15 ms·

A Raw Deal in Michigan

347 points by lalwanivikas 12y ago

danielhunt 12y ago
As an outsider, it really is difficult to understand why these practices are supported/allowed by the public. Is this information even available to people outside of the tech community? What in the hell is wrong with US politics* that allows for this to happen so blatantly, and so regularly, without any repercussions at all? * I'm aware that it's not (in general) a US-only problem, but for Tesla and the car dealership world, it seems that this is a real problem
- easytiger 12y ago
  > allowed by the public Well, democracy is largely bullshit so your phrase endears the democratic process with more credit than it is due. We suppose that our quality of life and our pace of change are side effects of our current leadership process. I personally suppose that is is but a partial input to a more complex contrivance of systems which have led us to where we are.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    Don't be too quick to condemn democracy. Granted, most of the propaganda about the vox populi is false. But its key virtue is that it allows change of government without bloodshed. As Popper said, "We are democrats, not because the majority is always right, but because democratic traditions are the least evil ones of which we know". It's not the best system, but it's probably the least bad one.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > But its key virtue is that it allows change of government without bloodshed. This is a strongest point I ever heard in favour of democracy, and ironically, I don't remember ever being taught it in school or see it mentioned often.
      - atlantic 12y ago
        Karl Popper takes a parallel approach to epistemology and political theory. In his theory of knowledge, he is not worried about how theories provide a representation of reality, but rather with how they can be falsified or disproved through critical experiments. Similarly, in politics he is not concerned with how governments represent the people, but simply with how the citizenry can throw out and replace the government. It's a refreshingly pragmatic approach.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        It's easily refuted by pointing out the identical nature of the two major parties in the US, in practice if not in platform. It's been demonstrated over and over again that we can't "throw the bums out," because the replacement bums will soon emulate their predecessors.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I don't think this refutes the essence of this idea, i.e. bloodless transfer of power. Sure that all new politicians end up being like the old ones, but thanks to short terms and established procedures of power transfer politicians don't feel the need of killing their way to the top or violently defending their seats. After all, even if you lose your seat this time, you can get it back in few years.
    - greedo 12y ago
      "...it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -WLS Churchill
- flyinglizard 12y ago
  Anti competitive, interest driven legislative behavior happens everywhere, as does the mixture of money and politics. See the Amazon law in France as an example. If anything, in the USA citizens seems more aware and active in such cases. The fact there's a constitution as a moral compass doesn't hurt, either.
- ohazi 12y ago
  The problem is that politicians are not accountable to the voting public. They're supposed to be, but it's basically a big joke. This comment from another one of today's discussions seems particularly fitting here [1]: > > We want to make sure that the incentives of the people in power are aligned with the people who are not in power. > This is really a tough ask. Unless decision makers, i.e., those in power, are accountable, every single day, to those not in power, decision makers will soon align themselves with private, capitalist corporations. You have a multi billion dollar arms manufacturer, oil corporations funding millions to election campaigns of US presidents. And then you have US citizens who get to vote once in five years; we also know that the voting itself can be rigged, public opinion can be swayed and etc., Now, whom do you think would the president side with? Oil corporation or US citizens? The answer is obvious! [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8466080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8466080
- jmckib 12y ago
  The costs of this legislation are distributed across all consumers, while the benefits are concentrated in the hands of a small group of automobile dealers. This gives the dealers a large incentive to lobby politicians, and little incentive for consumers to pay attention and vote accordingly. This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. On the bright side, in the long run new technologies tend to win out, even though the delays caused by concentrated interests can be quite significant. One way to fix this problem would be to restrict the scope of government so that politicians simply aren't able to do things like this, no matter how much the automobile industry lobbies them. If there are other solutions I'd be very interested to hear them.
  - anon1385 12y ago
    >This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'. Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrated with Uber. Exactly the kind of situation where government should be stepping in. People can hand-wave all they like about 'new technology' and 'disruption' but at the end of the day the vasty majority of people in society think drivers should have valid insurance and there is no sign of that opinion shifting. There is no need for a 'fix' to government in this case. It is working as it should. The fact that Silicon Valley gurus are backing Uber so strongly in their quest to fill our roads with uninsured drivers just makes the rest of the world view them as greedy sociopaths looking to make society more dangerous for their own personal gain. Sadly the rest of the technology sector then gets tainted by this asshole behaviour.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - briandear 12y ago
      Uber drivers are insured. It's a requirement to drive a car. The opposition to Uber is because te cities lose out on the punitively expensive tax medallion revenue.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  Tesla's rivals are big employers in Michigan. That is also a factor, their employee's have only experienced the positive side of protectionism.
  - wittekm 12y ago
    It's possible the Big 3 would actually prefer a Tesla-like direct-to-consumer model; for example, Chrysler tried opening a Chrysler-owned store in LA a few years ago, only to have it shot down by local law. I'd imagine that if one of the Big 3 started doing direct sales, dealers would stop selling their cars en masse. There's no way for an established manufacturer to stop selling to dealers.
