6 ms·

> the auto dealer franchise laws were originally put in place for a just cause and are now being twisted to an unjust purpose ... and Christie can argue that a

by sheetjs 13y ago

> the auto dealer franchise laws were originally put in place for a just cause and are now being twisted to an unjust purpose ... and Christie can argue that allowing Tesla creates a slippery slope whereby Ford and GM and other companies end up crushing the franchisees that the law intended to protect. Musk is trying to find a middle ground that just doesn't exist unless you accept governments creating one-off laws that specifically recognizes individual corporations.

ska 13y ago
Isn't that easily avoided though? Surely you could protect existing franchises or franchise regions without constraining a manufacturers ability to sell without franchise, or in regions where no franchisee exists.
thedufer 13y ago
Its not clear that that's true. The law says "auto manufacturers can't sell cars" but it originally meant "auto manufacturers can't renege on franchise agreements (or otherwise abuse them)". Surely there's some way to codify the second one without resorting to the first?
- sheetjs 13y ago
  The auto manufacturers can afford to eat into their normal profit margins and sell the cars at a much lower price (after deals) than the franchisees can, so it would be difficult to craft legislation that protects franchisees without allowing the manufacturers to massively undercut. The only real way to avoid abuse is to prevent auto manufacturers from selling in the first place
  - ghaff 13y ago
    I do have to point out that lots of companies in lots of industries (including most B2B technology firms) sell both direct and through partners. Every one of them has to deal with "channel conflict" but that's what you do. It's a balancing act. The partners are never 100% happy but they add value to the manufacturer (or they wouldn't be allowed to stay partners) and the manufacturer can't routinely screw them over (or they'll depart for greener pastures). I'm guessing a mixed model wouldn't really make sense with autos though.
strlen 13y ago
There is no slippery slope here if the law is states something like: "contracts between existing de-facto oligarchy of car manufacturers and dealers remain as is, new entrants are free to set their own terms". Everyone is talking about how we can't trust Elon Musk since he is acting in his rational self-interest. Yet why should we assume that Christie is acting out of the pure goodness of the heart? Politicians too act in their self-interest and that kind of self-interest often involves maximization of power. The currency of politics is not just cash (that helps too, of course!), but also favours: you can be sure that in return for this favour, he'll ask something from the dealership industry which would beneficial to his political career (e.g., the first thing that pops would be to accept additional vehicle taxes, which would help Christie carry and receive donations from environmentally conscious voters in a liberal state susceptible to flooding) (Edit: remove an incorrect assertion. Laws regarding specific individuals are constitutional, just not "bills of attainder")
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Everyone is talking about how we can't trust Elon Musk since he is acting in his rational self-interest. Except that Elon Musk's rational self-interest appears to genuinely involve a vision of the world I really like. Given all the money and effort he's put in toward that vision and the many hours of public speaking and personally answering questions consistent with that, you'd better hope he's the real deal.
  - strlen 13y ago
    Indeed, that's why I said rational self-interest and not just profit. His self-interest involves advancing science and technology. "[I would] rather discover one cause than gain the kingdom of Persia." - Democritus
- gergles 13y ago
  > One-off laws for specific legal entities (individuals or corporations) are unconstitutional, so no one is asking for a law that exempts Tesla and Tesla only. As an aside, that's actually not true - laws that are intended to benefit one person are passed all the time. [1] What the constitution forbids are bills of attainder, which are bills that declare a person guilty of a crime. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_bill#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_bill#United_States

by sheetjs 13y ago

ska 13y ago

Isn't that easily avoided though? Surely you could protect existing franchises or franchise regions without constraining a manufacturers ability to sell without franchise, or in regions where no franchisee exists.

thedufer 13y ago

Its not clear that that's true. The law says "auto manufacturers can't sell cars" but it originally meant "auto manufacturers can't renege on franchise agreements (or otherwise abuse them)". Surely there's some way to codify the second one without resorting to the first?

sheetjs 13y ago
The auto manufacturers can afford to eat into their normal profit margins and sell the cars at a much lower price (after deals) than the franchisees can, so it would be difficult to craft legislation that protects franchisees without allowing the manufacturers to massively undercut. The only real way to avoid abuse is to prevent auto manufacturers from selling in the first place
- ghaff 13y ago
  I do have to point out that lots of companies in lots of industries (including most B2B technology firms) sell both direct and through partners. Every one of them has to deal with "channel conflict" but that's what you do. It's a balancing act. The partners are never 100% happy but they add value to the manufacturer (or they wouldn't be allowed to stay partners) and the manufacturer can't routinely screw them over (or they'll depart for greener pastures). I'm guessing a mixed model wouldn't really make sense with autos though.

strlen 13y ago

There is no slippery slope here if the law is states something like: "contracts between existing de-facto oligarchy of car manufacturers and dealers remain as is, new entrants are free to set their own terms". Everyone is talking about how we can't trust Elon Musk since he is acting in his rational self-interest. Yet why should we assume that Christie is acting out of the pure goodness of the heart? Politicians too act in their self-interest and that kind of self-interest often involves maximization of power. The currency of politics is not just cash (that helps too, of course!), but also favours: you can be sure that in return for this favour, he'll ask something from the dealership industry which would beneficial to his political career (e.g., the first thing that pops would be to accept additional vehicle taxes, which would help Christie carry and receive donations from environmentally conscious voters in a liberal state susceptible to flooding) (Edit: remove an incorrect assertion. Laws regarding specific individuals are constitutional, just not "bills of attainder")

stcredzero 13y ago
Everyone is talking about how we can't trust Elon Musk since he is acting in his rational self-interest. Except that Elon Musk's rational self-interest appears to genuinely involve a vision of the world I really like. Given all the money and effort he's put in toward that vision and the many hours of public speaking and personally answering questions consistent with that, you'd better hope he's the real deal.
- strlen 13y ago
  Indeed, that's why I said rational self-interest and not just profit. His self-interest involves advancing science and technology. "[I would] rather discover one cause than gain the kingdom of Persia." - Democritus
gergles 13y ago
> One-off laws for specific legal entities (individuals or corporations) are unconstitutional, so no one is asking for a law that exempts Tesla and Tesla only. As an aside, that's actually not true - laws that are intended to benefit one person are passed all the time. [1] What the constitution forbids are bills of attainder, which are bills that declare a person guilty of a crime. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_bill#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_bill#United_States