4 ms·

That was very insightful. In reference to local car dealers part. So states were mainly only interested in the money, but then justified it under the guise of

by MollyR 12y ago

That was very insightful. In reference to local car dealers part. So states were mainly only interested in the money, but then justified it under the guise of consumer protections. Is that fair to say ? Or did states really care about consumer protections ? And in the pursuit of truthiness, and not creating a false dichotomy, are both those wrong ?

rayiner 12y ago
To get legislation like this passed, you build a coalition. So the consumer protection angle isn't just a guise so much as it is an angle to get the support of consumer-minded legislators. As for whether these justifications are wrong--it's hard to say. From a jobs point of view, it's probably still not a win for NJ for those dealerships to shut down and have NJ money flow over the internet directly to California. The consumer protection angle is a lot weaker in a day and age where Tesla can monitor your car's stats over the internet.
- winter_blue 12y ago
  Actually, no extra money will flow from NJ to California. Consumers will pay less for their cars, and the extra $1000-$2000 dealerships make on each car, will remain in the consumer's pocket. This is better on the whole. Dealerships are market inefficiencies, as they create no real value or "wealth"[1]. They give nothing to consumers in return for the $1-$2k extra that consumers pay for each car. [1] As defined by Paul Graham in: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Eliminating an economic inefficiency (the middle-man) creates a surplus. Where that surplus flows, whether to the consumer or the producer or split between both, depends on the market.
  - hurin 12y ago
    > Dealerships are market inefficiencies, as they create no real value or "wealth"[1]. This is very surprising complaint to hear - the whole capitalist economy is filled with inefficiencies! (and Paul Graham is hardly saying something novel here).
    - SilasX 12y ago
      The GP wasn't saying that all middlemen add inefficiencies or destroy value, only that these particular ones do since you're forced to use them regardless of need.

by MollyR 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

To get legislation like this passed, you build a coalition. So the consumer protection angle isn't just a guise so much as it is an angle to get the support of consumer-minded legislators. As for whether these justifications are wrong--it's hard to say. From a jobs point of view, it's probably still not a win for NJ for those dealerships to shut down and have NJ money flow over the internet directly to California. The consumer protection angle is a lot weaker in a day and age where Tesla can monitor your car's stats over the internet.

winter_blue 12y ago
Actually, no extra money will flow from NJ to California. Consumers will pay less for their cars, and the extra $1000-$2000 dealerships make on each car, will remain in the consumer's pocket. This is better on the whole. Dealerships are market inefficiencies, as they create no real value or "wealth"[1]. They give nothing to consumers in return for the $1-$2k extra that consumers pay for each car. [1] As defined by Paul Graham in: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
- rayiner 12y ago
  Eliminating an economic inefficiency (the middle-man) creates a surplus. Where that surplus flows, whether to the consumer or the producer or split between both, depends on the market.
- hurin 12y ago
  > Dealerships are market inefficiencies, as they create no real value or "wealth"[1]. This is very surprising complaint to hear - the whole capitalist economy is filled with inefficiencies! (and Paul Graham is hardly saying something novel here).
  - SilasX 12y ago
    The GP wasn't saying that all middlemen add inefficiencies or destroy value, only that these particular ones do since you're forced to use them regardless of need.