    - throwawayaway 12y ago
      The dealers are probably big employers in Michigan too!
    - smackfu 12y ago
      Dealers are nice because they hold inventory on their books instead of the manufacturers. Tesla doesn't care about that much because they don't have any inventory.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        So charge customers more who want to take a vehicle off the lot vs waiting for it to be produced on demand. If there is a cost, pay for it if you want it.
- cdnsteve 12y ago
  Why is it that first world countries have the most unaccountable political systems ever seen? Even here in Canada, Rob Ford anyone? Here too in Canada we've banned Zenn, a Canadian electric car company - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN but we're making prominent bike lanes, go figure.
  - colomon 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
- CalRobert 12y ago
  This may get me downvoted, but I think the problem has more to do with the voters than the politicians. If people took the time to research candidates and issues independently instead of voting for whoever had the loudest ads, we might not see so much money in politics. Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do, but talk to normal folks and they just. don't. care. about much of anything political, and they use their horribly inadequate math skills and emotion to make decisions, instead of reason.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I'm first to call out all the bullshit general population believes in, but in this case I think it is counterproductive to blame people. Behind all politicians there is a system designed to optimize for deceiving the electorate into believing what the politicians want. Millions if not billions of dollars and man-hours are spent every year to improve that system (that's not counting the private research branch known as advertising industry). Your average citizen Joe doesn't stand a chance here. The fact that general population doesn't care about important issues (hint: what's on the news is mostly irrelevant) is a different thing and it hurts me, but I have no clue what we can do with it.
    - CalRobert 12y ago
      But the electorate could at least do some simple mathematics and rudimentary cost-benefit analysis. Why does the US spend disproportionately more addressing (supposedly) terrorism than it does road safety? Why do people fear crime when it's at historically low levels? Why can politicians get elected by making economically, or even mathematically, impossible promises? I think that at some point you have to consider whether the voter is complicit in the situation the US is in by being wantonly, even willfully, ignorant.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do, This is, at best, silly. It's not like people on HN are any more informed on politics than the average person. They think they're more informed, which makes for worse political discussion, because they've invested more of their identity[1] in being right. Most people are rationally ignorant about politics. It's not like being more aware will necessarily lead to the positions you want. It wouldn't take much to convince workers in Michigan to pass a law that makes things more difficult for cars made in California. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >Is this information even available to people outside of the tech community? You overestimate how much people outside of the tech industry care about what is, at this point, a rich person's toy. Most people couldn't care less whether someone buying a $100,000+ vehicle is modestly inconvenienced. When/if circumstances change, and Tesla builds a car for the masses, the laws will change accordingly. People are self-interested.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  To a first approximation, 0% of voters care if they can buy a Tesla. Some large portion of people also wouldn't see the problem with requiring a dealership (or would prefer it, because of whatever concerns about service (I'm not endorsing that argument, just pointing it out)).
- mikeash 12y ago
  It's because US politics (and no implication is intended about how similar or different it is in other countries) is basically a team sport. The real-world consequences of politics matters much less than "our side" winning. Sides are often defined by political parties, but can also be defined by geography or industry. The elected officials here are members of the right party or cater to the right industry or are from the right region, so they'll continue to get elected. What they do in office matters comparatively little.
briandear 12y ago
But this really comes down to voting. Why does a better funded candidate win? Because a TV ad convinced some idiot to vote for that candidate? I see informercials and "work from home and make millions" scams all the time. But I don't buy the product whatever it might be. Yet voters seemingly are completely ignorant. So candidates who are well funded by special interests end up winning. But often these anti-competitive practices are in primarily Democrat controlled areas. Uber is a great example: Austin, DC city councils for example are entirely Democrat and thus beholder to "labor" and anti-competitive practices. This isn't exclusively a democrat practice, however much of the time it is. The NY and San Francisco war against AirBnB for example is about collecting more taxes. The anti-competitive closed-shop system is entirely democrat supported. The endless taxes and regulation of business is a democrat obsession. Certain national democrats sometimes go against the trend, especially the tech-oriented. But the boots on the ground Democrats are especially prone to anti-competitive tendencies. Protectionism is a hallmark of the AFL-CIO and they completely support (and significantly fund) the Democrat party. I'm not saying "Republicans are good," there are plenty of shit Republicans, however philosophically, Democrats are anti-competitive by nature because the concept of the free market goes against their core values of so-called 'economic justice.' Honestly ask yourself, if this Tesla decision were in the hands of Rand Paul or John Conyers, who would be more likely to support the free market in this situation? Would Ronald Reagan be more likely to support Tesla that Obama? Almost certainly, based on their records. Obama for instance through his supporters on the NLRB have opposed companies such as Boeing to build non-Union factories -- which is in-effect the same thing we have with Tesla -- an attempt to maintain a type of monopoly and artificially constrain the free market in order to serve a specific narrow group of voters and interests. That's what's happening here: the auto dealers, just like the AFL-CIO did with Boeing, are attempting to artificially protect their monopoly position, to the detriment of the population as a whole. I know this comment won't win me many friends here, but I hope that everyone at least researches guys like Rand Paul -- not the propaganda (in either direction) but what he actually says and stands for. If we can get more politicians like him, then perhaps we can start to realize that we can have freer markets, more personal freedoms and perhaps a government that knows when to get out of the way (and knows when to get in the way.) If anyone has the time or the inclination, read the book 'Economics in One Lesson.'
