New Jersey Bans Tesla Car Sales


New Jersey just became the third state to ban the sale of Tesla cars directly to customers who want them. Because never forget that the stated glories of the free market (which are real, actually) must always take a back seat to political grift and rent-seeking companies.

Like a lot of Republicans, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie likes to talk about how the government should get out of the way of the free market. In a speech last week in Washington, D.C., he railed against President Obama’s economic interventions. “We don’t have an income inequality problem, we have an opportunity problem in this country because government’s trying to control the free market,” he said. And he urged his fellow conservatives to shout their opposition to government regulations from the rooftops. “We need to talk about the fact that we’re for a free-market society that allows your effort and your ingenuity to determine your success, not the cold, hard hand of government determining winners and losers.”

Then Christie came back to New Jersey and signed off on a cold, hard government regulation that blocks Tesla from selling its cars in the state.

The rule change prohibits automakers from selling directly to consumers, as Tesla does. Instead, it requires them to go through franchised, third-party dealerships, as the big, traditional car companies do. In other words, it requires that the middle-men get their cut. The Christie Administration made the move unilaterally, via the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. It was urged on by lobbyists for the state’s existing car dealerships, which fear the competition. The upshot is that Tesla will be forced to stop selling cars at its two existing dealerships in the state, and drop its plans to build more. It’s unclear what will happen to the employees of those dealerships.

New Jersey is the third state to effectively block Tesla by banning automakers from selling their cars directly. The other two are Texas and Arizona.

Also states that are run by people who declare the virtues of the free market right up to the point where someone pays them in campaign contributions to distort the market by keeping competitors out. This is the kind of regulation that everyone should be able to agree is wrong — liberals, conservatives, libertarians — but money talks. Tesla doesn’t have the resources to buy off enough politicians to counter the influence of the Big Three automakers and the dealerships that sell their products.

Comments

  1. dogmeat says

    It’s good to see that electric cars are being given every opportunity to compete fairly in the market place. Just like they were back in the 90s when they failed due to their own limitations and lack of customer interest. /sarcasm

  2. busterggi says

    Christie probably would have shut down Edison for competeing with the established candle & oil lamp industries.

  3. wscott says

    “[E]liminating the middle man, not as simple as it sounds….About 50% of the human race is middle men and they don’t take kindly to being eliminated.” Captan Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

  4. colnago80 says

    With regards to Tesla, I don’t think this is necessarily a deal killer. Given that only the high rollers can afford to buy a car whose cheapest model costs 60 grand, they are also the ones who can travel to another state that does not have such laws and make their purchase there. I don’t think that any of the states having such laws can prevent a resident from registering the car.

  5. says

    Thank you, Christie, for protecting us from Obama cramming more green cars (and green LIES) down our throats! Also BENGHAZI!!!!

  6. corwyn says

    And while driving out of Texas takes some doing, no one is going to think it a hardship to drive out of New Jersey. Heck, they might not even want to go back…

    Tesla intends to make a cheaper version soon, so this actually will affect them soon.

  7. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    jameshenley:

    I haven’t read the hashing-out in the comments but the following:

    or that serves to create a barrier to entry to any industry or occupation,

    Would seem on its face to prohibit things like restricting the practice of law, medicine, and engineering to the licensed and qualified, which would be a godawful disaster.

    I find myself agreeing with the rest of it.

  8. Michael Heath says

    This barrier to entry has long been practiced at the state-level. The craft sector of the liquor industry, including beer and wine, have long been hurt by it when they’re prohibited from shipping directly to retailers and consumers. Where this motivation is to protect wholesalers and big producers that both enjoy political influence.

    What I don’t know is whether the parties distinguish themselves on these laws protecting liquor wholesalers and big producers from more competition. What I do know is that if you look at businesses and business sectors by where they are in the product marketing life cycle, the more mature they are the more help they get from at least Republicans, to the point prices are severely distorted in a way that costs taxpayers, e.g., coal-based electric consumption. I suspect these employers get the same sort of help from Democrats if they operate within their voting district.

