Patterico's Pontifications

3/29/2014

Anthony Weiner’s New Column at Business Insider: To Hell With the Free Market in Selling Cars!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:05 pm

Anthony Weiner now has a column at Business Insider. (!) His first effort is a broadside against Tesla for having the nerve to suggest that they should be allowed to sell cars on the free market, rather than be subject to absurd state laws that mandate cars be sold by licensed dealers with state-created monopolies within their prescribed territories.

The whole thing is ridiculous from start to finish, but I don’t have the time or energy to fisk it line by line. Basically, Weiner’s take is: this is how it’s been forever — and this is how it should be, assuming that we take it for granted that there should be overbearing regulations in this area.

I’ll pick one section to show how cloistered Weiner’s view is:

Now let me stipulate to the fact that, during my time in Congress, like many other politicians, I received donations from car dealers. I should also note you could fill a book with what I don’t know about New Jersey and I certainly don’t know who promised what to whom in this case. Of course, I’ve also got plenty of problems with Christie and his policies. Still, I think the simplistic shouts of “let the market decide!” that we’re hearing from Tesla and their supporters minimizes the legitimacy of the regulations that have been passed over the years.

Why would you want to have laws that require a car be purchased through a local dealer? Perhaps to protect a purchaser’s rights to easily enforce the warranty. To ensure the state’s ability to enforce the reams of unique state legal requirements that govern automobile sales, service and even disposal maybe. Or, it might just be a run-of-the-mill instinct for local rather than federal regulations to govern what, for many Americans, is the biggest purchase of their lives. You may not agree with these conclusions, but these are longstanding laws and there was a robust back-and-forth about them well before Tesla drove onto the scene.

The “robust back and forth” is not an exchange of ideas and arguments, of course, but rather an exchange of car dealer money in return for the passage of protectionist laws. Look at his arguments: without these protectionist laws, buyers can’t easily enforce a warranty? Why would that be the case for car warranties and not thousands of other types of warranties? Without these protectionist laws, states could not enforce reams of state legal requirements? Then repeal the reams of legal requirements! Without these protectionist laws, we would be left with federal instead of local regulations? Why not have no regulations at all?

Weiner’s argument just takes it for granted that we are going to have a crushing set of regulations and legal requirements for selling cars, and asks: what is the best way to implement the reams of laws and regulations that we all know must exist? The idea that they should be repealed is not even considered, even though economists will tell you that is the most efficient way to handle car sales.

The whole column is silly. Watching a guy who passed laws because he was handed money try to justify doing so, with zero intellectual firepower to back it up, is kind of amusing. Go watch him try. C’mon, it’s fun!

69 Responses to “Anthony Weiner’s New Column at Business Insider: To Hell With the Free Market in Selling Cars!”

  1. I hope Hoagie realizes I am gently teasing him in a friendly way when I say:

    Cue Hoagie outrage in 3…2…1…

    :)

    Patterico (15551a)

  2. Go watch him try.

    I’ll pass, thanks.

    Pious Agnostic (ac89e5)

  3. Personally, I think that buggy-whip manufacturers ought to suppress this new-fangled car thing completely. They scare the horses.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  4. You almost feel sorry for the guy.

    Colonel Haiku (46391f)

  5. You may not agree with these conclusions, but these are longstanding laws and there was a robust back-and-forth…

    “Robust back-and-forth” = lot’s and lot’s of car dealer contributions to politicians in order to protect their markets.