- 12y ago
skrebbel 12y ago
Using a procedure that prevented legislators and the public at large from knowing what was happening or allowing debate, Senator Joe Hune added new language in an attempt to lock Tesla out of the State. Unsurprisingly, Senator Hune counts the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association as one of his top financial contributors, and his wife’s firm lobbies for the dealers. In the Netherlands, we call this corruption. (It happens too, but so openly? Don't you guys have rules against this? Or media who like scandals?)
- peteretep 12y ago
  Constitutional right to Free Speech for corporations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
- Heliosmaster 12y ago
  It's always the same story with Lobbying. If you say "I'm giving you $1M to pass this law", it's corruption, if you say "I'm giving you $1M, but if you don't pass this law i'm going to withdraw it", then it's lobbying.
  - spacefight 12y ago
    Hence, lobbying equals corruption. Period.
    - oatmeal_coffee 12y ago
      You can't paint all lobbying with the same brush. There are beneficial lobbying groups out there helping to bring a voice to issues in an arena where they would otherwise normally be drowned out. We just focus on the bad ones because they tend to have greater influence. Absolutist positions such as this are rarely true and sensible.
      - DavidWanjiru 12y ago
        If the question was whether or not to ban lobbying, how do the benefits of lobbying stack up against the damage? That whole cost-benefit analysis thing...
smoyer 12y ago
Does anyone else get the sense that the Tesla Legal and Public Relations departments are starting to have fun attacking the politicians who push these bills through? The wording feels different than most corporate press releases.
Someone 12y ago
Harsh statements, but no facts from objective sources. Looking for that, I can find stuff from 'the other side' at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ejuo53qtuul1s2fn2o4sa255))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-445-1574 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ejuo53qtuul1s2fn2o4sa255))/... where if I reading this right (aside: 'interesting' reuse of "(i)" as both ninth letter of the alphabet and Roman numeral) section i reads "(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following: (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through its franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor vehicles through the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers." , but that text isn't recent (see the history at the bottom). What exactly did they change and what were the arguments?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- staffordrj 12y ago
  Here's a diff of the changes https://www.diffchecker.com/idjdre6n https://www.diffchecker.com/idjdre6n
ams6110 12y ago
Michigan is in the toilet. Detroit is bankrupt, huge parts of the city are abandoned ruins, and the rest of the state isn't much better off. Tesla probably would not sell many cars there anyway. If I'm wrong, it's a good opportunity for northern Indiana or Ohio to court a Tesla store.
- jstalin 12y ago
  While I agree with you about Detroit, the rest of the state is doing fairly well.
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  > If I'm wrong You are. The suburbs of Detroit are some of the wealthiest zip codes in the country, much of the Western coast is filled with beach towns and million-dollar lake houses, the HQs of dozens of multi-billion dollar business are there, and Michigan is the 9th most populous state in the US. Tesla would sell plenty of vehicles there.
Al__Dante 12y ago
I think this might be the relevant change (contained in bill S-1 which was substituted in the Regulatory Reform Committee): "2 (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer 3 other than through <del>its</del> franchised dealers, unless the retail 4 customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local 5 government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a 6 manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the 7 purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles 8 or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor 9 vehicles through the <del>manufacturer's</del> FRANCHISED new motor vehicle 10 dealers THAT SELL AND SERVICE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES PRODUCED BY THE 11 MANUFACTURER." Link to the passage of the bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/mileg.aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2014-HB-5606 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/... Link to the substitute bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/documents/2013-2014/billcurrentversion/House/PDF/2014-HCVBS-5606-14800.PDF http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...
- spacefight 12y ago
  Setup 100% Tesla-owned franchise. Sell through that.
  - howeyc 12y ago
    I'm not sure you can do this. Isn't the point of the franchise that it's owned by someone else? For example, if McDonald's corporate opens a location owned by them, can they called it a "franchise" location?
    - twosheep 12y ago
      I think you can have it owned by a different company but with the same leadership as the parent. Isn't this how liability shields work? Lots of different LLCs with the same people at the helm?
      - cowsandmilk 12y ago
minimax 12y ago
The State of Illinois would like to extend a warm welcome to the people of Michigan, and invite them (and their tax dollars) to visit one of the several Tesla stores in the Chicago area.
Shivetya 12y ago
Honestly Tesla, STAY OUT OF MICHIGAN. If you refuse to do business with the state, go as far as to discourage people living there form buying them, eventually there could be enough public pressure to bring about a change. If not that, perhaps a few billboards equating the politicians to Neanderthals might work Its time to ignore the states that refuse to play fair, shame them, and perhaps their voters will wake up.
- brk 12y ago
  At this point in time, Tesla is still less than a rounding error on automobile sales. Ignoring potential markets and counting on the public to "do the right thing" would seem like a suicidal strategy to me. Do you have examples of where this approach has worked?