  9. colnago80 says

    Re corwyn @ #7

    The “cheaper” Tesla is estimated at 40 grand. Not exactly a car for the Hoi polloi.

  10. cptdoom says

    With regards to Tesla, I don’t think this is necessarily a deal killer. Given that only the high rollers can afford to buy a car whose cheapest model costs 60 grand, they are also the ones who can travel to another state that does not have such laws and make their purchase there. I don’t think that any of the states having such laws can prevent a resident from registering the car.

    IOW, New Jersey is about to learn all about the mechanisms of the free market.

  11. says

    The first comment over at Slate pretty much says it all:

    “clarity65 2 days ago: translation: Tesla did not pay Christie’s campaign money, but these car dealerships did”

    I wonder how many are in Fort Lee?

    “The “cheaper” Tesla is estimated at 40 grand. Not exactly a car for the Hoi polloi”

    I bought my first computer in 1989, a Radio Shack Trash88. It had ONE floppy drive (256K), no hard drive. I added a second floppy drive and left the store with me proud beauty, about $1400 lighter than I had arrived. It had the remarkably bad DeskMate software and was basically a glorified typewriter–oh, yeah, the Panasonic thermal printer cost another $300. No sound, green video about 9″ wide.

    I just purchased an All-In-1 Gateway from Walmart (nothing near their price within 40 miles–me no car).. 4G Ram, 19.5″ display, DVD burner, 1600×900 lines, gazillion colors, card reader, decent built in speakers AND a fuckton of software–$379.00.

    Yeah, I fucking HATE Walmart but the prices for memory, processor speed, monitors, printers (don’t get me started on ink pricing) and most other computer products–sold everywhere–are far less than they were 20 years ago for much better stuff.

    Most of that is from competition and innovation.

    The battery powered vehicles are not ever going to reach the level of commodity that computers have (I would LOVE to be wrong on that assertion) but artificially controlling the market will do nothing to help with costs of manufacture.

  12. says

    It’s not exactly hard to buy a car in another state. I’m guessing that there will be some state bordering on New Jersey where there’ll be a dealer doing land office business. Until the whole restriction breaks down.

  13. caseloweraz says

    Marcus Ranum: It’s not exactly hard to buy a car in another state.

    Quite right. However, it might be had to buy an electric car in New Jersey if, somehow, laws are passed which hamper the proliferation of charging stations.

    (I know — this verges on conspiracy theory.)

  14. colnago80 says

    Re caseloweraz @ #15

    It would not be hard for Tesla to make a deal with Nissan, which, I believe, has charging stations in their dealerships for Leafs to recharge Teslas also. What is Christie going to do, ban charging stations at Nissan dealerships?

  15. colnago80 says

    Re Marcus Ranum @ #13

    Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware are adjacent to New Jersey for starters. Maryland also isn’t too far away.

  16. cottonnero says

    There are five Tesla stores in NYC and its suburbs, and one in Philadelphia. In fact, since the two stores in NJ are near NYC, the Philadelphia store is the closest one to a lot of New Jerseyites.

  17. says

    I see this issue, along with farm subsidies, as a kind of litmus test for what conservatives really believe. This is pure rent-seeking. If they believe in market mechanisms as a means of serving consumer interests, then they’ll be against these laws. But if their agenda is to serve the interests of the status quo elite, then this sort of thing makes perfect sense.

  18. says

    Ed, your wording misrepresents what’s happening here. First, the law does not “ban the sale of Tesla cars directly to customers who want them;” it only bans sales that are not through certain middlemen. And second, the law is, at least, an attempt to make the law consistent for all makes of car. If you want to criticize the law, at least don’t misstate it.

