http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_1_Automotive

[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-...

Sometimes it is necessary to protect important principles in society. You can't discriminate based on race - that limits choice but who would support the contrary? You can't defraud people in selling products - ditto. You can't buy land to build a smokestack plant in a quiet residential neighborhood - ditto. Many other examples might be cited. In all such cases, the law intervenes to limit private choices. And there are few who would not applaud most such limits. Private choice is not the end all and be all of a society.

Yet, in a free society, private choice should be the overwhelming norm and it should require surmounting very large barriers before legal meddling can limit the choices people can make to serve their own best interests.

Unfortunately, in old-line industries, this idea got flipped and, for years, private choice succumbed to whatever a combination of big government, big corporations, and big unions dictated to the public. Back in the day, writers such as John Kenneth Galbraith even used to celebrate the idea of a "new industrial state" in which the old private competition would yield to ever increasing concentrations of power among government, industry, and labor, who would in turn find ways to "cooperate" with one another in ushering in a more enlightened form of carving up markets and their benefits than mere freedom and competition might provide.

Well, the bureaucratic edict in New Jersey is a relic of that old thinking, perhaps perversely and cynically applied to buy off lobbyists and influencers but rationalized nonetheless by the old paternalistic thinking that the consumer is ultimately best served by having his betters making his buying choices for him rather than being allowed to make them for himself.

Other than in this cynical sense, there is no possible way in which this outrage can possibly be characterized as "protecting" the consumer.

Perhaps the main contribution made by the tech revolution since the 1970s is that it ushered in an era of huge freedom in how people managed their private lives. The internet in particular has been a huge liberating force and so young people especially have come to take it for granted that they can freely make all sorts of choices without having to feel burdened or restricted by the heavy hand of the law. Of course, exceptions can and do remain because abuses can pop up in all sorts of ways without any legal restraints. But, that said, the overwhelming presumption today is that, yes, I can do pretty much what I feel is best for me unless there is a very good reason why I should be restricted from doing so.

And that means, if I live in New Jersey, I should be able to find a local Tesla outlet in which I can buy my electric car if I want. The thought that some politician or bureaucrat should be able to dictate serious limits on that choice is repugnant to anyone who thinks that way. And, in my view, rightly so.

Unfortunately, where the old political pull persists, the law can be abused to protect old-line market players under some guise or other that is a mere pretext for guarding them from competitors who might offer something better and wind up dislodging them in a free market. Legal regulation is not to be rejected out of hand, of course. Maybe the old-line taxi services ought not to have their business cherry-picked by new market entrants who do things differently. Maybe there ought to be some limits in an urban context on absolute free space-letting if this creates nuisances or the like. The line can sometimes be tricky to draw and can require careful and fair-minded judgments given the interests at stake. But how often do we have situations where nothing of the kind happens and instead the issues are decided, in essence, by who pays off whom and who has what degree of political or bureaucratic pull that can be used to protect systems and structures that are far inferior to what the new competition might offer.

I believe that, in these sorts of cases, the tech impetus will ultimately prevail and push things toward broader and freer areas of choice for consumers. Even with this rear-guard action in New Jersey, Teslas can be bought direct from the manufacturer just a short distance away or via remote ordering. And tech-inspired sales and distribution methods in this and a broad swath of other fields will mean that those seeking to limit consumer choice by protecting local turf through bureaucratic pull will be fighting what will ultimately prove to be a losing battle. As consumers, we are not bottled up anymore. If we don't like something that is really stupid, we can more and more work around it using other solutions.

And so we can, I think, basically see that what the local commission is trying to do in New Jersey is much more a last gasp for the old ways as opposed to being a harbinger that will limit Tesla (or any similar new-wave competitor) from accomplishing its goals. Tesla is right to oppose and fight it (and presents a compelling argument for its view). But the action stands out as so bizarre precisely because it is so out of step with the tech impetus that rules our day. It will stand legally (courts are loathe to intervene in such matters). But the longer-term political winds are against it, in my view, and it will prove a temporary obstacle at most as the modern tech impetus advances.

Gotta hand it to Musk - that's some smooth salestalk in what is supposed to be just voicing a public opinion against shady politics. I was halfway through the third sentence when I caught myself thinking - "indeed, that does sound like such a better dea--- Hey wait a minute!". Musk, you sneaky bastard! Never missing a chance to remind me why I want a dang tesla.

He is right and it's a terrific salespitch. That's the best kind of right.

> The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures 'consumer protection'. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of 'protection', this is obviously untrue.

Nicely done, Elon. Nicely done.

