$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 64.06

4,535 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
28.6% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/07/28/michigan-governor-si...

Oh, it's just more typical over-regulation by those big-government Democrats Republicans.

PJ Media wrote:
Michigan Governor Signs Bill Dictating How Car Companies Can Sell Cars

The Republican Party likes to bill itself as the party of free enterprise. In theory, the GOP opposes regulations on how businesses conduct themselves unless it deals with things like fraud. Of course, that's just how they operate in theory. In reality, it's something very different apparently.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill yesterday that requires Tesla to use dealerships rather than their direct-sales business model.

Governor Rick Snyder signed bipartisan legislation Tuesday aimed at discouraging Tesla Motors from selling its electric cars directly through company stores.

House Bill 5606, sponsored by state Rep. Aric Nesbitt, also prohibits auto manufacturers from dictating fees franchised dealers can charge customers. The legislation allows individual auto dealers to make the business decision whether to charge the transaction fee.

Snyder said direct sales of new vehicles is already banned in the state. This law will explicitly require all automakers to sell through a network of franchised dealers.

Earlier Tuesday, General Motors urged the governor to sign the bill.

Snyder, who has boasted of making Michigan more hospitable for entrepreneurs, brings Michigan into a growing number of states that have raised obstacles to the California-based electric car company.

And now, Snyder has proven he's more interested in appeasing a company like General Motors than allowing anything close to industry innovation.

Tesla was using a new idea for auto sales, essentially cutting out middlemen in an effort to try and keep costs for its electric cars low. Whether it would work or not remains to be seen, but that's where the free market shows the harsh reality. Not every idea is going to be a winner, and the market will figure that out.

Of course, Snyder isn't trying to keep Tesla safe or anything. He and politicians like him are trying to keep an age-old model viable whether it deserves to be or not.

The problem is that no business model deserves to be protected. If dealerships are an awesome way to sell vehicles, they'll survive just fine. If they are outdated, then they won't. That's how the free market works.

However, Republicans like Snyder may espouse free market principles, but they don't really believe them. Snyder, in particular, has shown that while he may want to make Michigan more friendly for entrepreneurship, he'll sell out entrepreneurs in a heartbeat if their innovations threaten his contributors.

You don't get to play free market advocate when your actions make it clear you're no such thing.
13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/07/28/michigan-governor-si...

Oh, it's just more typical over-regulation by those big-government Democrats Republicans.

PJ Media wrote:
Michigan Governor Signs Bill Dictating How Car Companies Can Sell Cars

The Republican Party likes to bill itself as the party of free enterprise. In theory, the GOP opposes regulations on how businesses conduct themselves unless it deals with things like fraud. Of course, that's just how they operate in theory. In reality, it's something very different apparently.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill yesterday that requires Tesla to use dealerships rather than their direct-sales business model.

Governor Rick Snyder signed bipartisan legislation Tuesday aimed at discouraging Tesla Motors from selling its electric cars directly through company stores.

House Bill 5606, sponsored by state Rep. Aric Nesbitt, also prohibits auto manufacturers from dictating fees franchised dealers can charge customers. The legislation allows individual auto dealers to make the business decision whether to charge the transaction fee.

Snyder said direct sales of new vehicles is already banned in the state. This law will explicitly require all automakers to sell through a network of franchised dealers.

Earlier Tuesday, General Motors urged the governor to sign the bill.

Snyder, who has boasted of making Michigan more hospitable for entrepreneurs, brings Michigan into a growing number of states that have raised obstacles to the California-based electric car company.

And now, Snyder has proven he's more interested in appeasing a company like General Motors than allowing anything close to industry innovation.

Tesla was using a new idea for auto sales, essentially cutting out middlemen in an effort to try and keep costs for its electric cars low. Whether it would work or not remains to be seen, but that's where the free market shows the harsh reality. Not every idea is going to be a winner, and the market will figure that out.

Of course, Snyder isn't trying to keep Tesla safe or anything. He and politicians like him are trying to keep an age-old model viable whether it deserves to be or not.

The problem is that no business model deserves to be protected. If dealerships are an awesome way to sell vehicles, they'll survive just fine. If they are outdated, then they won't. That's how the free market works.

However, Republicans like Snyder may espouse free market principles, but they don't really believe them. Snyder, in particular, has shown that while he may want to make Michigan more friendly for entrepreneurship, he'll sell out entrepreneurs in a heartbeat if their innovations threaten his contributors.

You don't get to play free market advocate when your actions make it clear you're no such thing.


Yes, Republicans often don't practice what they preach which is why the party is fractured right now and is a big reason the Tea Party exists.

