5 ms·

> The intent of the NM law that prevented Tesla from doing this e.g. in downtown Santa Fe was to prevent manufacturers from undercutting dealers who had done th

by SllX 5y ago

> The intent of the NM law that prevented Tesla from doing this e.g. in downtown Santa Fe was to prevent manufacturers from undercutting dealers who had done the work of proving a market by opening their own stores in direct competition. There are arguments for and against this, but it's not clearly a completely stupid idea on its face. No, it’s pretty much a stupid idea on its face. This is one of many thousands of examples of cronyism in the country, but the political justification at least sounds nice (as they tend to do), in this case the sugar takes the form of protecting local businesses. > and opening a new store is not undercutting any existing dealers They wouldn’t be undercutting existing Tesla dealers because there aren’t any, but they would be going Mano-a-Mano with dealers selling other cars. There’s not a Tesla market and an automobile market separate from that. The wording is irrelevant. The law is working as intended, although it can’t account for dealerships outside their jurisdiction (on Tribal land or out of State). It’s just a bad law.

Accujack 5y ago
It could be argued that when it was initially written it was not as bad a law, but the reasons it's still on the books today come down to incumbent corporations paying for that to be the case to suppress competition.
- SllX 5y ago
  We’re still talking cronyism whenever it was written, and we’re still talking cronyism whilst it remains on the books. Whether it was slightly better in the past is something you would have to explore through counterfactuals which is basically alt-history and not a good use of time, especially for so little of a point. So it remains in the present that it is 1. cronyism, one of many thousands of forms of it in the country 2. stupid on its face and 3. basically indefensible, but people who have buy-in can be persuaded that it is very defensible.

by SllX 5y ago

Accujack 5y ago

It could be argued that when it was initially written it was not as bad a law, but the reasons it's still on the books today come down to incumbent corporations paying for that to be the case to suppress competition.

SllX 5y ago
We’re still talking cronyism whenever it was written, and we’re still talking cronyism whilst it remains on the books. Whether it was slightly better in the past is something you would have to explore through counterfactuals which is basically alt-history and not a good use of time, especially for so little of a point. So it remains in the present that it is 1. cronyism, one of many thousands of forms of it in the country 2. stupid on its face and 3. basically indefensible, but people who have buy-in can be persuaded that it is very defensible.