It's amazing how much building a new company in a supposedly free market requires arguing against politicians who claim to champion free market economics, but who actually use government to give cushy monopolies to incumbents with big lobbying budgets.

"Crony capitalism" isn't an accurate term for this; it's more like economic central planning by way of lobbyists instead of communist bureaus.

1. http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/03/05/elon-musks-statement-...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/musk-makes-washingt...

You go to the dealer specifically asking for an electric car and the salesman tries to make you change your mind to another vehicle. Considering the bonus structure at most dealerships, there is no incentive to sell an electric vehicle.

First, the dealership may choose not to participate in selling electric models at all.

Second, there is usually only one or two people allowed to sell an electric vehicle because your salesperson was not trained. Who wants to lose a customer and a bonus to another salesman?

Third, it takes longer to sell an electric vehicle because you have to explain everything that gas car owners already take for granted. You make less money by spending more time. This also leads most salesmen to push for 10% over MSRP, harming sales.

Finally, some very corrupt dealers go so far as to deliberately discharge their vehicles and leave them that way so they won't have to try selling them. Dealers have little incentive to sell the entire lineup of manufacturer vehicles if they have to train and hire more sales staff for one model. Some dealership owners may even may be politically opposed to the idea of electric vehicles.

This part works better as an argument for "don't start a car company" than anything else.

I mean, yes, Tucker and DeLorean and Fisker et al used dealers, and they all failed, but that doesn't mean that they failed because they used dealers. The people who worked for them all consumed oxygen, too; it doesn't follow that we'd all be driving DeLoreans today if only we lived in an artificial vacuum.

I appreciate where he's coming from, and I think he should be allowed to sell his cars directly to anyone who wants to buy one that way, but shoddy "correlation equals causation" arguments don't help his case.

I'll give you just one example. The law of the land in NJ is that you can't sell in NJ unless through a dealership. That's the current law. Those laws need to change to allow a direct to consumer sale. Map that to this quote "ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state." Brilliant. "You lost something you had" is so much more powerful than "We need to persuade the legislator to make a change to add something new"

Seriously, I dig his cars. And his vision. And I suspect that to attack such large entrenched markets you have to have this kind of maniacal drive. I just hate being misled and manipulated - no matter who the person.

One of the things I love about Elon Musk, besides the fact that he has the balls to tackle hard, capital-intensive problems, is that he has a pragmatic, realist approach. Getting SpaceX NASA contracts was not something everyone would have done, not when many were marching to the drumbeat of "private space exploration is superior to public." And apparently, he's not being above throwing a recent scandal in Chris Christie's face.

The whole article is a great play though. Note that he starts by explaining the rationale for the existing laws, validating their original purpose, then showing why that rationale doesn't apply to Tesla. This is wonderful persuasive writing.

Look at the economics of a Tesla dealership, for every car sold in New Jersey, how much of that money stays in New Jersey? And let's be honest, being a car salesman is not the most lucrative or respectable of trades. The jobs are usually temporary so down on their luck folks can try and earn some money while looking for something else. Ensuring a state has dealerships possibly out of work people can fall into for temporary jobs is like having a social welfare program without having it on the books.

It sucks, but if you were a legislator in NJ, would you rather Tesla's profit went all out of state to Tesla, or if your citizens could get a crack at some of it and have it circulate around in the local economy for a bit.

It's unpopular, and us tech folks don't like it, but from a NJ legislator's position it's pretty rational.

The correct answer of course is to foster a local auto industry and get a company to make and build and sell cars from out of NJ elsewhere. But that's too impossibly forward looking.

While I don't necessarily support the NJ move, I think we should start asking questions about economic value flow. If people live in one place yet all their economic activity is directed to some place on the other side of the country, what is the long term effect of this on their local economy?

I don't exclude myself, we all use these web services that are highly concentrated in SV, what is going to happen to our local economies?

This is weird. Really weird. It's raw and exaggerated...almost a cartoon. I'd believe this is raw Elon Musk, but why is someone letting raw Elon Musk define this campaign? Remember raw Bill Gates? Did we learn nothing from that? Or maybe we learned a lot. And "we" have developed an affinity--a need--for the brash genius.

I'm probabilistically wrong--Tesla's doing well. But something about this appeal, the wording, makes me react atavistically, "Go fuck yourself. Nothing is obvious."

I had an argument here, but it didn't seem important, so whatever. Dogecoin and such. Also hyperloop. But really, hyperloop. But remember, I was right about New Jersey. Poor New Jersey.

... and Christie can argue that allowing Tesla creates a slippery slope whereby Ford and GM and other companies end up crushing the franchisees that the law intended to protect.