    Perfectsense (4d5c72)

  6. Time is too precious to waste on the opinions of Anthony Weiner.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  7. anthonyweiner
    a weiner in hand not worth
    two in humabush

    Colonel Haiku (46391f)

  8. “Robust back and forth”–Anthony Weiner–mental image—ugh.

    elissa (aa6b49)

  9. Really no different than the 3-tier alcoholic beverage model that the 21st Amendment cemented in place.

    Captain Ned (401d83)

  10. One of the biggest issues I have with the whole “well licensed and regulated” concept when it comes to having a license to operate in the marketplace is how much of a monopoly this creates. There is also scant evidence that having someone licensed will prevent zero defects. One just needs to look at both medical practice issues and with the public teachers. In both locations you have to be licensed by the state to do your job, yet we have seen all over that a doctor that loses their license in Miami arrives in Miramar section of San Diego can take the test and be licensed in CA until they screw it up again. Then just look at the number of teachers committing crimes in various states, they move and potentially do a name change get their license again only again to commit crime. Also, there is zero empirical evidence that shows by licensing you will receive a quality service provider. Again to hit on teachers and medical professionals, friends that are doctors and nurses have told kajillion number of stories of doctors both old and young that shouldn’t even be allowed to practice on stuffed animals, let alone the teachers that are so incapable of leadership in a classroom or even teaching period that they are a joke in the district. So why do we have people push for it?
    Let’s also not talk about how screwed up licensing is. I mean I was in the service and I had friends whose spouses were licensed plumbers or electricians or teachers; but due to the fact that Washington state’s required education and apprenticeship hours were different than Virginia and both of them were considered less stringent than California. Their spouse couldn’t get a job if they moved. Then there was an attempt to fix this at the federal level which basically would have had the spouses registered in a DoD database and would have allowed waivers to be applied at the state level for certain licensing requirements (like some construction trades and teachers) in exchange for only 40 hours of instruction to know the local laws. But big labor got pissed and fought to defeat this bit of the National Defense Authorization Act.
    If it isn’t big labor pushing for licensing, then it’s trade groups saying you have to be licensed. See the fights in Seattle between the progressives who like ride sharing things like Uber and the progressives who like state regulations that are backing the limo/taxi in making Uber members get a taxi licensing.

    There needs to be a serious review all licensing and about 90% of it can be pitched into the waste bin of history.

    Charles (ce6af5)

  11. Gov’t licensing is an artificial impediment to entry, and the basis for maintaining a monopoly under the force of law.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  12. Can New Jersey forbid the sale, possession, or operation of Teslas in New Jersey altogether?

    nk (dbc370)

  13. “There is also scant evidence that having someone licensed will prevent zero defects.”*

    One needs but to travel the highways with all the licensed drivers there to see the truth in this one.

    *Although I think Charles means either 1) “…will provide zero defects”; or 2) “…will prevent defects”.

    gramps, the original (8c018c)

  14. License is not an issue. Tesla applied for and got two dealership licenses. Then they were revoked. Because manufacturers cannot be dealers. They cannot sell directly to the public even if they meet all the licensing requirements of car dealers.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. Yea I meant create a zero defect condition. It’s has been a long day of traveling and writing for other things that lead me to make the grammatical error.

    Basically for the TL;DR kids that frequent here. License requirements are junk and they don’t provide any improvements to services short of lining the state and a labor or trade groups pockets. Also, both conservative and liberal progressives arw guilty of the thinking that more licensing will provide for a safer world and improve the service provider.

    Charles (ce6af5)

  16. He is even dumber than I thought. This is “C” undergrad work at best.

    SPQR (768505)

  17. well, Charles, I thought it looked too long, but I did read the whole thing. The length is not the problem so much as the (lack of) format.

    Paragraphs are wonderful in warding off that TL:DR feeling that rises in the ADD crowd. Paragraphs make me feel ten years younger and 15 pounds lighter

    felipe (6100bc)

  18. “Licensing requirements are junk and they don’t provide any improvements to services” is just plain dumb. They do what they’re supposed to do most of the time. Enough to be worth having. They don’t guarantee perfection but they don’t need to. Perfection is nowhere a prerequisite for anything. My walls, doors, and windows don’t keep out the cold perfectly in Chicago winters either.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Good point, nk. Licensing requirements are not meant to address improvement to service; they are meant to ensure a minimum of competence and compliance. There are “good” and “bad” professionals.

    felipe (6100bc)

