americanbar.org/publications/franchise_lawyer/201... What bugs the hell out of me is that on HN - rather like on reddit - there are often comments that make lipservice to an abstract concept of quasi-erudite fairness, saying "well if we don't have all the facts, how can we judge!?" well, two responses: 1. You are literally already on the internet. Use google for like, 30 seconds. 2. Oftentimes, those facts are actually in the underlying link. In this case, it is self evidently true that the laws that were passed to prop up car dealerships came about in an era without mass marketing, but, very importantly, and self-acknowledgledly, these laws existed to prevent the manufacturer from undercutting prices offered by dealers - under the theory that dealers were of critical importance to customers for servicing and selling cars. Which is a combination of circular and dumb. And even if it was once true, because people could not comparison shop without the internet, it is now no longer true, because people can comparison shop with the internet and can visit manufacturers directly for servicing. These laws are literally anti-competitive monopolies that, if they never existed, would not need to be invented now to protect consumers. Instead they operate as enforceable licenses, dividing the country up into fiefdoms, in which each little fiefdom the local car dealer is the ensconced baron, operating with a monopoly on all original cars sales from that manufacturer in that territory - and if another dealer tries to sell new cars from that manufacturer in that territory, they can be stopped by the state and sued out of existence. That, dotcomrade, is a load of bullshit. And easily discoverable with a 30-90 second google search.
- rch 11y agoI seem to recall that the laws were put in place, at least in part, to protect the dealers who were financing the manufactures, only to have the manufactures come in and sell directly once vehicles were ready.
- Asbostos 11y agoI'd have thought a contract between the dealer and manufacturer would have solved that. Why don't other industries need laws to protect retailers from manufacturers?
- msandford 11y agoBecause the manufacturer can bankrupt any one dealer since the finances are so difference, one has billions and the other has (maybe) millions. And once the dealer is out of business coming up with the money to sue for breach is a lot harder. There aren't a lot of other products that people are willing to travel for versus just buying at their local big-box like Target, Best Buy, etc. What other product category even comes close?
- rch 11y agoLook at the three-party alcohol distribution laws in Texas, for example. Many of these laws are being revisited now, but business was much different 50+ years ago.
- Symmetry 11y agoWell, we can see how the dealership-less model works out for Tesla and if it causes major problems.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Rumford 11y ago> "Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up" I'm a big believer in Chesterton's Fence too, but what do you do about fences put up by someone who had no right to put it there? If someone erected a wall through the middle of your kitchen, would you have the same reticence to tear it down? The way I see it, the state has no right to enforce a ban like this, and we would be justified in ignoring and circumventing it.
- braythwayt 11y ago“The State has no right to _____.” These arguments are rife in US political discourse, but as an outsider with no emotional investment in the idea of guarding against the dreaded tyranny of kings... I note that such arguments always avoid addressing the underlying problem. In your case, there is a fence in your kitchen, and there you are tearing it down without pausing even for a moment to ask why it is there. Was there a fire while you were out, and the floor on the other side of the fence is no longer sound? Is there some kind of toxic chemical spill going on? Is this a crime scene that must be preserved while evidence is gathered? The argument of whether the state has a right is certainly interesting, and we ought to have it, but we still ought to understand why they thought the fence should be put there, regardless of our interpretation of whether they had that right or not.
- Rumford 11y agoPoint taken, and I'm glad you see the merit in the discussion about what things the state has any right to do. After all, sometimes trespassing is the right thing to do. I certainly hope the fire department doesn't wait to be invited if they notice my house is burning down! I guess I'm just extremely certain that after studying the lineage of a ban like this, one would discover that no, it really isn't necessary. Maybe I'll go test that hypothesis later.
- mikeash 11y agoI think you're right that these laws aren't necessary. But I still think it's important to understand them before declaring them to be such. I have a hard time understanding how you can declare yourself to be "extremely certain" of something before you've gone out and obtained the information. It's supposed to be the other way around!
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoBut... Uber! AirBnB! These companies all win by opposing, not just one law, but a baroque edifice of law constructed clumsily over a century. With a little push, it all comes down. So, now Tesla wants to try selling new cars a new way. By allowing actual information (over the internet) to be freely available about every facet of their car. You like it, you try it in a nearby demo center, you buy it! Like so many other things we buy (like houses) I'm pretty sure new cars don't need any protected status as a sales issue. In fact, most of us are pretty sure we're not getting responsibly informed by the car salesman in person. Just the opposite. Lets say it out loud - car dealers think (know) they can make more sales by manipulating us in person. They fear a world where folks make independent decisions. So they make up any excuse to put off that future.
- jessaustin 11y agoDon't ever take a fence down... Conservatism is fine as mental shortcuts go, but we shouldn't take every mental shortcut available. We don't actually have to worry about shit that supposedly happened a hundred years ago, if we take the time to look at what's going on now. Right now, there are customers who want to buy, and producers who want to sell. Relaxing dealer requirements would allow those beneficial transactions to occur. If we're so concerned that unspecified bad shit will happen because who knows it might happen, then simply put a time limit on the relaxed requirements. That is, the law could say that dealer requirements will come back in force in five years, unless subsequent legislation extends the period. In five years, legislators and lobbyists and maybe even the public can conclude "yes the world is exactly the same now as it was in 1920 so we need exactly the same laws", or not.
- mikeash 11y agoWhy is a time limit on a law and the vast uncertainty that would surround it as people try to figure out if it will be extended better than just doing your research and finding out reasoning behind these laws when they were enacted? It's not like the information is unavailable. You don't have to mount an expedition to the Himalayas or anything. Just go look it up. You may well find that you still think these laws are bad and should go. In that case, you can rest assured in the knowledge that you now understand the issues better, and you're better prepared to argue your case. Arguing that you should know why something was created before you remove it is actually the opposite of a mental shortcut. It's saying that you should do your homework before you make changes.
- jessaustin 11y agoYou've tied yourself in knots here. "Vast uncertainty" about effective dates of regulations is worse than those regulations' direct effects on consumers who would like to purchase products? Worse according to whom, the Government Printing Office? As other comments in the thread have made clear, the "research" has been done, and the ancient lore of how automobile sales were different from every other aspect of the economy a century ago has been rejected.
- steamer25 11y agoI think a better analogy would be a bear-trap or a land-mine. The powers granted to government exist to deny life, liberty and property to those who violate the law. They're fundamentally destructive. Although we intend that they only be used in suppressing illegitimate force and fraud, that's not always the case. Under this analogy, I think it's quite reasonable to question why we have so many of these very dangerous laws just lying around waiting to ruin someone's life. Absent very compelling and readily apparent reasons for keeping them in place, the default course of action should be to disable and remove them as quickly as is safe to do. "A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson on the dubiousness of pre-supposing that perfect and timeless wisdom guided anyone who's ever deigned to enact a law.
- fineman 11y agoUm, graft. Like all other cases of protectionism. There was once a problem and someone suggested regulation to fix it and now that the problem is gone the regulation remains. There are two fundamental issues here. 1) Why is commercial driving complex 2) Do we need a rent-seeking monopoly industry to solve the issues for us? The answer for #2 is a resounding no.