A for the law, I can see pros and cons to it (mostly cons). THEORETICALLY, dealerships add some level of safety to consumers by only allowing cars to be bought from them. In reality, I can see no reason to require this except to protect dealers and help discourage competition.

but this is a classic example of government using it's power at the behest of company interests which is why (real) Republican's want to have smaller government.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
Thanks for the rent-free space in your head. Would have been nice if you'd cleaned it up a bit before you rented it out, though.
badge
I control your mind.
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
Yes, Republicans often don't practice what they preach which is why the party is fractured right now and is a big reason the Tea Party exists.


Existed.

Unfortunately, the Democrats and the press (but I repeat myself) smeared them all as horrible right-wing racist rednecks and the IRS targeted them and they were generally treated like shit.

So they went away.

And then something else filled the void.

Quote:
Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, thuggish and contemptuous of the things that David Brooks likes about today’s America. It’s clear that he’d like a social/political revolution that was more refined, better-mannered, more focused on the Constitution and, well, more bourgeois as opposed to in-your-face and working class.

The thing is, we had that movement. It was the Tea Party movement. Unlike Brooks, I actually ventured out to “intermingle” with Tea Partiers at various events that I covered for PJTV.com, contributing commentary to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner. As I reported from one event in Nashville, “Pundits claim the tea partiers are angry — and they are — but the most striking thing about the atmosphere in Nashville was how cheerful everyone seemed to be. I spoke with dozens of people, and the responses were surprisingly similar. Hardly any had ever been involved in politics before. Having gotten started, they were finding it to be not just worthwhile, but actually fun.

. . .

One of the most famous things about the Tea Partiers was that — as befits a relentlessly bourgeois protest movement — they left things cleaner than they found them. Rich Lowry reported from Washington, DC: “Just as stunning as the tableaux of the massive throngs lining the reflecting pool were the images of the spotless grounds afterward. If someone had told attendees they were expected to mow the grass before they left, surely some of them would have hitched flatbed trailers to their vehicles for the trip to Washington and gladly brought mowers along with them. This was the revolt of the bourgeois, of the responsible, of the orderly, of people profoundly at peace with the traditional mores of American society.

. . .

Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racist, denounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared "I'm not a fan of this movement." After handing the GOP big legislative victories in 2010 and 2014, it was largely betrayed by the Republicans in Congress, who broke their promises to shrink government and block Obama’s initiatives.

So now we have Trump instead, who tells people to punch counterprotesters instead of picking up their trash.

When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
galad2003 wrote:
A for the law, I can see pros and cons to it (mostly cons). THEORETICALLY, dealerships add some level of safety to consumers by only allowing cars to be bought from them. In reality, I can see no reason to require this except to protect dealers and help discourage competition.
If this were 1916 and you had manufacturer reps selling cars door-to-door (which happened back then) then dealerships would exist as a supposed "reputable intermediary." But in 2016 the idea of car dealerships as anything other than an impediment to car ownership is laughable. But instead of rolling back antiquated laws, apparently we need to be instituting new layers of protectionist nonsense.

But hey, GM & Ford only got $80 billion from Bush/Obama, so they're practically starving over there!
So we gotta tilt that playing field a little further!
11 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
The big electoral victories in 2010 and 2014 were because they were mid-term elections and Democratic voter turn out was in the toilet. I think giving the TP credit is a stretch, otherwise it's an interesting quote.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
galad2003 wrote:
A for the law, I can see pros and cons to it (mostly cons). THEORETICALLY, dealerships add some level of safety to consumers by only allowing cars to be bought from them. In reality, I can see no reason to require this except to protect dealers and help discourage competition.
If this were 1916 and you had manufacturer reps selling cars door-to-door (which happened back then) then dealerships would exist as a supposed "reputable intermediary." But in 2016 the idea of car dealerships as anything other than an impediment to car ownership is laughable. But instead of rolling back antiquated laws, apparently we need to be instituting new layers of protectionist nonsense.

But hey, GM & Ford only got $80 billion from Bush/Obama, so they're practically starving over there!
So we gotta tilt that playing field a little further!


So we're in agreement. Cool
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
galad2003 wrote:
A for the law, I can see pros and cons to it (mostly cons). THEORETICALLY, dealerships add some level of safety to consumers by only allowing cars to be bought from them. In reality, I can see no reason to require this except to protect dealers and help discourage competition.
If this were 1916 and you had manufacturer reps selling cars door-to-door (which happened back then) then dealerships would exist as a supposed "reputable intermediary." But in 2016 the idea of car dealerships as anything other than an impediment to car ownership is laughable. But instead of rolling back antiquated laws, apparently we need to be instituting new layers of protectionist nonsense.