Musk is trying to find a middle ground that just doesn't exist unless you accept governments creating one-off laws that specifically recognizes individual corporations.

It's an interesting future. We are approaching the age of malware infected cars. Does anyone have more info about what the limitations of this internet connected system is? What is possible if someone roots my car?

- Can they disable security system?

- Unlock the car? Lock me out of the car?

- Feed false data (slow destruction of car)? Feed false speed-data? False directions?

- Obtain the cars whereabouts?

- Disable breaks (would assume not)?

It hasn't started with Musk, of course. The most obvious display of such power was the website blackout that led to the SOPA repeal. That showed politicians who really holds the power. These companies barely flex their muscles either; just imagine what would happen if Google decided to get into public shaming in its homepage for entities trying to block its Fiber initiative.

The public no longer believes politicians, but they all believe Zuckerberg, Page and Musk. That makes for an interesting future.

If a dealer is the company who actually sales cars and the factory is the one that produces them, why do they need a franchise in between? And how come that a dealer is comparable to a manufacturer Tesla? Why do they have conflict of interests selling non-gasoline cars?!

Well then what about BMW with bumper to bumper service as only one example. That's a high end car that you don't pay for service for (iirc) 3 years. They cover everything. Wiper blades you name it. I think last I checked the same was true for Subaru and I think even Jeep Chrysler is doing this (may be wrong about that one).

And that's not a conflict of interest but rather a business model. In the case of cars which do make money from service they therefore in theory have a lower price for the vehicle.

This argument is like saying that you are a better airline because you don't charge for luggage. Presumably that extra revenue allows you to offer lower ticket prices. And surprise that is what happens. Back when airlines were regulated (and had less competition) and they charged way higher prices they didn't have to nickle and dime you to make a profit.

In the end dealerships are about making money from their clients by "adding value". Sadly most of the time that value is having the black car in stock -vs- someone down the street who only has the blue one.

It's sad to see a government more concerned about backing the establishment then creating an environment for free trade and new business models.

"Cross an imaginary line a few miles down the road that the auto dealers can't access and everything will be A-OK!"

This is everything that is wrong with politics in a sentence.

That's total BS. Any dealer who invests money in a new show room to sell a new brand of car (think of Mini which was picked up by many legacy BMW dealers and is sold in many mini only showrooms) is going to put in the effort to sell the product. We aren't talking about putting Teslas on the same floor as Mercedes. It would be trivial for Tesla to insist that the product be sold out of a dedicated facility which would cost a dealer money to construct. The idea that that dealer would simply push another product (or the salesman) in another showroom that he operates is ridiculous. And contrary to the behavior of existing multi line large dealerships.

http://pcasts.in/9Ruq?

In it, some argue that "A no haggle, painless car buying experience will eventually come; but it won't be without your local dealers"

I wouldn't be so sure. As Elon states, the fundamentals of the industry haven't changed in quite a while. He's approaching it from one direction (The cars/manufacturing and sale of new cars), and others (like myself and partners) are going directly after the used car Buying/Selling process. Our goal is to make it as easy as possible for Sellers/Buyers to transact. Check us out here:

http://www.instamotor.com/

What a joke.

As a european, i can't even comprehend how ludicruous it sounds that a business can't sell it's goods directly. It's so outrageously wrong, that I can't find words that fit adequately.

I am old enough to remember what owning a car was like when things were changing away from mechanical devices one could understand and tinker with and becoming nondescript hunks of plastic you had to buy from a manufacturer. (I'm talking about the ignition system, as one specific example.) There was always a bit of a sinking feeling for me along with a sense that the world was being dumbed down and manipulated for profit. As programmers and technical people, we should be able to see many parallels!

That said, dumbing down the world in some ways is not necessarily a bad thing and can be exceedingly positive. One might miss the twisty, dusty country road in leisure time, but curse it when it's raining and the road has turned into an impassable morass. Reliable, boring, convenient transportation is great sometimes, like when you're driving someone going into labor to the hospital.

Maintenance free electric cars that drive themselves will be one of those positive simplifying things.

Turns out the Model S at $1,466 as optioned is more expensive than a Leaf. :) Not that I wouldn't kill for a 300 mile range...

There is some bias there. You judge Tesla a better product, so of course all the regulation that are against its sales are going to feel unjust.

I have difficulties to really follow this whole stuff (I live in EU, the whole buying a car in the US seems a very 'exiting' experience, at least when reading about it on Reddit), there does not seem to be any sort of nice non-partisan explanation of the problem and why those regulations where put in place.

