Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday September 02 2016, @04:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the seen-this-movie-before dept.

The Missouri Automobile Dealers Association sued the Missouri Revenue Department and now a judge has ruled in their favor on part of their claims in Missouri.

Cole County Judge Daniel Green ruled that the Missouri Revenue Department violated state law when it gave the California-based manufacturer a license for a University City dealership in 2013 and a franchise dealer license for a Kansas City dealership in 2014. That allowed the automaker to sell cars directly to customers instead of through a dealership serving as a middleman.

[...] Tesla has faced similar roadblocks to selling its cars in several states with dealership laws similar to Missouri's. In some of those states, legislators have been looking at ways to tweak laws and let the company operate.

Previously: Tesla Direct Sales Blocked in New Jersey


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday September 02 2016, @06:22PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday September 02 2016, @06:22PM (#396736)

    What the fuck are you talking about? Are you insane?

    This is NOT an example of a free market in any way, shape or form, and is absolutely a great example of what's wrong with government regulation. The laws requiring carmakers to sell through independent franchised dealerships is a form of government regulation; in a free market, the automakers could just sell directly to consumers without the middlemen.

    And before you confuse me with one of those anti-government libertarian nuts, I'm all in favor of good government regulation, like that which various European nations use to have high-quality, low-cost cellular service and healthcare unlike here in the US. But this is not an example of it, it's a great example of the dangers of favoritism and cronyism being passed off as regulation, and not much different from the laws that prop up the taxi industry and allow high prices and terrible service there. In the hands of a good government, regulation can do great things; in the hands of a corrupt government, it does terrible things. Unfortunately, here in the US we only seem to have corrupt governments, judging by the quality of regulation we have.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday September 02 2016, @08:27PM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday September 02 2016, @08:27PM (#396772)

    In the hands of a good government, regulation can do great things; in the hands of a corrupt government, it does terrible things. Unfortunately, here in the US we only seem to have corrupt governments, judging by the quality of regulation we have.

    The trouble is that every jurisdiction wants to gets its fingerprints on it. Politicians rail against Federal regulations, but it is almost always the state, county or municipal governments that cause the most problems for small businesses.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Sunday September 04 2016, @09:43PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday September 04 2016, @09:43PM (#397519)

      That's a good point. I'm not really sure why this is either; you'd think that the national government, being farther away from the voters and having more voters per politician (e.g., some federal legislator who writes laws that affect your isn't likely to live down the street from you or come knocking on your door while campaigning, while your town council members probably live within a few miles or less) would have more problems with corruption, but this doesn't seem to be the case. The laws prohibiting municipally-owned broadband, for instance, always happen at the State level (and seem to be entirely contrary to what the Federal government pushes for; as an aside, I'll hand it to Tom Wheeler; I was totally wrong about him). The laws against Tesla and propping up independent dealerships always come from State governments. And really corrupt, backwards deals (like the one that went to the SCOTUS about municipalities using Eminent Domain to seize property for private interests) come from local governments. And as we all (hopefully) know, it took the Federal government to pass the Civil Rights Act and allow black people to vote, as it was the local and state governments that had all kinds of ridiculous voting rules and poll taxes designed to prevent their suffrage.

      The whole idea of "States' Rights" sounds good in theory, and once in a while turns out good (see: marijuana legalization in a handful of states), but most of the time giving power to state and local levels seems to result in more corruption and less freedom.