  20. Nk,

    I stand by my statement that licensing for some professional trades or jobs is dumb. You want a license construction trades, makes sense so you don’t have shoddy buildings. Doctors and Lawyers makes sense as well. However, there are some locals that make it a requirement for musicians to be licensed by the city or state before they are allowed to play at a “legal” venue. There are some locals in this nation that make florists be licensed with requirements for continuing education hours prior to being allowed for renewal. There are cities and states that mandate that bar tenders be licensed as not only food handlers but also a specific and separate license for bar tending. To take your Chicago example, there was a story of a few weeks ago where a taxi driver bilked a woman of $800 dollars for a 2 mile drive from a hotel to the Navy Pier and made her use an illegal form of payment (in accordance with Chicago rules on taxis) to charge her credit card.

    That teachers have to complete X amount of hours of continuing education to maintain their license and they are allowed to scam this by not attending classes on new ways to teach nor on changes to their fields. Instead it is via attending an annual state union meeting or by attending some of those scandalous presentations in school by groups promoting a specific lifestyle. Such as that one a few years back where a middle school had in a LGBTQ group that was teaching how to use fists and anal pleasure motions during sexual intercourse.

    Again licensing is a scam and 90% of it needs to be looked at and evaluated on if it provides a useful service beyond lining the state and some 3rd party pockets.

    Charles (ce6af5)

  21. Yeah, Chicago has a street performer license. I agree that some “licenses” are simply occupation taxes.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. Oh and if licensing isn’t meant to improve services. Then why is it we hear from Big Labor or the big Trade groups that if only business model X had people that where licensed and regulated then Granny Smith wouldn’t have had her life savings ripped of by that home alarm salesman or that the cable installation crew from WeSaySo cable wouldn’t have burnt the McGee’s home down over on Wistful Vista Lane. That if we only licensed homeopathic doctors they would have ripped off millions of cancer patients with sham products and services
    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022986998_catanzarosuspensionxml.html

    The list goes on and on with how someone sees they are losing their monopoly or someone sees that to improve the community is by having the government replace commonplace thinking is by licensing after they were scammed. The idea of government regulatory oversight is a joke if we see how broken the oversight is as Mr. Weiner talks of taking money to vote a specific way and not the way that makes sense to support the community growth.

    Charles (ce6af5)

  23. “Stipulate” does not mean what he thinks it means, either…

    Gazzer (9399d2)

  24. Like I said above, licensing in the context of Tesla selling its automobiles in New Jersey is a red herring. It tried to get licenses for its dealerships (complete with showrooms) and the only bar was that it was the manufacturer and not a manufacturer’s franchisee. New Jersey wants middlemen who get to dip their beak too. We had a big discussion about this in a couple of recent posts by Patterico.

    I think the point of this post is that Weiner is a weinie. I agree. Poor Huma. (I am over my crush for her, BTW. “Love swells like the Solway, but ebbs like its tide”, eh.)

    nk (dbc370)

  25. “to absurd state laws that mandate cars be sold by licensed dealers with state-created monopolies within their prescribed territories.”
    How are dealerships monopolies? I’ve seen dealerships across the street from each other, so exactly how are they monopolies?

    Mike Giles (760480)

  26. They’re trusts in restraint of trade because not everybody is allowed to do that, even if they meet all the requirements for the dealer’s license. With Tesla, you can’t even say that it protects an existing franchisee’s territory. It’s just, “youse gots to has a middleman”. “Why?” “Middlemen United pays us big political donations.”

    nk (dbc370)

  27. I don’t think restraints on trade are per se a bad thing. I’m no pot-smoking, hooker-chasing, anarcho-capitalist Libertarian. I can see why this is bad because consumers have to pay to feed and shoe the dealer’s kidsm, as opposed to giving all their money to Tesla, I suppose. Any other reason?

    nk (dbc370)