- twosheep 12y ago
  I'm not sure that would work in a state as car-centric as Michigan; "out of sight, out of mind." Lots of other cars to buy, especially given Tesla's demographic when compared with Michigan's demographic.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Yea because we should force anyone who wants to break into an established market to pay for a shit ton of marketing and political attack ads! /s
khaki54 12y ago
As a Michigan native (though long gone) and someone erring on the side of conservatism, this is just a disappointment all around. Michigan is historically manufacturer friendly - to a fault, so they really went out of their way here. Eventually all of these statutes will probably be stricken down due to the commerce clause... you are buying the vehicle direct from another state, therefore it's interstate commerce.
- smackfu 12y ago
  Manufacturer friendly, or Michigan-based manufacturer friendly?
hippich 12y ago
When I hear about Tesla not being able to sell directly to customers, and have to go through dealer, I always wondered why different corporate structure can not be created, where some head company owns Tesla and all dealerships used to sell Tesla cars? This way it is not manufacturer selling these and control of the distribution is still within parent organization.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  IIRC in many states dealerships are required to have independent ownership from the manufacturer and no individual/company can own more than one.
  - hippich 12y ago
    Is there some sort of test tho? I.e. what I was proposing - dealearship could be separate company and owned by head corporation, which in turn owns Tesla itself. So dealership is separate entity and not directly controlled by Tesla.
RankingMember 12y ago
FYI: Here's a direct link to the web form for sharing your opinion with the Michigan governor's office: https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/GovRelations/ShareOpinion.aspx https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/GovRelations/ShareOpinion.aspx
saturdaysaint 12y ago
The funny thing is that Michigan's legislature is run by yokel conservatives who made a big show of becoming a "right to work" state (i.e. making it illegal to have mandatory all-union workplaces) - when corporate interests and Fox News talking points were at stake, they were remarkably eager to thump their chests about free association.
- jdpedrie 12y ago
  wut? in what world does "free association" equal "mandatory all-union workplaces"? Just your words.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    In what world (just your words) does his comment equate the two?
- dbrower 12y ago
  Automobile franchisees (car dealers) skew overwhelmingly conservative. Draw your own conclusions.
jstalin 12y ago
Just called the governor's office and the lady answering the phone was quite nice. I urge all other residents of Michigan to do the same.
jstalin 12y ago
Here's a follow-up article on the issue from today. Some are claiming that Tesla direct sales are already illegal in Michigan: http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/tesla_direct-to-consumer_sales.html http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/tesla_di...
cellis 12y ago
Tesla wants to have its cake and eat it too. You can't take a 500 million loan from taxpayers ( the vast majority of whom DON'T benefit from and can't afford your product ) and then on the other hand claim unfair treatment by local governments.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  Maybe you're forgetting that the auto industry received bailouts that were two orders of magnitude greater than the loan that Tesla took from the government. And, unlike the rest of the auto industry, Tesla paid back its loans, and did so ahead of time.
  - cellis 12y ago
    First, that's kind of a strawman. I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure ). And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. Au contraire, by paying back the loans early, Tesla avoided granting the government shares of TSLA, and thus stiffed the taxpayer out of any possible return. I understand everyone in SV wants Tesla to succeed, but it's not the most meritocratic, little-upstart-vs-entrenched-player story their PR would like you to believe.
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      >>I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure Just like the car companies, who were also bailed out at their most dire time. Except the car companies declared bankruptcy anyway due to gross mismanagement and horrible business practices. From wikipedia: "In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[85] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[86] In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 [87] followed by General Motors a month later.[88]" >>And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. There are an incredible number of government-business transactions that the taxpayer does not directly benefit from. In Tesla's case, I'd argue that the benefits were actually there. You may not be able to afford one of their cars, but having a high-tech electric car company enter the market and succeed against well-entrenched incumbents is in everyone's best interest. You may disagree but I think you'd (fortunately) be in the minority.
navait 12y ago
Elon musk has so much money, why can't he just be his own lobbyist instead of getting his fanboys on this. I have no stake in this.
- mzzk 12y ago
  If you live in America, you have a stake in this.
  - navait 12y ago
    I don't buy new cars.
anigbrowl 12y ago
By striking a single, but critical, word from MCLA 445.1574(14)(1)(i), the law governing franchise relations in Michigan, the dealers seek to force Tesla [...] Well, don't tell us what it is or provide any links to it... /eyeroll. I believe their complaint is about line 3 on page 6 of the following document: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2014-HEBS-5606.pdf http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengros... I support Tesla's efforts and deplore the legislative pandering to incumbent industries, but drumming up support for a legal/political conflict without articulating the actual issue is counter-productive. All that happens is that people send emails or make phone calls to the legislative body saying they're outraged, and then get fobbed off with technicalities because >95% of the outraged people don't actually know what they're complaining about, they only know one party's assertion of what the downsides will be. If you want an internet army to go into battle for you, arm them properly with the facts.
canvia 12y ago
The state Senator responsible for this is up for election in 2 weeks. This is his opponent and she accepts donations: http://www.voteforshari.com/ http://www.voteforshari.com/

