8 ms·

Oh, it's easy. It's through things like regulatory capture, funding campaigns and thus having direct access to congressional workers, having people appointed to

Oh, it's easy. It's through things like regulatory capture, funding campaigns and thus having direct access to congressional workers, having people appointed to regulatory bodies that are partial to your stance and/or other means of influencing non-elected officials. Basically, if you can't beat them through normal market means, pass laws so they can't beat you. Sounds cynical but take note, back when cars were first coming out the laws that were passed in response to them were designed to impede the adoption, not promote.

ptaipale 12y ago
In more plain language: car dealers (companies and their workers) lobbied for politicians to ban competition. They give campaign funding, and in exchange they get legislation like this ban.
amalcon 12y ago
Your explanation doesn't really make sense. Consider: who would benefit most from the removal of these laws? The obvious answer is the General Motors Corporation. They could own their own dealerships, getting better control of customer experience and a bigger cut of the profits. It's not like they're short on capital such that they would be forced to franchise anyway. As the largest automaker in the world for most of the last century, they would get a significantly outsized benefit compared to any competitor. Now for a rhetorical question. Who has more political power in the U.S: car dealerships in aggregate or General Motors? Answer: General Motors, of course! Another rhetorical question: Does Tesla have more political power in New Jersey than GM as well, given that the exception was carved out specifically regarding the type of vehicle they produce? edit: New Jersey is no stranger to economic protectionism. They actually prohibit self-service auto refueling as a jobs program, which would seem to be more threatened by Tesla than car dealerships. I'm not trying to argue that it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't explain what's going on here.
- adventured 12y ago
  These are state laws. General Motors had less influence at the state and local level than the auto dealerships did. At that level it's about intimate relationships, those dealership owners directly knew and financed their local politicians and GM did not. GM was facing a nearly impossible 50 state battle, spanning thousands of politicians, in trying to do anything about the dealership cartels. Instead, GM was ultimately ok with a truce with them so long as GM could control issuing (or revoking) the dealer licenses.
  - amalcon 12y ago
    Michigan has auto dealer licensure requirements, which (as far as I can tell, though I am not a lawyer so you shouldn't believe me) are very similar to those in New Jersey. Car dealerships do not have more political influence in Michigan than GM does. Also, if it were just a political fight between businesse interests, GM could just go over the states' heads: people frequently buy cars across state lines, so the commerce clause reasoning for a law prohibiting these laws wouldn't even be as tortured as it usually is.
- peterfirefly 12y ago
  Detroit liked it because it was and is a barrier for foreign car makers.
- raldi 12y ago
  > Who has more political power in the U.S: car dealerships in aggregate or General Motors? Answer: General Motors, of course! What makes you so sure?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  I think the ban on self-service fueling is a great idea and I wish more states (beyond Oregon) would do it.
  - ahallock 12y ago
    Why is it a great idea?
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    I'm baffled that anyone would think that's a great idea. Compelling drivers to pay someone to do something that nearly all drivers have no problem doing themselves seems absurd. Please explain your reasoning.
    - Tenhundfeld 12y ago
      I wonder if GP is trolling. Having spent time in NJ visiting family, I've researched this issue a bit and have never found any logic to support the ban on self-service pumps – beyond corruption, politics, etc. The one interesting thing I did find is that many disabled motorists have a very hard time using self-service pumps – while still being able to drive safely with vehicle modifications. The Americans with Disabilities Act even has a requirement that gas stations provide refueling assistance, with some exceptions. (http://www.ada.gov/gasserve.htm http://www.ada.gov/gasserve.htm) That still doesn't mean self-service should be banned. At most, it's argument for requiring gas stations to have >=1 full-service pump. The other funny thing is that many NJ natives seem to really like using full-service pumps and want to keep the ban. And because they have low gas taxes and import so much fuel, NJ still has some of the cheapest gas in the country. So, there's not much political will to change it – despite the inanity.
      - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
        We are rapidly moving towards making lots and lots of jobs on the low end of the skill spectrum obsolete. (and plenty of medium-to-high skill jobs as well) Non-self-service stations provide a lot of employment opportunities.

ptaipale 12y ago

In more plain language: car dealers (companies and their workers) lobbied for politicians to ban competition. They give campaign funding, and in exchange they get legislation like this ban.

amalcon 12y ago

Your explanation doesn't really make sense. Consider: who would benefit most from the removal of these laws? The obvious answer is the General Motors Corporation. They could own their own dealerships, getting better control of customer experience and a bigger cut of the profits. It's not like they're short on capital such that they would be forced to franchise anyway. As the largest automaker in the world for most of the last century, they would get a significantly outsized benefit compared to any competitor. Now for a rhetorical question. Who has more political power in the U.S: car dealerships in aggregate or General Motors? Answer: General Motors, of course! Another rhetorical question: Does Tesla have more political power in New Jersey than GM as well, given that the exception was carved out specifically regarding the type of vehicle they produce? edit: New Jersey is no stranger to economic protectionism. They actually prohibit self-service auto refueling as a jobs program, which would seem to be more threatened by Tesla than car dealerships. I'm not trying to argue that it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't explain what's going on here.

adventured 12y ago
These are state laws. General Motors had less influence at the state and local level than the auto dealerships did. At that level it's about intimate relationships, those dealership owners directly knew and financed their local politicians and GM did not. GM was facing a nearly impossible 50 state battle, spanning thousands of politicians, in trying to do anything about the dealership cartels. Instead, GM was ultimately ok with a truce with them so long as GM could control issuing (or revoking) the dealer licenses.
- amalcon 12y ago
  Michigan has auto dealer licensure requirements, which (as far as I can tell, though I am not a lawyer so you shouldn't believe me) are very similar to those in New Jersey. Car dealerships do not have more political influence in Michigan than GM does. Also, if it were just a political fight between businesse interests, GM could just go over the states' heads: people frequently buy cars across state lines, so the commerce clause reasoning for a law prohibiting these laws wouldn't even be as tortured as it usually is.
peterfirefly 12y ago
Detroit liked it because it was and is a barrier for foreign car makers.
raldi 12y ago
> Who has more political power in the U.S: car dealerships in aggregate or General Motors? Answer: General Motors, of course! What makes you so sure?
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
I think the ban on self-service fueling is a great idea and I wish more states (beyond Oregon) would do it.
- ahallock 12y ago
  Why is it a great idea?
- ctdonath 12y ago
  I'm baffled that anyone would think that's a great idea. Compelling drivers to pay someone to do something that nearly all drivers have no problem doing themselves seems absurd. Please explain your reasoning.
  - Tenhundfeld 12y ago
    I wonder if GP is trolling. Having spent time in NJ visiting family, I've researched this issue a bit and have never found any logic to support the ban on self-service pumps – beyond corruption, politics, etc. The one interesting thing I did find is that many disabled motorists have a very hard time using self-service pumps – while still being able to drive safely with vehicle modifications. The Americans with Disabilities Act even has a requirement that gas stations provide refueling assistance, with some exceptions. (http://www.ada.gov/gasserve.htm http://www.ada.gov/gasserve.htm) That still doesn't mean self-service should be banned. At most, it's argument for requiring gas stations to have >=1 full-service pump. The other funny thing is that many NJ natives seem to really like using full-service pumps and want to keep the ban. And because they have low gas taxes and import so much fuel, NJ still has some of the cheapest gas in the country. So, there's not much political will to change it – despite the inanity.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      We are rapidly moving towards making lots and lots of jobs on the low end of the skill spectrum obsolete. (and plenty of medium-to-high skill jobs as well) Non-self-service stations provide a lot of employment opportunities.