But hey, GM & Ford only got $80 billion from Bush/Obama, so they're practically starving over there!
So we gotta tilt that playing field a little further!


Which they've already paid back with interest, unlike Wall Street.

Car dealerships are a nearly dead this is a last gasp effort to survive, it wont work.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
mbmbmbmbmb
6 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
rcbevco wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
But hey, GM & Ford only got $80 billion from Bush/Obama, so they're practically starving over there!
So we gotta tilt that playing field a little further!
Which they've already paid back with interest, unlike Wall Street.
Actually this is an oft-repeated Democrat talking point that is false: American taxpayers lost $9 billion on that deal.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/...
PolitiFact wrote:
Obama said, "The auto companies have now repaid taxpayers every dime and more of what my administration invested in."

We’ll note that losses from automaker loans were expected to be higher, and the action taken by the Obama administration resulted in GM and Chrysler paying back the bulk of their loans.

But to say they've paid back "every dime and more," requires considerable cherry-picking. Obama doesn’t count any outstanding loans made by the Bush administration, which seem to have been made with Obama's quiet support and which were restructured (resulting in some losses) under the bankruptcy Obama's Treasury helped manage. And to get into the black, he counts money the automakers paid back for Bush administration loans.

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores facts that would give a different impression. That’s Mostly False.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
galad2003 wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
galad2003 wrote:
A for the law, I can see pros and cons to it (mostly cons). THEORETICALLY, dealerships add some level of safety to consumers by only allowing cars to be bought from them. In reality, I can see no reason to require this except to protect dealers and help discourage competition.
If this were 1916 and you had manufacturer reps selling cars door-to-door (which happened back then) then dealerships would exist as a supposed "reputable intermediary." But in 2016 the idea of car dealerships as anything other than an impediment to car ownership is laughable. But instead of rolling back antiquated laws, apparently we need to be instituting new layers of protectionist nonsense.

But hey, GM & Ford only got $80 billion from Bush/Obama, so they're practically starving over there!
So we gotta tilt that playing field a little further!
So we're in agreement. Cool
I believe we are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Even the Republicans in Michigan are fuckwits, It's no wonder that is suck a shit hole.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
Even the Republicans in Michigan are fuckwits, It's no wonder that is suck a shit hole.

Yes, Michigan is sooo much worse than Iowa.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
jeremycobert wrote:
Even the Republicans in Michigan are fuckwits, It's no wonder that is suck a shit hole.
rcbevco wrote:
Yes, Michigan is sooo much worse than Iowa.
STATE FIGHT!!!

4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
Even the Republicans in Michigan are fuckwits, It's no wonder that is suck a shit hole.
rcbevco wrote:
Yes, Michigan is sooo much worse than Iowa.
STATE FIGHT!!!



RRRRRrrrrrrawwwrrr! Fssk! FSSSK!!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Me nah play no 'ide and seek
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rcbevco wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
Even the Republicans in Michigan are fuckwits, It's no wonder that is suck a shit hole.
rcbevco wrote:
Yes, Michigan is sooo much worse than Iowa.
STATE FIGHT!!!



RRRRRrrrrrrawwwrrr! Fssk! FSSSK!!


The sole delegate from Nebraska* casts his vote with Michigan, against Iowa.

* Sssshhhhh nobody tell Lord_Prussian about this thread
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Parsons
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Our Rick Perry controlled state passed that same law years back.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rcbevco wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
Even the Republicans in Michigan are fuckwits, It's no wonder that is suck a shit hole.

Yes, Michigan is sooo much worse than Iowa.




I moved here from Illinois because Iowa really is like heaven. Michigan is a shit hole plain and simple. On the bright side, its not as bad as Florida.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep, as a conservative libertarian and a Tesla stock owner this pisses me off.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Yep, as a conservative libertarian and a Tesla stock owner this pisses me off.


It shouldn't. The OP is a fuckwit who couldn't make sense out of the intricacies of a free market economy at the Lemonade Stand level. Mostly what you have here are Leftoid morons hating regulations when it's from the other tribe but loving the fuck out of it when it's ideologically expedient.

The whole Tesla thing has already been done in New Jersey and direct-to-consumer sales of automobiles is not allowed in most states without a lot of hassle and the manufacturer meeting the regulatory requirements. To dismiss this as some random governor with an R after his name being a hypocrite just demonstrates the toddler-level understanding of what, to some of us, is pretty basic economics in America. The regulations are both good and bad, often good for local economies and consumers and sometimes not so good. Depends a lot of the differences state to state, the level of enforcement and a shit ton of other subtleties that are liike magic to the OP's cute but primitive thought process.