    Oh, and Halney? Your proposed constitutional amendment is nothing but a blatant attempt to ban ANY government regulation that causes ANY inconvenience to ANY business, or adds even one penny to the cost of entering a market. Any regulation “privileges” companies that are better able to adapt than others, therefore any regulation would be illegal under this amendment.

    But hey, thanks for tipping us off to the libertarians’ latest con-game.

  19. says

    @17:

    It would not be hard for Tesla to make a deal with Nissan, which, I believe, has charging stations in their dealerships for Leafs to recharge Teslas also. What is Christie going to do, ban charging stations at Nissan dealerships?

    The most common “charging station” for most people will be their garage. The Model S has a range of roughly 200 miles, so you need charging stations only on long trips. Tesla is currently rolling out networks of charging stations along major transportation corridors (including through NJ I think) to facilitate long-distance travel. I imagine it would be difficult to plan your route through NJ if you had to hop from one Nissan dealership to the next. I also imagine that Nissan would have little interest in helping out their biggest competitor in the EV market.

    But for NJ to pull such a move would be outrageous. It would almost certainly bring nationwide condemnation. It would also be economically stupider than the current move, since if Tesla owners simply go around NJ, so too do their dollars.

  20. jameshanley says

    Azkyroth,

    That issue was widely discussed in the comments. My position on it is two-fold:

    First, I include a clause that reads:
    Nor shall this provision be construed to deny the authority of states and their political subunits to create economic regulations or to regulate for the health, safety and welfare of the people, provided such regulations do not conflict with this provision.

    That creates an opening for the Courts to interpret licensing requirements for doctors, engineers and such as still allowed. I think it likely that it would be interpreted more broadly, to allow more types of occupational licensing, than I would prefer, but I’m not the type to succumb to the nirvana fallacy, so I’m just trying to make things better than they are at present. If the clause above functioned as a loophole to allow more occupational licensing than I think is legitimate, but the amendment overall drastically reduced rent-seeking (or more accurately, rent-granting), I’d happily accept the tradeoff.

    Second, this is just my draft of a proposed amendment (which, let’s face it, probably is never going to get traction anyway), and I don’t see it as biblical text that can’t be changed, because I’m realistic enough to recognize that A) I’m not so brilliant that somebody else couldn’t come up with better phrasing in parts than I have, and B) if it ever did get traction and was picked up by Congress–which would make me deliriously happy–there’s no way it would get through that body unchanged. So any provisions that could be better worded, I’m all in favor of getting them better worded. If that means finding words to clarify that we can require licensing of doctors, engineers, etc., that’s fine with me. And I think politically such a clarification would be necessary to make the proposed amendment acceptable to the body politic, who are on average somewhat less libertarian than me.

    I’m glad you like the rest, though. Thanks.

  21. says

    Minor correction: I stupidly quoted your words without reading them thoroughly enough. Yes, the law does ban DIRECT sales, contrary to my assertion. My bad. But it’s still true that the law can be said to treat Teslas as other cars are treated; the original regulation may be wrong and unjustified, but you really can’t call it “rent-seeking” when the lawmakers try to make the law more consistent.

  22. jameshanley says

    @Raging Bee,

    Oh, and Halney? Your proposed constitutional amendment is nothing but a blatant attempt to ban ANY government regulation that causes ANY inconvenience to ANY business, or adds even one penny to the cost of entering a market.

    Thanks, I knew I could count on you for comedic relief. And I like the mis-spelling of my name; I think that would be easier to pronounce clearly (I always swallow the “nl” combination, whereas “ln” comes out more clearly), so I might just adopt that pronunciation from now on.

