heights wrote:
This does not make sense, should we all just deal with a manufactuer of a product when purchasing ?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Its no wonder the motoring industry is going down the tubes - By having 'middlemen' between manufacturer to end user, it only creates vehicles that are over priced when everyone wants a piece of the pie!

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JoeGee wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
If you want to eliminate the auto dealer model, I would think you'd want to do the same with other industries that have similar separations of consumer/manufacturer/dealer-distributor. Or are you solely concentrating on a single company such as Tesla? If so, why? Don't you feel the same way about buying, say, a bottle of bourbon direct from Kentucky, saving money by eliminating both the distributor AND the retailer in NJ?

It would be illogical for you to deny consumers of bourbon the same benefits you want Tesla buyers to enjoy, no?

Agreed...

Unfortunately, there are differences between the distribution of alcohol and cars.

The reason that stores are forced to go through distributors in NJ and NY for wine and liquor is because the distributor is capable of buying in bulk and then selling to the small store at a lower rate that that small shop could buy if it were to go direct to The Macallan, itself.

This ability to buy at a lower price enables Joe's Liquor Store to compete with Shop Rite Liquors.

With automobiles, you do have the issue of overhead where you are paying for a distributor's profit margins.

JoeGee wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
If you want to eliminate the auto dealer model, I would think you'd want to do the same with other industries that have similar separations of consumer/manufacturer/dealer-distributor. Or are you solely concentrating on a single company such as Tesla? If so, why? Don't you feel the same way about buying, say, a bottle of bourbon direct from Kentucky, saving money by eliminating both the distributor AND the retailer in NJ?

It would be illogical for you to deny consumers of bourbon the same benefits you want Tesla buyers to enjoy, no?

Agreed...

sepecat wrote:
Musk tapped into the Apple fanboys and he thinks he can do what he wants. As a consumer I want to be able to save money and I can only save money if there is competition. I'm not a fan of Christie, but this is the right call.

Monroe wrote:
If you want to eliminate the auto dealer model, I would think you'd want to do the same with other industries that have similar separations of consumer/manufacturer/dealer-distributor. Or are you solely concentrating on a single company such as Tesla? If so, why? Don't you feel the same way about buying, say, a bottle of bourbon direct from Kentucky, saving money by eliminating both the distributor AND the retailer in NJ?

It would be illogical for you to deny consumers of bourbon the same benefits you want Tesla buyers to enjoy, no?

sepecat wrote:
Musk tapped into the Apple fanboys and he thinks he can do what he wants. As a consumer I want to be able to save money and I can only save money if there is competition. I'm not a fan of Christie, but this is the right call.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

iabide wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...a billionaire South African...

He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2002. That makes him just as American as anyone else.

I don't know any Americans who were born South African, changed to an Canadian citizen, then became a naturalized American-sounds like he's a bit of an opportunist, no? :)

sepecat wrote:
Musk tapped into the Apple fanboys and he thinks he can do what he wants. As a consumer I want to be able to save money and I can only save money if there is competition. I'm not a fan of Christie, but this is the right call.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
You lost me at internal combustion engines need tune ups every 5,000 miles, lol. Really?

Yes, really.

An electric car doesn't need oil changes, it doesn't need filters changed, it doesn't need emissions checks, you don't have to flush the fuel system, it doesn't have timing belts, and so forth. The software updates, which don't require a shop, address lots of problems.

A 5,000 mile tune-up is routine for cars that have internal combustion engines. Electric cars need them every 12,000 - 15,000 miles, and require a lot less maintenance at those intervals.

http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03 ... -end-oil-changes-forever/

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/10 ... st-none-required-actually

And no, you cannot drive a Ford F150 for 100,000 without ever needing a tune up. Do you even own a car? Do you really expect anyone to believe that a truck will run just fine for 100k miles without a single tune up, a single oil change, a single filter changed, a single belt replaced?

Monroe wrote:
You lost me at internal combustion engines need tune ups every 5,000 miles, lol. Really?

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Many feel that making an exemption will lead to, say, low cost Asian manufacturers such as Tata Nano selling cars direct....

First, Tesla's cars are not comparable to Tata.

Electric cars have much lower maintenance needs than a standard automobile. You don't need oil changes, or emissions, or spark plugs. Brake pads last longer, because they're regenerating electricity. A lot of updates are done via software, which can be done directly by the owner and will replace most recalls. (Other manufacturers could do the same, I wonder why they don't? Hmmmm)

Most electric cars (such as the Nissan Leaf) only need tuneups every 15,000 miles, instead of 5,000 for an internal combustion engine.

Even if there were Tesla dealers, they'd need fewer staff. Should we ban electric cars because they would result in fewer mechanics?


Second, if people want to buy cars direct, who cares? If the service is insufficient, people will figure that out very quickly, and local mechanics will offer repair services.


Third, and since you obviously missed it: The dealer model does not guarantee jobs for anyone. When GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy, they killed off thousands of dealerships.

Fourth, it is absurd to suggest that we should mandate economic inefficiencies primarily to "save jobs."


Quote:

And Ford did experiment with selling direct, and gave it up when traditional dealers forced them out by underpricing them-so the consumers didn't benefit there either.

"A decade back, Ford tried to launch a similar effort in the U.S., but it was ultimately stymied by the myriad of often severely restrictive state franchising laws that often seem written precisely to protect car dealers ? no surprise considering auto retailers and their trade organizations, such as the National Automobile Dealers Association, are among the most powerful lobbying bodies in the country."
- http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2010/ ... ling-direct-to-consumers/

Don't get me wrong, I do support regulation -- when the rules are crafted reasonably well, and actually protects consumers, workers and the environment. I do not support it when it primarily serves a private interest, like car dealers.


Quote:

Face it, this is a dogpile attempt mostly trying to discredit Christie-the left making a case for a billionaire South African selling cars to the 1%ers, is amusing though.

Face it, there is no reason to prevent direct auto sales other than to keep a block of donors happy. Even Forbes recognizes that Christie is being a hypocrite with his executive order. So why don't you? Hmmm.

Monroe wrote:
Many feel that making an exemption will lead to, say, low cost Asian manufacturers such as Tata Nano selling cars direct....

And Ford did experiment with selling direct, and gave it up when traditional dealers forced them out by underpricing them-so the consumers didn't benefit there either.

Face it, this is a dogpile attempt mostly trying to discredit Christie-the left making a case for a billionaire South African selling cars to the 1%ers, is amusing though.

CdeCoincy wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

iabide wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...a billionaire South African...

He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2002. That makes him just as American as anyone else.

I don't know any Americans who were born South African, changed to an Canadian citizen, then became a naturalized American-sounds like he's a bit of an opportunist, no? :)

I do. I also know people whose grands and greats went to Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, etc. from Russia, Poland, Italy in the 1900s and then onto the US. Very American, no?

What about all the Russians Jews who first went to Israel and then came here? You got problems with them being opportunists too?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

iabide wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...a billionaire South African...

He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2002. That makes him just as American as anyone else.

I don't know any Americans who were born South African, changed to an Canadian citizen, then became a naturalized American-sounds like he's a bit of an opportunist, no? :)

iabide wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...a billionaire South African...

He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2002. That makes him just as American as anyone else.

Monroe wrote:
...a billionaire South African...

Monroe wrote:
And Ford did experiment with selling direct, and gave it up when traditional dealers forced them out by underpricing them-so the consumers didn't benefit there either.