347 points by lalwanivikas 12y ago

As an outsider, it really is difficult to understand why these practices are supported/allowed by the public. Is this information even available to people outside of the tech community? What in the hell is wrong with US politics* that allows for this to happen so blatantly, and so regularly, without any repercussions at all? * I'm aware that it's not (in general) a US-only problem, but for Tesla and the car dealership world, it seems that this is a real problem

easytiger 12y ago
> allowed by the public Well, democracy is largely bullshit so your phrase endears the democratic process with more credit than it is due. We suppose that our quality of life and our pace of change are side effects of our current leadership process. I personally suppose that is is but a partial input to a more complex contrivance of systems which have led us to where we are.
- atlantic 12y ago
  Don't be too quick to condemn democracy. Granted, most of the propaganda about the vox populi is false. But its key virtue is that it allows change of government without bloodshed. As Popper said, "We are democrats, not because the majority is always right, but because democratic traditions are the least evil ones of which we know". It's not the best system, but it's probably the least bad one.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > But its key virtue is that it allows change of government without bloodshed. This is a strongest point I ever heard in favour of democracy, and ironically, I don't remember ever being taught it in school or see it mentioned often.
    - atlantic 12y ago
      Karl Popper takes a parallel approach to epistemology and political theory. In his theory of knowledge, he is not worried about how theories provide a representation of reality, but rather with how they can be falsified or disproved through critical experiments. Similarly, in politics he is not concerned with how governments represent the people, but simply with how the citizenry can throw out and replace the government. It's a refreshingly pragmatic approach.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      It's easily refuted by pointing out the identical nature of the two major parties in the US, in practice if not in platform. It's been demonstrated over and over again that we can't "throw the bums out," because the replacement bums will soon emulate their predecessors.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I don't think this refutes the essence of this idea, i.e. bloodless transfer of power. Sure that all new politicians end up being like the old ones, but thanks to short terms and established procedures of power transfer politicians don't feel the need of killing their way to the top or violently defending their seats. After all, even if you lose your seat this time, you can get it back in few years.
  - greedo 12y ago
    "...it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -WLS Churchill
flyinglizard 12y ago
Anti competitive, interest driven legislative behavior happens everywhere, as does the mixture of money and politics. See the Amazon law in France as an example. If anything, in the USA citizens seems more aware and active in such cases. The fact there's a constitution as a moral compass doesn't hurt, either.
ohazi 12y ago
The problem is that politicians are not accountable to the voting public. They're supposed to be, but it's basically a big joke. This comment from another one of today's discussions seems particularly fitting here [1]: > > We want to make sure that the incentives of the people in power are aligned with the people who are not in power. > This is really a tough ask. Unless decision makers, i.e., those in power, are accountable, every single day, to those not in power, decision makers will soon align themselves with private, capitalist corporations. You have a multi billion dollar arms manufacturer, oil corporations funding millions to election campaigns of US presidents. And then you have US citizens who get to vote once in five years; we also know that the voting itself can be rigged, public opinion can be swayed and etc., Now, whom do you think would the president side with? Oil corporation or US citizens? The answer is obvious! [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8466080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8466080
jmckib 12y ago
The costs of this legislation are distributed across all consumers, while the benefits are concentrated in the hands of a small group of automobile dealers. This gives the dealers a large incentive to lobby politicians, and little incentive for consumers to pay attention and vote accordingly. This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. On the bright side, in the long run new technologies tend to win out, even though the delays caused by concentrated interests can be quite significant. One way to fix this problem would be to restrict the scope of government so that politicians simply aren't able to do things like this, no matter how much the automobile industry lobbies them. If there are other solutions I'd be very interested to hear them.
- anon1385 12y ago
  >This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'. Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrated with Uber. Exactly the kind of situation where government should be stepping in. People can hand-wave all they like about 'new technology' and 'disruption' but at the end of the day the vasty majority of people in society think drivers should have valid insurance and there is no sign of that opinion shifting. There is no need for a 'fix' to government in this case. It is working as it should. The fact that Silicon Valley gurus are backing Uber so strongly in their quest to fill our roads with uninsured drivers just makes the rest of the world view them as greedy sociopaths looking to make society more dangerous for their own personal gain. Sadly the rest of the technology sector then gets tainted by this asshole behaviour.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - briandear 12y ago
    Uber drivers are insured. It's a requirement to drive a car. The opposition to Uber is because te cities lose out on the punitively expensive tax medallion revenue.
throwawayaway 12y ago
Tesla's rivals are big employers in Michigan. That is also a factor, their employee's have only experienced the positive side of protectionism.
- wittekm 12y ago
  It's possible the Big 3 would actually prefer a Tesla-like direct-to-consumer model; for example, Chrysler tried opening a Chrysler-owned store in LA a few years ago, only to have it shot down by local law. I'd imagine that if one of the Big 3 started doing direct sales, dealers would stop selling their cars en masse. There's no way for an established manufacturer to stop selling to dealers.
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    The dealers are probably big employers in Michigan too!
  - smackfu 12y ago
    Dealers are nice because they hold inventory on their books instead of the manufacturers. Tesla doesn't care about that much because they don't have any inventory.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      So charge customers more who want to take a vehicle off the lot vs waiting for it to be produced on demand. If there is a cost, pay for it if you want it.
cdnsteve 12y ago
Why is it that first world countries have the most unaccountable political systems ever seen? Even here in Canada, Rob Ford anyone? Here too in Canada we've banned Zenn, a Canadian electric car company - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN but we're making prominent bike lanes, go figure.
- colomon 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
CalRobert 12y ago
This may get me downvoted, but I think the problem has more to do with the voters than the politicians. If people took the time to research candidates and issues independently instead of voting for whoever had the loudest ads, we might not see so much money in politics. Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do, but talk to normal folks and they just. don't. care. about much of anything political, and they use their horribly inadequate math skills and emotion to make decisions, instead of reason.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I'm first to call out all the bullshit general population believes in, but in this case I think it is counterproductive to blame people. Behind all politicians there is a system designed to optimize for deceiving the electorate into believing what the politicians want. Millions if not billions of dollars and man-hours are spent every year to improve that system (that's not counting the private research branch known as advertising industry). Your average citizen Joe doesn't stand a chance here. The fact that general population doesn't care about important issues (hint: what's on the news is mostly irrelevant) is a different thing and it hurts me, but I have no clue what we can do with it.
  - CalRobert 12y ago
    But the electorate could at least do some simple mathematics and rudimentary cost-benefit analysis. Why does the US spend disproportionately more addressing (supposedly) terrorism than it does road safety? Why do people fear crime when it's at historically low levels? Why can politicians get elected by making economically, or even mathematically, impossible promises? I think that at some point you have to consider whether the voter is complicit in the situation the US is in by being wantonly, even willfully, ignorant.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do, This is, at best, silly. It's not like people on HN are any more informed on politics than the average person. They think they're more informed, which makes for worse political discussion, because they've invested more of their identity[1] in being right. Most people are rationally ignorant about politics. It's not like being more aware will necessarily lead to the positions you want. It wouldn't take much to convince workers in Michigan to pass a law that makes things more difficult for cars made in California. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
hnnewguy 12y ago
>Is this information even available to people outside of the tech community? You overestimate how much people outside of the tech industry care about what is, at this point, a rich person's toy. Most people couldn't care less whether someone buying a $100,000+ vehicle is modestly inconvenienced. When/if circumstances change, and Tesla builds a car for the masses, the laws will change accordingly. People are self-interested.
maxerickson 12y ago
To a first approximation, 0% of voters care if they can buy a Tesla. Some large portion of people also wouldn't see the problem with requiring a dealership (or would prefer it, because of whatever concerns about service (I'm not endorsing that argument, just pointing it out)).
mikeash 12y ago
It's because US politics (and no implication is intended about how similar or different it is in other countries) is basically a team sport. The real-world consequences of politics matters much less than "our side" winning. Sides are often defined by political parties, but can also be defined by geography or industry. The elected officials here are members of the right party or cater to the right industry or are from the right region, so they'll continue to get elected. What they do in office matters comparatively little.

