7 ms·

I think there is a stage where a genuine innovation is in a regulatory grey state because society simply hasn't processed its effects yet. That wasn't the case

I think there is a stage where a genuine innovation is in a regulatory grey state because society simply hasn't processed its effects yet. That wasn't the case here... but it is in many other situations. Sometimes ex-post-facto the innovation is ruled against regulation and sometimes not. Take Tesla as an example -- a company who has tried to sell cars online. Since many states hadn't seen that before, they tried to rule that it was illegal due to dealer-sales regulation. Do you fault Musk for hacking this (bad) regulation by trying to work around it? Is he not proving its spuriousness by innovating in this manner? In some cases its considered hero's work, and in other's villainous greed.

icebraining 10y ago
Since many states hadn't seen that before, they tried to rule that it was illegal due to dealer-sales regulation. I don't see what being online has anything to do with it; the spirit of the rule - preventing the manufacturers from competing with dealerships - is valid anyway. I personally disagree with this rule, but the "online" part is just Tesla trying to get off on a technicality.
- msandford 10y ago
  I'm all for manufacturers being prevented from going back on the deals they struck with dealers; the capital they raised from selling dealership franchises was very important for the growth of the manufacturers. But if a manufacturer never setup a dealer program? Fair game to them, IMO.
  - csours 10y ago
    It's one step more complicated than that. GM has 5 year renewable franchises, so theoretically they could just wait 5 years and not renew. The issue is that many states have laws preventing OEMs from selling directly. There are similar laws for unions.
    - outericky 10y ago
      I feel the laws preventing OEMS selling directly are antiquated. Dealerships are a scam. It's a game of "how much can i squeeze out of the other party" - which generally is bad for consumers. Since most aren't trained to take advantage. OEM's don't need to sell directly, but allowing a "store" model where prices are fixed, non negotiable would likely be best for everyone in the long run. Well, except for the dealers. But at least there would be predictability. Dealers shouldn't be a protected party - the consumer should be.
      - jacalata 10y ago
        The laws are intended to protect the consumer by making sure there are physical places that can repair your car in the state. The question is whether that's necessary any more.
        icebraining 10y ago
        The laws are intended to protect the consumer by making sure there are physical places that can repair your car in the state. A law that forced OEMs who wanted to sell directly to have repair shops in the region would have that intention. In this case, it's pure window dressing.
        outericky 10y ago
        Yes, but that has nothing to do with dealerships as a POS location. Tesla should be able to have a store, and be regulated to make sure it provides service locations for vehicles.
        jacalata 10y ago
        Sure, if you answer the first question with "yes there needs to be physical service points in the state". I believe some people think this is unnecessary altogether though, so they argue for scrapping the entire law instead of changing it to allow for new ways of meeting the same goal.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > I don't see what being online has anything to do with it States regulate auto manufacturers from competing with their dealerships; Tesla selling online would be a federal issue (interstate commerce). Ergo, Tesla gets around bad regulatory capture by using a law that supersedes state law.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Being a federal issue doesn't preclude it being a state issue as well, as far as I know.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Interstate commerce being a federal power under the Constitution prohibits states acting to regulate interstate commerce where the federal government has acted, without the permission of Congress, and prohibits the States from discriminating against out-of-state commerce generally. That doesn't mean that all State regulation of interstate commerce is prohibited, but the State's power is sharply circumscribed by the mere designation of the federal power as well as by federal action exercising that power.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Are you making a general point, or is this particular rule affected by such restrictions?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        AFAIK, Tesla's argument in the cases over the direct-sales rule has been that the particular rule is a violation of the Commerce Clause at least as applied against Tesla's online sales, though I don't think any federal court has yet ruled on the specific issue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
aeorgnoieang 10y ago
> In some cases its considered hero's work, and in other's villainous greed. Or both simultaneously, sometimes even by the same people!
baddox 10y ago
> there is a stage where a genuine innovation is in a regulatory grey state because society simply hasn't processed its effects yet. That wasn't the case here Since you explicitly mention "grey state," it appears you recognize the subjective nature of both law and morality.
pbreit 10y ago
AirBnB, PayPal & Uber are better examples. The "follow the rules period crowd" would never have let them succeed. Is that really what we want?
- jacalata 10y ago
  Why PayPal?
  - pbreit 10y ago
    For starters, acting like a bank.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  With exception of PayPal, of which I know nothing that would explain them being included in this list, I'd say yes - that's exactly what we want. AirBnB and Uber are burning social trust to make money, they're literally poisoning the society. And to (literally!) add insult to injury, Uber management are also being assholes about the whole process.
  - baddox 10y ago
    It seems like your "poisoning the society" claim is highly subjective, based on how you perceive their actions and what you think is the the "ideal" society. For me, and presumably a bunch of other people, AirBnB and Uber provide really services far superior to their predecessors.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      It's probably a case of adding insult to injury. Looking at AirBnB specifically, their most vocal opponents seem to be cities who already have too few apartments left to rent. When a sizable portion of the remaining few apartments is then put on AirBnB rather then rented, rent prices go even higher than they already were. At least, this is what happened in Berlin (and AFAIR also some other large German cities), which is why Berlin is looking into banning AirBnB (by requiring special permits for vacation homes). Source e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin-schraenkt-airbnb-vermietungen-radikal-ein-a-1086167.html http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin... So, it may not be AirBnB's fault primarily. They're just making bad situations even worse.

