Why would someone even consider creating a law to protect an industry that technological and business model "innovations" are threatening to replace.

Is that not how the free-market is suppose to keep the whole system efficient?

It just sounds absurd:

"I'm going to jail Hun"

- what did you do?

"I made a car... and then I sold it... directly to those who wanted it"

- .......

ridiculous

Rent Seeking exists in so many places.

"rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth"

A great side effect of popular companies like Tesla and Uber is the attention they bring to these practices.

These days much law is first and foremost a tool for the wealthy and the politically connected, which usually means established interests.

So where are the Republicans when you need them, to shout down this new government regulation?

Similar events happened in Texas, but Texas' legislature isn't back in session until 2015.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/autos/tesla-texas/index.html

and in North Carolina... "Any time there's an innovative way to bring a product to market it's going to initially get push back from the fellows that have been doing business the same way since 1902..."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/05/24/4062463/tesla-se...

Does banning direct auto sales make sense anymore? Did it ever?

I believe that it was originally a customer-protection measure. These days though, it's just a way to protect car dealerships from competition with the manufacturers.

> Did it ever?

As much sense as banning direct beer sales.

How is Tesla direct selling to customers hurting car shops that sell cars from one or more traditional manufacturers but none from Tesla ?

Is there a rationale behind that ? As in car shops are scared Ford or GM would open a direct-to-customers shops for lower prices than they could offer to ?

NPR's Planet Money did an interesting show on the topic: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buyi...

Thank you.

> There are plenty other businesses employ lots of people but don't have so much protection from state laws. > > That may partly be due to the fact that car dealers have a lot political power. Dealers contribute a big share of state sales tax revenues — as much as 20 percent in some states — and they tend to be big local employers. That makes state and local legislators listen.

Interesting. So they basically are afraid of any dent in the system even if it wouldn't erode their own sells (of every brand but Tesla).

This isn't about Tesla. Tesla's sales numbers are a rounding error compared to any of the big car manufactures.

The dealers are afraid of Ford or Toyota opening up a bunch of their own dealerships. That would really put the hurt on them.

There are over 17k dealers in the US, and they aren't just going to roll over and go out of business.

Related Reading: "Economic Effects of State Bans on Direct Manufacturer Sales to Car Buyers": http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm

How many salemen do you need to run a dealership? I would have thought most of the dealership employees are the mechanics and support services?

Atlas Shrugged. We continue to approach it.

For those not familiar; from the wilipedia page:

"The book explores a number of philosophical themes from which Rand would subsequently develop Objectivism.[7][8] In doing so, it expresses the advocacy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and the failures of governmental coercion."

Whew!

>> It also would’ve blocked registrations of new vehicles bought out of state.

Doesn't this sound insane to anybody? With that kind of a clause in the law all credibility is lost for whomever is sponsoring this bill.