briandear 12y ago

But this really comes down to voting. Why does a better funded candidate win? Because a TV ad convinced some idiot to vote for that candidate? I see informercials and "work from home and make millions" scams all the time. But I don't buy the product whatever it might be. Yet voters seemingly are completely ignorant. So candidates who are well funded by special interests end up winning. But often these anti-competitive practices are in primarily Democrat controlled areas. Uber is a great example: Austin, DC city councils for example are entirely Democrat and thus beholder to "labor" and anti-competitive practices. This isn't exclusively a democrat practice, however much of the time it is. The NY and San Francisco war against AirBnB for example is about collecting more taxes. The anti-competitive closed-shop system is entirely democrat supported. The endless taxes and regulation of business is a democrat obsession. Certain national democrats sometimes go against the trend, especially the tech-oriented. But the boots on the ground Democrats are especially prone to anti-competitive tendencies. Protectionism is a hallmark of the AFL-CIO and they completely support (and significantly fund) the Democrat party. I'm not saying "Republicans are good," there are plenty of shit Republicans, however philosophically, Democrats are anti-competitive by nature because the concept of the free market goes against their core values of so-called 'economic justice.' Honestly ask yourself, if this Tesla decision were in the hands of Rand Paul or John Conyers, who would be more likely to support the free market in this situation? Would Ronald Reagan be more likely to support Tesla that Obama? Almost certainly, based on their records. Obama for instance through his supporters on the NLRB have opposed companies such as Boeing to build non-Union factories -- which is in-effect the same thing we have with Tesla -- an attempt to maintain a type of monopoly and artificially constrain the free market in order to serve a specific narrow group of voters and interests. That's what's happening here: the auto dealers, just like the AFL-CIO did with Boeing, are attempting to artificially protect their monopoly position, to the detriment of the population as a whole. I know this comment won't win me many friends here, but I hope that everyone at least researches guys like Rand Paul -- not the propaganda (in either direction) but what he actually says and stands for. If we can get more politicians like him, then perhaps we can start to realize that we can have freer markets, more personal freedoms and perhaps a government that knows when to get out of the way (and knows when to get in the way.) If anyone has the time or the inclination, read the book 'Economics in One Lesson.'