  23. freehand says

    jameshanley: Nor shall this provision be construed to deny the authority of states and their political subunits to create economic regulations or to regulate for the health, safety and welfare of the people, provided such regulations do not conflict with this provision.
    .
    Ummm. Am I reading this correctly? Looks like it means that medical doctors, for example, can only be required to be licensed if it doesn’t interfere with this provision. So a homeopath could argue that such licensing keeps out the vast majority of homeopaths, and therefore conflicts with this provision, and therefore is illegal. Or am I having a senior moment?
    .
    I strongly approve of your desire to limit intellectual property rights. I would also limit their range, although that might be tricky to word. Practically speaking, i don’t trust our gang of scoundrels, thieves, and cowards to amend the constitution.

  24. freehand says

    Clarification:
    I strongly approve of your desire to limit the duration of intellectual property rights. I would also limit their range i.e. patents on natural genomes, or John Fogerty being sued because his new songs sound too much like his old ones (The Creedance Clearwater songs owned by a record company),

  25. says

    …but you really can’t call it “rent-seeking” when the lawmakers try to make the law more consistent.

    Well, the original law is itself rent seeking — dealerships sucking money out of consumers and automakers. You’re right though that, as far as I can tell, these laws have been on the books in nearly every state and weren’t just invented to punish Tesla. However, Tesla has been trying to get around them in various ways, and several states are proactively getting in the way when they could try to be accommodating.

  26. jameshanley says

    @freehand,

    What I’m trying to do is strike a balance between clarifying that we’re preserving states’ traditional authority to regulate for public/consumer safety, but not allowing regulation that merely poses as that type of regulation while actually having the purpose of creating a consumer-welfare harming cartel. Drawing on my not insubstantive familiarity with legal interpretation, I don’t think my language here quite gets it right–this is the single point on which I have had the most pushback, which seems a pretty definitive that I haven’t–but I haven’t quite figured out the precise language to clarify that.

    I see my text as a work in process, not a perfect product….yet. ;)

  27. says

    First, I include a clause that reads: Nor shall this provision be construed to deny the authority of states and their political subunits to create economic regulations or to regulate for the health, safety and welfare of the people, provided such regulations do not conflict with this provision.

    That clause does absolutely nothing to mitigate the effect of your amendment’s primary clause. In fact, it explicitly says that all considerations of “health, safety and welfare of the people” are now TRUMPED by businesses’ demand not to be inconvenienced by regulation in any way.

    What I’m trying to do is strike a balance between clarifying that we’re preserving states’ traditional authority to regulate for public/consumer safety, but not allowing regulation that merely poses as that type of regulation while actually having the purpose of creating a consumer-welfare harming cartel.

    Bullshit. It’s perfectly obvious you’re trying to make all regulation of business illegal, and using “rent-seeking” as an excuse. Seriously, how does your amendment distinguish between regs that really serve a good purpose, and regs that pretend to do so? It doesn’t, and it can’t.

    I see my text as a work in process, not a perfect product….yet. ;)

    So you respond to the charge of blatant dishonesty by pleading laziness and incompetence? I’ll remember that next time you try to pretend you’re the smartest guy in the room.

    And I like the mis-spelling of my name…

    Your blatant dishonesty has been exposed, and now you’re trying to change the subject by talking about a typo? Even for you that’s pathetic.

  28. says

    @ 23

    “if Tesla owners simply go around NJ, so too do their dollars.”

    Buyers still have to get a tag (ad valorem taxes) in their home state. I don’t know about Jersey, but here if someone travels from Georgia to Florida or South Carolina to purchase the car the sales taxes are returned to the home state.

  29. corwyn says

    @10
    I heard $37k (but whatever) the average price of a new car is around $31,252 (from USAToday). Not actually that far apart. I could easily see it being cheaper after TCO is taken into account.

    @23
    The Model S has a range of roughly 200 miles, which is longer than New Jersey!

  30. says

    “Practically speaking, i don’t trust our gang of scoundrels, thieves, and cowards to amend the constitution.”

    I think that in today’s political climate, amending the U.S. Constitution is a virtual impossibility.

    “Well, the original law is itself rent seeking — dealerships sucking money out of consumers and automakers.”