Actually Musk is the clearest answer that is not either: "Tesla great, fuck the regulation" or the opposite, "Musk dick, cannot follow the regulations like everybody else", but what's PR and what's factual ?

Edit: Just realised why it irked me this time. I was reading about EU decision of standardizing the power plug for smartphone to micro-USB. People were all happy for regulation there. When people complained that now the we would get stuck with micro-usb forever, people dismissed it saying the EU will just change the plug when a better one comes up as if the EU/US hadn't got an awful track record at keeping their regulation and spec up-to-date, like in this case for example.

* Free-market is for the poor (in every sense: money, political power, etc.)

* The rich (again in every sense) know that in order for you to become obscenely rich you need a state-protected, but not state-owned monopoly.

That's how wall street works actually: We share the loses, they get the winnings... It's risk free win-win for them.

Those who preach, rarely practice.

Only some portions of the electorate and politicians preach free-market economy.

Agree. And makes you wonder a bit about the marketing materials surrounding these cars, huh?

He's trying to make as if he's acting in the best interest of the people of the state of NJ. When it is very clear that his motivation is his own interests and selling his car. And making more money for himself. Most businesses don't make it that obvious.

Another word I will use is immature. His argument sounds like a spoiled kid who doesn't get what he wants and is going to call out the teacher at school hoping to berate them into just caving in. [1] Real life doesn't work that way. Not to mention the fact that there simply aren't enough people in NJ [2] that care about buying a Tesla to protest and make change on this.

[1] "Hey great argument no I don't mind if you insulted me because you are right!".

[2] Guess what? In Pennsylvania there are many more people that don't want to buy liquor at state stores (which they have to) and that hasn't changed yet.

In your vigor, you seem to have misled only yourself.

Are you suggesting that Tesla is actively breaking the law in NJ right now? The rule change doesn't take place until April 1st, which is why they have to close their store by then. If they aren't operating illegally right now, then the commission has ended our ability to purchase these cars.

Secondly, if you can only sell through a dealership, why can't Tesla just own some dealerships?

I have no idea where you came up with this line of thought.

Seriously, how can you be on the "we've got to enforce current law" side? It's so ridiculously anti free market that I'm sure all the Tea Partiers are having cognitive dissonance over this.

I was making a similar point earlier. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if over time we start seeing more laws passed to encourage more of the money citizens of states spend to stay in-state. I think this is going to become a serious concern over time, how are local economies going to thrive if we keep buying stuff online and all the major online companies are somewhere in SV?

That can be said to be true about everything. Why allow online software sales, or Amazon purchases? Force them to have local BNM shops.

"Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.."

They adapt, as all economies must to the changing winds.

What do you mean? Isn't there economic value in owning a Tesla? Just because the money flows the other way doesn't mean there isn't value in owning the product.

Everyone is talking about how we can't trust Elon Musk since he is acting in his rational self-interest. Yet why should we assume that Christie is acting out of the pure goodness of the heart? Politicians too act in their self-interest and that kind of self-interest often involves maximization of power. The currency of politics is not just cash (that helps too, of course!), but also favours: you can be sure that in return for this favour, he'll ask something from the dealership industry which would beneficial to his political career (e.g., the first thing that pops would be to accept additional vehicle taxes, which would help Christie carry and receive donations from environmentally conscious voters in a liberal state susceptible to flooding)

(Edit: remove an incorrect assertion. Laws regarding specific individuals are constitutional, just not "bills of attainder")

Tesla, on the other hand, does have all its new electric car components which are all very impressive technically but about which relatively little is yet known about service life and long-term service costs.

Really, this is about Musk wanting control over the complete experience. Nothing wrong with that (see, e.g., Apple). And I'm no particular fan of the auto dealer experience. (Though I don't buy luxury brands today which, I've been told, unsurprisingly offer a better dealer experience in general.) But you'll end up with dealers of some sort one way or the other.

When a dealer sells you a "lemon" that racks up thousands of dollars in warranty-covered repairs it's actually a bonanza for them.

The conflict of interest Musk is referring to is that dealers won't want to sell extremely maintenance free cars because their revenue on the back-end would be miniscule.

Wiper blades are what, $30 a year if you really care about them?

Even your cellphone doesn't update when it's 'under way', what makes you wonder a moving automobile will? If you hazard a guess as to how OTA's are applied to automobiles, I would guess it'll be in Parked, plugged in, and prompted to update by pressing an "Accept & Update" button.

But I was responding to a claim of the update being "poorly tested", not insecure. That's orthogonal to it being over the air. A poorly tested update delivered through a service center can also brick your car.

Furthermore, the message tells you it won't install unless the car is plugged in or has a certain level of charge.