  28. “Oh and if licensing isn’t meant to improve services. Then why is it we hear from Big Labor or the big Trade groups that if only business model X had people that where licensed and regulated then Granny Smith wouldn’t have had her life savings ripped of by that home alarm salesman or that the cable installation crew from WeSaySo cable wouldn’t have burnt the McGee’s home down over on Wistful Vista Lane. That if we only licensed homeopathic doctors they would have ripped off millions of cancer patients with sham products and services”

    It is this steady stream of strawman creation that I find particularly helpful to a serious discussion – not.

    felipe (6100bc)

  29. Weiner, has proven himself at best a hack, at worst a tool, (remember when he went after Goldline)

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/03/29/nyt-takes-gun-out-aps-original-gun-corruption-charges-leland-yee-headlin

    narciso (3fec35)

  30. This Weiner fellow beats himself into quite an lather about…

    Bugg (f0dbc7)

  31. Well, narciso, if not for the artificial monopoly created by the US government on machine guns and shoulder-fired missiles, Yee wouldn’t be guilty of anything. Right?

    nk (dbc370)

  32. I thought the hapless congressman on HoC’s first season was based on him, but then I realized Weiner
    was much less social then him,

    narciso (3fec35)

  33. Felipe,

    Sorry but stupid occupation licensing requirements get my blood to boil.

    Charles (3cf0f0)

  34. Weiner did not reject the precepts of Mein Kampf in any of his columns.

    We can now assert that he accepts the validity of Nazi politics.

    Ya know? This is fun stuff.

    Never once did I hear Obama denounce the Borg. Therefore, it is now obvious he has been assimilated.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  35. That’s better, Ed. Anthony Weiner and “serious discussion” somehow just don’t go together. The fink. He likely froze out a serious opponent to DiBlassio when he declared for the mayor’s race. Not that New York deserves better.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Not exactly, but here’s an interesting detail:

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304256404579449351035993782

    narciso (3fec35)

  37. ==He likely froze out a serious opponent to DiBlassio when he declared for the mayor’s race==

    Agree with you nk and it’s a shame, too. From reading the NY papers, DiBlasio’s inaugural six weeks in office have not exactly been a honeymoon period. More like an ongoing series of PR disasters and miscalculations. Plus, he is at war with Gov. Cuomo on several issues (or vice versa.) New York City does deserve better.

    elissa (aa6b49)

  38. I know some great people up there, but in general, these were the people who turned their backs on Giuliani, even though he brought the city back from it’s ‘Escape from New York’ fate,

    narciso (3fec35)

  39. Goog Lord, Elissa. They voted for Nanny B three times; even allowing to flip flop on term limits so he could garner a third. They get what they deserve. Hey, we all do.

    Gazzer (9399d2)

  40. “Good” (face palm)

    Gazzer (9399d2)

  41. “Sorry but stupid occupation licensing requirements get my blood to boil”.

    Comment by Charles (3cf0f0) — 3/29/2014 @ 6:53 pm

    That is completely understandable, boil away!

    felipe (6100bc)

  42. This argument was over after the Slaughterhouse cases in which it was determined that the state could award an outright monopoly on a broad trade to a single company.

    That the state did so as the result of outright bribes doesn’t fuzz the issue one bit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_cases

    Kevin M (b11279)

  43. the bribes were regarding the slaughterhouse company, not tesla.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  44. R.I.P. Lorenzo Semple, Jr.
    Screenwriter on Batman (Adam West & Burt Ward), movie and series; Papillon; The Parallax View; Three Days of the Condor; Never Say Never Again

    Icy (95e789)

  45. How cars are sold and bought in the United States is an anachronism left over from the days when cars were as new as radios.

    Look, I’m all for car dealerships making money. However, the whole mechanism of car dealership in America is wacky.

    This is coming from someone who tried to make a living for a short time as a car salesman, I still do not understand it.

    That is the problem.

    I would be happy to answer any questions as far as I can understand.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  46. I am still trying to figure out how “Weiner” (the jokes write themselves) got in office in the first place.

