GM Volt Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Moving parts aren't the only things that fail. Some of those non-moving parts are pretty expensive. Fail on UBS analysis, again.

I really don't appreciate the "force" concept. Dealers will do what's in their best interest (or not) according to their customers' needs (or in ignorance of them). I believe they call that a free market system. Using force implies you know better for everyone what they need. That's crap thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Given all the state laws designed to protect dealerships, it's more than a stretch to describe them as being part of a "free market". Way too many market distortions. I mean, in Florida dealers banded together and got a law passed that legally prohibits from competing on price for extended service plans. Basically there is no free market to depend on.
I cannot argue. I bristle at the word "force" and that's just another example of it.

Some amount of anti-trust regulation is needed. Sounds like Florida forgot the meaning of the term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Adam Smith said the biggest threat to free markets were businesses which would find ways to prevent competition. Another good insight! Free markets work great for their intended purpose but in order to work they need a lot of prerequisites.
I don't know if I'd say "a lot". A basic set of rules works in many cases. Too many rules and everyone runs to Delaware to register their business (or the Caymans).

NADA's original charter was to fight luxury taxes on autos. They finally did it 79 years later!


1996: NADA leadership meets with President Bill Clinton, who had just signed legislation phasing out a luxury tax on new cars.

It's in their interest to prevent GM, Ford and the like who use dealers from competing with them directly. Tesla, not so much so long as they don't use dealerships.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
That didn't take so long.
LOL - if you're an Arctic whale maybe!

It is in their interest to prevent a manufacturer from competing. That's the point. It's always in their interest to stifle competition, be if from a manufacturer or from another dealer. Hence protected territories. If it's a company decision that's a free market. If it's legislation that's the destruction of the free market.
Manufacturers could undercut dealer prices when competing directly. That's the point of that. The rest of it might be overreach IMO but I'm not well versed on all of the rules and nuances.

But not all regulation is intended to be stifling. Maybe just most of it?

Personally I think having Apple be able to sell its products through Apple stores works pretty well.
Yep and Tesla should be left alone too for now. They'll find out on their own how direct selling limits their abilities (or not as the case may be, but I'm not holding my breath). Cell phones are much easier to deal with all told. I'm not sure if the two really compare, apples to apples.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top