I haven't really followed the New Jersey thing, they may have backed off. Still what Tesla wants here is control over the consumer choice and if states allow large corporate players like Tesla to vertically control all aspects of how their products are sold and serviced then it won't be long before Ford, GM, etc will demand (and get) the same free ride to operate where they want, when they want, unfettered by any regulations that require them to interact with consumers on any level that isn't a profit center for the automaker.

Now if you like a free market that is that out of control, and apparently the OP does, then you really haven't given this much thought. There is probably a good way to allow direct-to-consumer sales of autos but like anything in an increasingly money-motivated world there has to be some level of protection for the state's consumers. Otherwise why even have states and legislators and laws and rules?

Here's one take on it from a couple years ago that treats the subject pretty fairly from both sides:

https://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
DWTripp wrote:
ironcates wrote:
Yep, as a conservative libertarian and a Tesla stock owner this pisses me off.


It shouldn't. The OP is a fuckwit who couldn't make sense out of the intricacies of a free market economy at the Lemonade Stand level. Mostly what you have here are Leftoid morons hating regulations when it's from the other tribe but loving the fuck out of it when it's ideologically expedient.

The whole Tesla thing has already been done in New Jersey and direct-to-consumer sales of automobiles is not allowed in most states without a lot of hassle and the manufacturer meeting the regulatory requirements. To dismiss this as some random governor with an R after his name being a hypocrite just demonstrates the toddler-level understanding of what, to some of us, is pretty basic economics in America. The regulations are both good and bad, often good for local economies and consumers and sometimes not so good. Depends a lot of the differences state to state, the level of enforcement and a shit ton of other subtleties that are liike magic to the OP's cute but primitive thought process.

I haven't really followed the New Jersey thing, they may have backed off. Still what Tesla wants here is control over the consumer choice and if states allow large corporate players like Tesla to vertically control all aspects of how their products are sold and serviced then it won't be long before Ford, GM, etc will demand (and get) the same free ride to operate where they want, when they want, unfettered by any regulations that require them to interact with consumers on any level that isn't a profit center for the automaker.

Now if you like a free market that is that out of control, and apparently the OP does, then you really haven't given this much thought. There is probably a good way to allow direct-to-consumer sales of autos but like anything in an increasingly money-motivated world there has to be some level of protection for the state's consumers. Otherwise why even have states and legislators and laws and rules?

Here's one take on it from a couple years ago that treats the subject pretty fairly from both sides:

https://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/

Goddammit, you beat me to it, although I'm not sold that the OP is a fuckwit....

The other, unspoken issue here is local governments, hell even the federal government, seeing an entire (successful) taxation process going down the tube. Direct sales from websites frequently bypass sales and other taxes levied on purchases from brick-and-mortar enterprises. I know a lot of people will cheer this, but eventually this will catch up with all of us. Without taxes, how do you pay for roads and bridges? Schools? Prisons? Cops and firefighters? Regulatory agencies that protect water, air, and soil, or test food and drugs? There is a whole generation coming up that thinks everything should be free -- music, art, etc. They're becoming used to purchasing everything online (as aside, when it comes to buying groceries online, I have to think the ordering folks are the laziest human beings on the planet). They're also used to avoid paying any kind of tax for purchasing items such as clothes, toiletries, etc. This is also behind the Michigan law. How do you fund viable communities, counties, states, and nations without taxes? Or do people really want to pay more income tax at the end of the year?

I know it sounds simple on its face -- GOP governor and lawmakers squash free enterprise -- but it's far more complicated. Glad I'm closing in on 60, so I don't have to put up with the fallout in 20-30 years.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Given the requirement to register the car with the state, they have pretty good odds of collecting the taxes. Plus amazon pays taxes.

Ultimately, the taxes will come from the people and from reduced services (but automation may lower some service costs by enhancing staff productivity or eliminating staff entirely for 24 hour web sites).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
Even the Republicans in Michigan are fuckwits, It's no wonder that is suck a shit hole.

Yes, Michigan is sooo much worse than Iowa.




I moved here from Illinois because Iowa really is like heaven. Michigan is a shit hole plain and simple. On the bright side, its not as bad as Florida.


Flat, hot, corn-y and as dry as a popcorn fart or centered in the earths largest collection of fresh water with a diverse economy (including some corn). I've been in Missouri in the summer shake.

The weather here is a bit a bit chilly and then there's the snow...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.