12y ago

skrebbel 12y ago

Using a procedure that prevented legislators and the public at large from knowing what was happening or allowing debate, Senator Joe Hune added new language in an attempt to lock Tesla out of the State. Unsurprisingly, Senator Hune counts the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association as one of his top financial contributors, and his wife’s firm lobbies for the dealers. In the Netherlands, we call this corruption. (It happens too, but so openly? Don't you guys have rules against this? Or media who like scandals?)

peteretep 12y ago
Constitutional right to Free Speech for corporations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
Heliosmaster 12y ago
It's always the same story with Lobbying. If you say "I'm giving you $1M to pass this law", it's corruption, if you say "I'm giving you $1M, but if you don't pass this law i'm going to withdraw it", then it's lobbying.
- spacefight 12y ago
  Hence, lobbying equals corruption. Period.
  - oatmeal_coffee 12y ago
    You can't paint all lobbying with the same brush. There are beneficial lobbying groups out there helping to bring a voice to issues in an arena where they would otherwise normally be drowned out. We just focus on the bad ones because they tend to have greater influence. Absolutist positions such as this are rarely true and sensible.
    - DavidWanjiru 12y ago
      If the question was whether or not to ban lobbying, how do the benefits of lobbying stack up against the damage? That whole cost-benefit analysis thing...

smoyer 12y ago

Does anyone else get the sense that the Tesla Legal and Public Relations departments are starting to have fun attacking the politicians who push these bills through? The wording feels different than most corporate press releases.

Someone 12y ago

Harsh statements, but no facts from objective sources. Looking for that, I can find stuff from 'the other side' at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ejuo53qtuul1s2fn2o4sa255))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-445-1574 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ejuo53qtuul1s2fn2o4sa255))/... where if I reading this right (aside: 'interesting' reuse of "(i)" as both ninth letter of the alphabet and Roman numeral) section i reads "(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following: (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through its franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor vehicles through the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers." , but that text isn't recent (see the history at the bottom). What exactly did they change and what were the arguments?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
staffordrj 12y ago
Here's a diff of the changes https://www.diffchecker.com/idjdre6n https://www.diffchecker.com/idjdre6n

ams6110 12y ago

Michigan is in the toilet. Detroit is bankrupt, huge parts of the city are abandoned ruins, and the rest of the state isn't much better off. Tesla probably would not sell many cars there anyway. If I'm wrong, it's a good opportunity for northern Indiana or Ohio to court a Tesla store.

jstalin 12y ago
While I agree with you about Detroit, the rest of the state is doing fairly well.
mikeyouse 12y ago
> If I'm wrong You are. The suburbs of Detroit are some of the wealthiest zip codes in the country, much of the Western coast is filled with beach towns and million-dollar lake houses, the HQs of dozens of multi-billion dollar business are there, and Michigan is the 9th most populous state in the US. Tesla would sell plenty of vehicles there.

Al__Dante 12y ago

I think this might be the relevant change (contained in bill S-1 which was substituted in the Regulatory Reform Committee): "2 (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer 3 other than through <del>its</del> franchised dealers, unless the retail 4 customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local 5 government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a 6 manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the 7 purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles 8 or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor 9 vehicles through the <del>manufacturer's</del> FRANCHISED new motor vehicle 10 dealers THAT SELL AND SERVICE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES PRODUCED BY THE 11 MANUFACTURER." Link to the passage of the bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/mileg.aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2014-HB-5606 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/... Link to the substitute bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/documents/2013-2014/billcurrentversion/House/PDF/2014-HCVBS-5606-14800.PDF http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...

spacefight 12y ago
Setup 100% Tesla-owned franchise. Sell through that.
- howeyc 12y ago
  I'm not sure you can do this. Isn't the point of the franchise that it's owned by someone else? For example, if McDonald's corporate opens a location owned by them, can they called it a "franchise" location?
  - twosheep 12y ago
    I think you can have it owned by a different company but with the same leadership as the parent. Isn't this how liability shields work? Lots of different LLCs with the same people at the helm?
    - cowsandmilk 12y ago

minimax 12y ago

The State of Illinois would like to extend a warm welcome to the people of Michigan, and invite them (and their tax dollars) to visit one of the several Tesla stores in the Chicago area.