    May I see a show of hands from those other commenters who have heard from various auto dealers over the years that they make NO MONEY on the sales of new automobiles but instead make it all on maintenance and the sales of used vehicles? (democommie is nearly knocked over by the breeze generated by waving arms!). Right, I thought so.

    James Hanley:

    This:

    “I see you’re edging back into the marketplace of ideas and uncivil discourse*, with your comments here bordering on Randian freemarket worship and your jeremiad about liberal pansyprofs being protected by guntotin’tarians on your uni’s faculty.”

    is what I should have written sometime before the comment @31, in order to sort of inoculate you against the shitstorm that I KNEW was coming. I was hoping it would serve the same purpose as Jenner’s injections of cowpox cooties to boost people’s immunity to smallpox. Alas and alack I see, now, that I was too late. In my defense, I was busy making dog biscuits for my roommate and overlord, Buddy the Wonderdog and he knows well the true meaning of biting someone in the ass. I regret the oversight. {;>)

    * Maybe it’s just me, but I LIKE it, it’s “edgier”, sexy, y’know?

  31. colnago80 says

    Re Area Man @ #29

    A Leaf which costs 27 grand is hardly in competition with a 60 thousand dollar Tesla. That’s like saying that a Lexus is in competition with a Toyota Corolla. And by the way, the 60 grand Tesla is pretty stripped down and has a much shorter range then the more expensive models, having a smaller battery pack. I should agree that the only need for recharging stations is for longer trips >200+ miles.

    Re corwyn

    Is that price a weighted average on sales or just the average over all makes? Some of the biggest sellers sell for under 20 thousand (e.g. Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla). And other popular models (e.g. Honda Accord, Toyota Camry) sell for considerably less then 30 grand.

  32. colnago80 says

    Re #15

    After some cogitation, I don’t think that passing laws to prevent the setting up of charging stations would stand up in the courts, even if the law requiring independent dealerships did.

  33. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    Tesla, of course, has no problem collecting rent from the people of California.

    Interesting of course; but your post avoids the topic of the thread and given your political ideology and your motivation to promote that ideology regardless of the impact, serves here as an effective red herring.

    I doubt many people in this forum have a problem with government subsidies. They are instead directing their ridicule to those political leaders who falsely claim they’re against government intervening in markets yet simultaneously and hypocritically practicing it for those that finance their campaigns.

    In this case that would be protecting cash cows in the mature stages of their product life cycle who use their cash to buy political influence. That in order to create barriers to entry to emergent competing businesses and technologies who also offer positive externalities but don’t have the cash to influence the politicians whose influence is purchased*.

    This is an age-old story that’s a core item in introductions to Marketing. The fact you missed the nuance is altogether unsurprising.

    *There are of course times when these types of corrupt politicians will support initiatives without being purchased with money. Typically that’s true when it helps reinforce loyalty amongst one’s voting base by developing a record that marks one as a consistent political ideologue.

  34. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #37

    It should be pointed out that at least the federal subsidies also apply to the Nissan Leaf which sells for 27 grand but, after the subsidies, can be had for a net of $19,200. However, conventional gas powered cars are also receiving a subsidy by the tax payers in the form of costs for naval vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf to protect the oil shipments from the nations in that region. About 1/2 of all oil used every day in the US is imported. This is overlooked by Libertarians who rail about government subsidies.

  35. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #37

    I would also point out that the government has spent sizable sums on development of advance technological batteries, the results if which are to be found in such devices as notebook computers. Thus, if Sir Lancelot is using a notebook computer, the battery in it was subsidized by government research funds.

  36. says

    The battery powered vehicles are not ever going to reach the level of commodity that computers have (I would LOVE to be wrong on that assertion)

    We just picked up an M7 Phantom for less than your first computer.

  37. lancifer says

    Michael Heath writes,

    …your post avoids the topic of the thread and given your political ideology and your motivation to promote that ideology regardless of the impact, serves here as an effective red herring.