    R (69f0b6)

  47. @18, @19 — Do not equate performance standards with occupational licensing. Minimum performance standards tell what is required of the completed task. Occupational licensing decides who gets to do the task. An unlicensed practitioner can meet the performance standard as well as can a licensed one, and a licensed practitioner may or may not meet the standard.

    Licensed contractors whose windows do not keep out the cold would be an example of this disconnect.

    Gramps, the original (8c018c)

  48. I don’t get it. Calling it silly doesn’t refute that Weiner has correctly stated the purpose of politics and government.

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  49. well it’s more like how did he end up in leadership;

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/bridgegating_the_democrats_culture_of_corruption.html

    he was a Schumer protege, recall the writer of HoC, cut his teeth on that initial campaign,

    narciso (3fec35)

  50. Tesla news in New York:

    There was a bill heading for passage in the state legislature that would have outlawed Tesla selling cars direct to the public.

    There are no laws against it yet in New York State, but there are bans or curbs on sales in Texas, Arizona, Virginia and Ohio – and earlier this month it was it by a ban in New Jersey that will force it to turn its two New Jersey stores into non-selling showrooms.

    Governor Andrew Cuomo negotiated a compromise with the lobbyists for Tesla, which included David Weinraub, who had been in charge of legislation and intergovernmental affairs for Governor Mario Cuomo.

    The bill will be modified so that the 5 stores Tesla currently has will be grandfathered in.

    The New York Post headline in the Saturday paper, page 21, first page of the Business section is:

    TESLA PARDONED
    Gov. Cuomo brokers deal to keep stores open.

    Governor Cuomo’s statement said:

    Today’s agreement reaffirms New York’s long-standing committment to the dealer franchise system, while making sure New York remains a leader in spurring innovative businesses and encouraging zero emissions vehicle sales.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf07f)

  51. 46. Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 3/29/2014 @ 9:40 pm

    How cars are sold and bought in the United States is an anachronism left over from the days when cars were as new as radios.

    Cars were never as new as radios. Radios started in the 1920s – I mean AM radio – while cars were sold 20 years earlier. GM started dealerships maybe in the 1920s about when they started changing models every year. GM wanted to keep the dealers’ profit margins up and paroxically they made more money when car prioes were somewhat high, so that the middleman would have a good profit margin and incentive to sell.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf07f)

  52. 10. …Let’s also not talk about how screwed up licensing is.

    Comment by Charles (ce6af5) — 3/29/2014 @ 2:34 pm

    Oh, why not? We can leave aside for the moment the barrier to entry that licensing is intended to be. To protect “what is” that contributes such as car dealers to pols like Weiner from “what could be but doesn’t exist yet” that doesn’t line his pockets. Because of course what doesn’t exist can’t afford lobbyists.

    Instead let’s look at the blunt instrument a license can be used as:

    http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion.pdf

    This case presents a novel question: can the State compel licensed pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense lawfully prescribed emergency contraceptives over their sincere religious belief that doing so terminates a human life? In 2007, under pressure from the
    Governor, Planned Parenthood, and the Northwest Women’s Law Center, the Washington State
    Board of Pharmacy enacted regulations designed to do just that.

    … Under the delivery rule, a pharmacy’s refusal to deliver is grounds for discipline, up to and including revocation of its license. In operation, the delivery rule bars a pharmacy from referring patients seeking Plan B to other pharmacies, meaning they must dispense the drugs.

    I was reminded of this case by the government’s arguments in the Hobby Lobby case. In which the government made clear that its compelling interest isn’t providing women access to contraceptives. But rather using the pretext to ensure that the government can compel anyone operating in the sphere that it regulates, the public sphere, to do as commanded. It’s compelling interest, as in the above Washington State case, was to violate the consciences of religious people.

    In both cases there was no other reason for the mandates.