Shivetya 12y ago

Honestly Tesla, STAY OUT OF MICHIGAN. If you refuse to do business with the state, go as far as to discourage people living there form buying them, eventually there could be enough public pressure to bring about a change. If not that, perhaps a few billboards equating the politicians to Neanderthals might work Its time to ignore the states that refuse to play fair, shame them, and perhaps their voters will wake up.

brk 12y ago
At this point in time, Tesla is still less than a rounding error on automobile sales. Ignoring potential markets and counting on the public to "do the right thing" would seem like a suicidal strategy to me. Do you have examples of where this approach has worked?
twosheep 12y ago
I'm not sure that would work in a state as car-centric as Michigan; "out of sight, out of mind." Lots of other cars to buy, especially given Tesla's demographic when compared with Michigan's demographic.
Igglyboo 12y ago
Yea because we should force anyone who wants to break into an established market to pay for a shit ton of marketing and political attack ads! /s

khaki54 12y ago

As a Michigan native (though long gone) and someone erring on the side of conservatism, this is just a disappointment all around. Michigan is historically manufacturer friendly - to a fault, so they really went out of their way here. Eventually all of these statutes will probably be stricken down due to the commerce clause... you are buying the vehicle direct from another state, therefore it's interstate commerce.

smackfu 12y ago
Manufacturer friendly, or Michigan-based manufacturer friendly?

hippich 12y ago

When I hear about Tesla not being able to sell directly to customers, and have to go through dealer, I always wondered why different corporate structure can not be created, where some head company owns Tesla and all dealerships used to sell Tesla cars? This way it is not manufacturer selling these and control of the distribution is still within parent organization.

ceejayoz 12y ago
IIRC in many states dealerships are required to have independent ownership from the manufacturer and no individual/company can own more than one.
- hippich 12y ago
  Is there some sort of test tho? I.e. what I was proposing - dealearship could be separate company and owned by head corporation, which in turn owns Tesla itself. So dealership is separate entity and not directly controlled by Tesla.

RankingMember 12y ago

FYI: Here's a direct link to the web form for sharing your opinion with the Michigan governor's office: https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/GovRelations/ShareOpinion.aspx https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/GovRelations/ShareOpinion.aspx

saturdaysaint 12y ago

The funny thing is that Michigan's legislature is run by yokel conservatives who made a big show of becoming a "right to work" state (i.e. making it illegal to have mandatory all-union workplaces) - when corporate interests and Fox News talking points were at stake, they were remarkably eager to thump their chests about free association.

jdpedrie 12y ago
wut? in what world does "free association" equal "mandatory all-union workplaces"? Just your words.
- mikeash 12y ago
  In what world (just your words) does his comment equate the two?
dbrower 12y ago
Automobile franchisees (car dealers) skew overwhelmingly conservative. Draw your own conclusions.

jstalin 12y ago

Just called the governor's office and the lady answering the phone was quite nice. I urge all other residents of Michigan to do the same.

jstalin 12y ago

Here's a follow-up article on the issue from today. Some are claiming that Tesla direct sales are already illegal in Michigan: http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/tesla_direct-to-consumer_sales.html http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/tesla_di...

cellis 12y ago

Tesla wants to have its cake and eat it too. You can't take a 500 million loan from taxpayers ( the vast majority of whom DON'T benefit from and can't afford your product ) and then on the other hand claim unfair treatment by local governments.

enraged_camel 12y ago
Maybe you're forgetting that the auto industry received bailouts that were two orders of magnitude greater than the loan that Tesla took from the government. And, unlike the rest of the auto industry, Tesla paid back its loans, and did so ahead of time.
- cellis 12y ago
  First, that's kind of a strawman. I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure ). And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. Au contraire, by paying back the loans early, Tesla avoided granting the government shares of TSLA, and thus stiffed the taxpayer out of any possible return. I understand everyone in SV wants Tesla to succeed, but it's not the most meritocratic, little-upstart-vs-entrenched-player story their PR would like you to believe.
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    >>I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure Just like the car companies, who were also bailed out at their most dire time. Except the car companies declared bankruptcy anyway due to gross mismanagement and horrible business practices. From wikipedia: "In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[85] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[86] In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 [87] followed by General Motors a month later.[88]" >>And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. There are an incredible number of government-business transactions that the taxpayer does not directly benefit from. In Tesla's case, I'd argue that the benefits were actually there. You may not be able to afford one of their cars, but having a high-tech electric car company enter the market and succeed against well-entrenched incumbents is in everyone's best interest. You may disagree but I think you'd (fortunately) be in the minority.

navait 12y ago

Elon musk has so much money, why can't he just be his own lobbyist instead of getting his fanboys on this. I have no stake in this.

mzzk 12y ago
If you live in America, you have a stake in this.
- navait 12y ago
  I don't buy new cars.

anigbrowl 12y ago

By striking a single, but critical, word from MCLA 445.1574(14)(1)(i), the law governing franchise relations in Michigan, the dealers seek to force Tesla [...] Well, don't tell us what it is or provide any links to it... /eyeroll. I believe their complaint is about line 3 on page 6 of the following document: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2014-HEBS-5606.pdf http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengros... I support Tesla's efforts and deplore the legislative pandering to incumbent industries, but drumming up support for a legal/political conflict without articulating the actual issue is counter-productive. All that happens is that people send emails or make phone calls to the legislative body saying they're outraged, and then get fobbed off with technicalities because >95% of the outraged people don't actually know what they're complaining about, they only know one party's assertion of what the downsides will be. If you want an internet army to go into battle for you, arm them properly with the facts.

canvia 12y ago

The state Senator responsible for this is up for election in 2 weeks. This is his opponent and she accepts donations: http://www.voteforshari.com/ http://www.voteforshari.com/