    The topic of the thread was protectionist legislation which subverts the market. I agree that the NJ legislature is subverting the market. Giving $35,000 tax credits to producers of one product also distorts the market by means of legislation.

    Of course you and colagno80 are fine with that particular anti-market legislation since it favors your political beliefs. Then, in a classic example of projection, you have the nerve to claim that I am politically motivated.

  38. magistramarla says

    Texas is one of those states with restrictions on the sale of Teslas. The ironic thing is that San Antonio is vying for the manufacture of the batteries for the Tesla. I’m hoping that the CEO of that company laughs in the faces of the cities from states like Texas, Arizona and New Jersey.

  39. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    Tesla, of course, has no problem collecting rent from the people of California.

    I respond:

    Interesting of course; but your post avoids the topic of the thread and given your political ideology and your motivation to promote that ideology regardless of the impact, serves here as an effective red herring.

    I doubt many people in this forum have a problem with government subsidies. They are instead directing their ridicule to those political leaders who falsely claim they’re against government intervening in markets yet simultaneously and hypocritically practicing it for those that finance their campaigns.

    In this case that would be protecting cash cows in the mature stages of their product life cycle who use their cash to buy political influence. That in order to create barriers to entry to emergent competing businesses and technologies who also offer positive externalities but don’t have the cash to influence the politicians whose influence is purchased*.

    lancifer, dishonestly of course, responds:

    The topic of the thread was protectionist legislation which subverts the market. I agree that the NJ legislature is subverting the market. Giving $35,000 tax credits to producers of one product also distorts the market by means of legislation.

    Of course you and colagno80 are fine with that particular anti-market legislation since it favors your political beliefs. Then, in a classic example of projection, you have the nerve to claim that I am politically motivated.

    That’s ironic given the topic of the thread is not what you claim. Here’s is what our blogger Ed wrote in its entirety (not including what he quotes):

    New Jersey just became the third state to ban the sale of Tesla cars directly to customers who want them. Because never forget that the stated glories of the free market (which are real, actually) must always take a back seat to political grift and rent-seeking companies.
    […]
    Also states that are run by people who declare the virtues of the free market right up to the point where someone pays them in campaign contributions to distort the market by keeping competitors out. This is the kind of regulation that everyone should be able to agree is wrong — liberals, conservatives, libertarians — but money talks. Tesla doesn’t have the resources to buy off enough politicians to counter the influence of the Big Three automakers and the dealerships that sell their products.

    No projectionism in evidence. Yes, I advocate for government intervention in the market – which I already asserted rather than hiding. We already know efficient markets require such, that regulated capitalism is a very effective approach to creating economic growth while unregulated capital markets crash and burn.

    The irony here is that you fall, again, for talking points even morons should be able to see through. That even those who create caricatures of efficient markets support intervention in some cases. That the real debate is competency and the public interest. Who is arguing for policies that work vs. those hypocrites who go all philosophical with infeasible talking points when their bread’s not buttered while hypocritically advocating for interventionism when they get paid. That rather than taking positions that promote economic growth and other optimal outcomes.

    As I pointed in my first response where you now double down:

    In this case that would be protecting cash cows in the mature stages of their product life cycle who use their cash to buy political influence. That in order to create barriers to entry to emergent competing businesses and technologies who also offer positive externalities but don’t have the cash to influence the politicians whose influence is purchased*.

    This is an age-old story that’s a core item in introductions to Marketing. The fact you missed the nuance is altogether unsurprising.

  40. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #42

    Apparently, Sir Lancelot differentiates between the direct tax subsidies given to Tesla and Nissan and the indirect tax subsidies given to the gas powered vehicle manufacturers via the costs of deploying large naval forces in the Persian Gulf to protect oil supplies. I would appreciate it if Sir Lancelot would kindly explain the difference. It’s still tax payer subsidies, regardless of whether they are direct or indirect.

