131–138 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of a movie about a car company who put seat belts in their cars and marketed them as safer. The name escapes me (and I can't see to find it via Googling). They had a hard time in court, but, I think, won. The establishment hates change.
"Tucker, the Man and His Dream" perhaps? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096316/
I will appreciate if anyone can address me some explanation about this matter. Personally I want to know why auto dealers want to shut down Tesla, aren't they just dealers, are they?
They want to force Tesla to go through them, instead of selling direct to consumer. Tesla not going through the dealerships is bad for the dealerships business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the dealership cartel sucks, but that doesn't mean anything in opposition to it is an unreserved good.
Of course not but the crux of the argument is do you want the market to sort out the good and bad business models or do you want politicians to to do the sorting and to prohibit any deviation from their proscribed models?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see anything in that article talking about exploiting or undermining local laws. In fact the whole article talked about outrage at local politicians. Not to say they don't, but the admirable qualities about the McDonald's corporation is that they are hyper-rational about business efficiency and public image. I don't see anything in the article illustrating that they were acting in a dirty manner.
Sorry, not the best link to illustrate the situation, it runs over many years. They were denied the right to build there, so they applied for something that would have minimal impact, got it accepted. Then applied for something else, with slightly more impact, got it accepted. Every step was careful, measured and calculated to go unnoticed by locals. Eventually they turned and said, well hey, if I can build X surely…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I listened to the podcast. So it boils down to the fact that in the past manufacturers had really rough relations with dealers, and the later passed tons of protection laws which gave them essentially a solid monopoly. And most of those reasons have no meaning today. Though I didn't get the part that fighting that now is futile (there were not enough details in the story). If enough people will be against these laws…
Your parent didn't say fighting it was futile. Your parent said automakers prefer this model today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your parent didn't say fighting it was futile. Your parent said automakers prefer this model today.
I was commenting on the podcast, which makes a point that "fighting is futile".
In a lot of political districts, the local auto dealer contributes more in taxes to the state/district/municipality than any group of citizens does. When these dealers call their congressman, the call gets answered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was commenting on the podcast, which makes a point that "fighting is futile".
You can find all the people you want to oppose these kinds of laws but, as they say, money talks. In a lot of political districts, the local auto dealer contributes more in taxes to the state/district/municipality than any group of citizens does. When these dealers call their congressman, the call gets answered.