    The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable. They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted. The rules are unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs. The Court will therefore permanently enjoin their enforcement against Plaintiffs.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    DATED this 22nd day of February, 2012

    In the Washington state case, the plaintiffs defeated the state Board of Pharmacy and its rules. Hopefully the court will rule the same in the Hobby Lobby case. That’s not the point. This is the purpose for which licensing exists in the eyes of people like Wiener. To violate the conscience of another. It doesn’t matter if you’re a hospital or a lawn sprinkler system company (yes, those are licensed in TEXAS of all places). You are an agent of the state.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  53. Well, monopolies should be government regulated. Because the market can’t do it. The consumer’s freedom is curtailed and it’s only fair that the monopolist’s should be too. As I understand it, Plan B does not need a prescription. So why should pharmacies be the only place to get it? Why not the 7-11, alongside the Alka Seltzer? That would have been the better solution, if the government cared about availability to the consumers. Of course, pharmacists would not have the monopoly then. Which they get and maintain by influencing politicians.

    nk (dbc370)

  54. nk says:

    Well, monopolies should be government regulated.

    This is circular reasoning. Monopolies that are created by government OF COURSE need to be created by government. Therefore, do not interfere with our governance (Sincerely the WA. State Board of Pharmacy).

    It’s right up there with the Hobby Lobby argument that regulatory requirements created by agencies (note the HHS mandate isn’t a statutory requirement) can’t be challenged under the the RFRA (which is a statute) because that would inhibit the government’s ability to enforce regulatory compliance. Why, it’s a slippery slope!

    if the government cared about availability to the consumers. Of course, pharmacists would not have the monopoly then.

    Because what the government pretended to care about isn’t actually the thing it did care about.

    What it cares about is violating the consciences of religious believers. But it can’t come out and say that. Read the WA state decision. Essentially the governor conspired with PP and feminist organizations to devise a neutral-appearing way to bring religious people to heel or force them out of business. That was the entire purpose of the WA. state Pharmacy Board’s regulation. As the judge discovered.

    As you yourself observe this was not the least intrusive way of enforcing the government’s interests. The least intrusive way was dispensing with the prescription requirement. Which means a religious pharmacist doesn’t have to sell it. It’s available at the Walmart across the street.

    But that wasn’t at the heart of the WA. law. Or the HHS mandate.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  55. Did you read the decision in the Washington case, nk?

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  56. And I might agree with the pharmacists in the case you cited, if I did not know that it wasn’t really pharmacists looking for a monopoly for the reason you can only get Plan B in pharmacies. It was religious objectors, generally, who consider it an abortifacient. Who don’t want it available at all or in very limited circumstances. Such as in an emergency room to a rape victim, and some people do not want it even for that.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. Didn’t respond directly. Yes, I agree, that pro-abortionists wanted an “in-your-face” law, looking to advance their agenda and not really looking out for women (and young girls).

    nk (dbc370)

  58. Re46… Everything was “as new as a radio” at one point, Sammy, even yer schtik.

    Colonel Haiku (be0e31)

  59. Well, what is there agenda, nk, if they’re not really looking out for women?

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  60. They’re a death cult who consider abortion a sacrament.

    nk (dbc370)

  61. Respectfully, they’re a government cult which wishes to place Caesar on the alter in place of God.

    As you observe abortion is one of their sacraments. But only one.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  62. *alter altar*

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  63. “Cue Hoagie outrage in 3…2…1…”

    Blastoff, Patterico! Sorry I’m late to the post but I was off drinkin’ wif me friends. Any way, you guys have heard my reasoning for the dealership system and I can add nothing. I really believe the system stops deep pocketed manufacturers from establishing solely owned monopolies for their products. I also believe that a local dealer is much more responsive to their local community that a manufacturer from Detroit would be. And local dealers are small businessmen too so they create jobs and increase the local economy.

    Mike Giles said it best: “25.“to absurd state laws that mandate cars be sold by licensed dealers with state-created monopolies within their prescribed territories.”
    How are dealerships monopolies? I’ve seen dealerships across the street from each other, so exactly how are they monopolies?”
    Dealerships are not monopolies, they are independent small businesses. However, if there were no dealership system and Ford owned all its own retail stores, that would constitute a monopoly.