  41. says

    The topic of the thread was protectionist legislation which subverts the market.

    Um, no, the topic was (alleged) “rent-seeking,” not “protectionism.” Lance is, as usual, so consistently wrong about everything I’m inclined to ask if he might be a secret love-child of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

    Oh, and notice how he talks about “the market” like it’s some big, vague, nebulous entity that should never be touched by mortal meddling? This sort of magical thinking is the fatal flaw that makes all libertarian thinking utterly worthless in the real world.

  42. says

    “I’m inclined to ask if he might be a secret love-child of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.”

    Thank you, soooooooooooooooooooooooooo much! I will NEVER get the image of those two in sexual congress out of my head! Since it’s already indelibly etched on my psyche, though, who’s the “top”?

    @45:

    There’s another bit of money spent by the guys at DoT, about $45B last year for “surface transportation” which does not include mass transit (about $12B), aviation (about $16.5B) and maritime shipping (<$.5B) according to the DoT's 2013 Financial Report (pdf. 508-AFR2013). I'm not sure how they get that money but I think that the monies collected by taxing agencies for gas, oil and other automotive materials/service taxes and fees wind up in their budget–so, yeah, it's from US.

    Whatever Tesla is getting from the feebs is a pisshole in the snow (and we've got plenty of that in Oswego, this year) compared to the direct and indirect subsidies that GM and other automakers and the O'l bidneth receive from Uncle Sugar. Don't get me started on externalities like Prince William Sound, The Gulf of Mexico or other energy related disasters. Do we want to talk about the thousands of acres of "brownfields" in the Detroit area?

  43. dingojack says

    Demo – neither. They both prefer rimming & felching.*
    Dingo
    ——–
    * bwhahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  44. says

    Since it’s already indelibly etched on my psyche, though, who’s the “top”?

    I think we should just leave that question as a “known-unknown.” Or wait for someone to make a gay-porn movie addressing the question.

  45. colnago80 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #49

    It would appear that Sir Lancelot, having been savaged mercilessly on this thread, has once again crawled back under his rock, as is his wont.

  46. lancifer says

    Oh I’m still here.

    I used the word “protectionist” to describe the NJ legislation. That word means interference to stop foreign companies from gaining access to local markets so I misapplied it to the NJ case since Tesla isn’t a “foreign” company.

    But other than that semantic nit pick I think it was clear what I meant. I had used the word “rent” in the original post.

    Tesla is complaining that the laws in NJ are rigging the market to favor its competitors but is fine with California rigging the market to favor its products with multi-million dollar subsidies.

    Whether one favors those subsidies or not doesn’t change the hypocrisy of their position.

  47. says

    But other than that semantic nit pick I think it was clear what I meant.

    The “semantic nit-pick” is just another indication that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That much is clear whatever words you use.

  48. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    Tesla is complaining that the laws in NJ are rigging the market to favor its competitors but is fine with California rigging the market to favor its products with multi-million dollar subsidies.

    Whether one favors those subsidies or not doesn’t change the hypocrisy of their position.

    There’s no hypocrisy in Tesla’s position. They’re marketing a product with significant positive externalities. Therefore a credible compelling argument exists that government subsidize such ventures when in such sectors are in the early stages of their product life cycle, which Tesla’s product is.

    The hypocrisy exists when ideologues with political power claim they’re all for non-interventionism – an indefensible position – while creating barriers to entry in order to protect companies and sectors that are the worst candidates for protection.

  49. colnago80 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #52

    Tesla is complaining that the laws in NJ are rigging the market to favor its competitors but is fine with California rigging the market to favor its products with multi-million dollar subsidies.

    Apparently, Sir Lancelot is fine with the indirect subsidies given to the manufacturers of gas power vehicles via the deployment of naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Shorter Sir Lancelot: Don’t cut my subsidies, cut buyers of Teslas subsidies.

Leave a Reply