icebraining 10y ago

Since many states hadn't seen that before, they tried to rule that it was illegal due to dealer-sales regulation. I don't see what being online has anything to do with it; the spirit of the rule - preventing the manufacturers from competing with dealerships - is valid anyway. I personally disagree with this rule, but the "online" part is just Tesla trying to get off on a technicality.

msandford 10y ago
I'm all for manufacturers being prevented from going back on the deals they struck with dealers; the capital they raised from selling dealership franchises was very important for the growth of the manufacturers. But if a manufacturer never setup a dealer program? Fair game to them, IMO.
- csours 10y ago
  It's one step more complicated than that. GM has 5 year renewable franchises, so theoretically they could just wait 5 years and not renew. The issue is that many states have laws preventing OEMs from selling directly. There are similar laws for unions.
  - outericky 10y ago
    I feel the laws preventing OEMS selling directly are antiquated. Dealerships are a scam. It's a game of "how much can i squeeze out of the other party" - which generally is bad for consumers. Since most aren't trained to take advantage. OEM's don't need to sell directly, but allowing a "store" model where prices are fixed, non negotiable would likely be best for everyone in the long run. Well, except for the dealers. But at least there would be predictability. Dealers shouldn't be a protected party - the consumer should be.
    - jacalata 10y ago
      The laws are intended to protect the consumer by making sure there are physical places that can repair your car in the state. The question is whether that's necessary any more.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        The laws are intended to protect the consumer by making sure there are physical places that can repair your car in the state. A law that forced OEMs who wanted to sell directly to have repair shops in the region would have that intention. In this case, it's pure window dressing.
      - outericky 10y ago
        Yes, but that has nothing to do with dealerships as a POS location. Tesla should be able to have a store, and be regulated to make sure it provides service locations for vehicles.
        jacalata 10y ago
        Sure, if you answer the first question with "yes there needs to be physical service points in the state". I believe some people think this is unnecessary altogether though, so they argue for scrapping the entire law instead of changing it to allow for new ways of meeting the same goal.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> I don't see what being online has anything to do with it States regulate auto manufacturers from competing with their dealerships; Tesla selling online would be a federal issue (interstate commerce). Ergo, Tesla gets around bad regulatory capture by using a law that supersedes state law.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Being a federal issue doesn't preclude it being a state issue as well, as far as I know.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Interstate commerce being a federal power under the Constitution prohibits states acting to regulate interstate commerce where the federal government has acted, without the permission of Congress, and prohibits the States from discriminating against out-of-state commerce generally. That doesn't mean that all State regulation of interstate commerce is prohibited, but the State's power is sharply circumscribed by the mere designation of the federal power as well as by federal action exercising that power.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Are you making a general point, or is this particular rule affected by such restrictions?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        AFAIK, Tesla's argument in the cases over the direct-sales rule has been that the particular rule is a violation of the Commerce Clause at least as applied against Tesla's online sales, though I don't think any federal court has yet ruled on the specific issue.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

aeorgnoieang 10y ago

> In some cases its considered hero's work, and in other's villainous greed. Or both simultaneously, sometimes even by the same people!

baddox 10y ago

> there is a stage where a genuine innovation is in a regulatory grey state because society simply hasn't processed its effects yet. That wasn't the case here Since you explicitly mention "grey state," it appears you recognize the subjective nature of both law and morality.

pbreit 10y ago

AirBnB, PayPal & Uber are better examples. The "follow the rules period crowd" would never have let them succeed. Is that really what we want?

jacalata 10y ago
Why PayPal?
- pbreit 10y ago
  For starters, acting like a bank.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
With exception of PayPal, of which I know nothing that would explain them being included in this list, I'd say yes - that's exactly what we want. AirBnB and Uber are burning social trust to make money, they're literally poisoning the society. And to (literally!) add insult to injury, Uber management are also being assholes about the whole process.
- baddox 10y ago
  It seems like your "poisoning the society" claim is highly subjective, based on how you perceive their actions and what you think is the the "ideal" society. For me, and presumably a bunch of other people, AirBnB and Uber provide really services far superior to their predecessors.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    It's probably a case of adding insult to injury. Looking at AirBnB specifically, their most vocal opponents seem to be cities who already have too few apartments left to rent. When a sizable portion of the remaining few apartments is then put on AirBnB rather then rented, rent prices go even higher than they already were. At least, this is what happened in Berlin (and AFAIR also some other large German cities), which is why Berlin is looking into banning AirBnB (by requiring special permits for vacation homes). Source e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin-schraenkt-airbnb-vermietungen-radikal-ein-a-1086167.html http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin... So, it may not be AirBnB's fault primarily. They're just making bad situations even worse.