    You guys need to understand that cars unlike most products are themselves licensed to the buyer. They have a license plate, a title and must have insurance. They are like real estate in this respect. Therefore, dealers need to be licensed themselves to deal with all the legal crap that goes into a single car sale. All these licenses are issued by and regulated by the state. So unless you want the same guys who run the post office and the IRS to dictate automobile licensing I suggest you re-evaluate the dealership system which, so far, has placed millions of new cars in the garages of millions of Americans very efficiently and quite profitably for decades.

    And Anthony Weiner is a vile corrupt politician son I really don’t care what he thinks. But since the dealership laws are already in place and have been for decades, Tesla should not get a waiver from the laws that all other dealers must and have complied with. They also should not be “grandfathered” for having dealerships that were illegal to state with. That would be like granting citizenship to illegal aliens. We don’t reward illegal behavior, do we?

    Hoagie (511e55)

  64. Anthony Weiner now has a column at Business Insider.

    That pretty much confirms the reported political slant of the owner of that website.

    Yea, I know some successful business people can be liberals (eg, Michael Bloomberg and, worse of all, George Soros), but, still, the thought of a person of the left being a dispenser of presumably reliable capitalist information reminds me of people who are major fans of McDonald’s and Thunderbird wine who also tout themselves as experts on high-quality cuisine.

    Mark (12c2a8)

  65. 64. …You guys need to understand that cars unlike most products are themselves licensed to the buyer. They have a license plate, a title and must have insurance. They are like real estate in this respect. Therefore, dealers need to be licensed themselves to deal with all the legal crap that goes into a single car sale. All these licenses are issued by and regulated by the state. So unless you want the same guys who run the post office and the IRS to dictate automobile licensing I suggest you re-evaluate the dealership system which, so far, has placed millions of new cars in the garages of millions of Americans very efficiently and quite profitably for decades.

    And Anthony Weiner is a vile corrupt politician son I really don’t care what he thinks. But since the dealership laws are already in place and have been for decades, Tesla should not get a waiver from the laws that all other dealers must and have complied with. They also should not be “grandfathered” for having dealerships that were illegal to state with. That would be like granting citizenship to illegal aliens. We don’t reward illegal behavior, do we?

    Comment by Hoagie (511e55) — 3/30/2014 @ 8:25 am

    I think some of us unreconstructed “you guys” are capable of understanding that there is an argument to be made for a certain system of car sales but Anthony “I got paid” Wiener didn’t make it.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  66. I don’t take economic and legal advice from skeevs.

    SarahW (267b14)

  67. Oh that reminds me and sorry if it already was remarked upon. Ex-Congressman Weiner’s person that he engaged in sexting with has her first adult video soon to be released.

    I don’t suppose that Business Insider will review or critique the video? Probably not.

    Kenneth Simmons (a10c17)

  68. Further reflections on the restrictions to entry upon car dealers….

    Could a lot of this have some connection to the repeal of Prohibition?
    In CA, for a very long time, it was illegal for brewers/distillers/vintners to sell directly to the public, and their wares had to be distributed through licensed distributors and retailers, and there could be no cross-ownership.
    Only recently, in the case of vintners, and the new development of micro-brewers, can consumers purchase directly from the maker other than in a “tasting room”.

    Did this same philosophy create the system of franchised, non-factory-owned dealerships?
    And, if it so important, why are company-owned stores allowed for franchise operations such as McDonald’s?
    And, where do the states stand on company-owned Apple Stores?
    What is the difference between buying an i-Phone from an Apple Store, and a Tesla from a Tesla Store (besides the licensing – and that only applies if one is planning on operating the vehicle on public roads).
    What about buying a John Deere from a company-owned John Deere store (is there such a thing?)?

    I believe there are some serious restraint-of-trade issues involved here.

    askeptic (8ecc78)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2606 secs.