A Raw Deal in Michigan(teslamotors.com)
teslamotors.com
A Raw Deal in Michigan
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/raw-deal-michigan
200 comments
I live in Michigan, and was dishearten when I read about this story the other day. But not really that surprised.
A few observations:
- Tesla isn't a name brand here like Ford or GM. In fact, if you asked a lot of people if we should help the Big Three with this sort of legislation, you might be surprised by the answer. Remember, they generate a LOT of jobs in this state: not just the Big Three, but the tier 2 and tier 3 manufactors. While I think logic would win out in the day, I wouldn't assume that everybody in Michigan _wants_ Tesla. It isn't in their best interest.
- I haven't seen one media story about this yet, outside of social media.
- We're in the middle of an election cycle year, including a gubernatorial race. So, the special interests picked a good time to insert this language: there are a lot of problems the state is still dealing with, including Detroit going through bankruptcy. And people want the money to win races.
Personally, I'd love to see Telsa in the state, both the cars and charging stations. But, honestly, Telsa isn't going to get much traction here until they improve cold weather battery performance.
A few observations:
- Tesla isn't a name brand here like Ford or GM. In fact, if you asked a lot of people if we should help the Big Three with this sort of legislation, you might be surprised by the answer. Remember, they generate a LOT of jobs in this state: not just the Big Three, but the tier 2 and tier 3 manufactors. While I think logic would win out in the day, I wouldn't assume that everybody in Michigan _wants_ Tesla. It isn't in their best interest.
- I haven't seen one media story about this yet, outside of social media.
- We're in the middle of an election cycle year, including a gubernatorial race. So, the special interests picked a good time to insert this language: there are a lot of problems the state is still dealing with, including Detroit going through bankruptcy. And people want the money to win races.
Personally, I'd love to see Telsa in the state, both the cars and charging stations. But, honestly, Telsa isn't going to get much traction here until they improve cold weather battery performance.
My retired father-in-law who lives in a suburb of Detroit got a car that was not manufactured by the by the Big Three a couple years ago. He felt so much social pressure that he quickly returned it and got one that was. He told me that some "foreign" cars would be egged in his neighborhood. I put foreign in quotes, as big three cars are not always manufactured in the US and sometimes other cars are manufactured here. But if you are from Detroit, where the headquarters is and the profits go back to matters most, and tangibly matters.
and friend of mine's father drives around Flint, MI in a Honda Civic with the license plate "GMLEFT." Needless to say, he has frequently had to deal with vandalism. The truth hurts.
I live in a Detroit suburb, a large number of the residents here are engineers, many for GM, Ford and Chrysler, but quite a few for Toyota, Hyundai and other foreign suppliers (like Bosch and Yazaki). I see many domestic, but almost as many imports here.
I think a lot of the stigma is gone, certainly there is considerable pressure for people to drive their employers vehicle to work, but at least in my (relatively upscale) neighborhood, I would feel no social pressure against, and I bet I would have a bunch of engineers come visit, if I dug up a 100k and put a Tesla in my driveway.
I think a lot of the stigma is gone, certainly there is considerable pressure for people to drive their employers vehicle to work, but at least in my (relatively upscale) neighborhood, I would feel no social pressure against, and I bet I would have a bunch of engineers come visit, if I dug up a 100k and put a Tesla in my driveway.
Agree. I worked for one of these three companies for a span. While I was there, they did have a rule that if you're not driving their car, you can't park it in the covered parking lot. That was the extent of the backlash, and I've lived in this area most of my life. I think a lot of these stories and anecdotes about tires getting slashed, and people being harassed for driving foreign are not accurate today.
I think part of that might be the crowds you hang with. I would expect petty vandalism more from blue collar types than I would engineers and other professional types.
I've been a contractor for one of the Big 3 at one point in the early 2000's. I was given a Kia at Enterprise to drive, and when I came out on my first day, it was encased with no less than 300 pallets and shrinkwrap.
Apparently, they forgot to tell me that you shouldn't drive a non-UAW vehicle onto the parking lot.
Enterprise's Roadside Assistance guy was not happy with me when he had to help me pull the pallets away so I could get my vehicle out.
Apparently, they forgot to tell me that you shouldn't drive a non-UAW vehicle onto the parking lot.
Enterprise's Roadside Assistance guy was not happy with me when he had to help me pull the pallets away so I could get my vehicle out.
I agree that there's not a stigma for driving a foreign car around Detroit anymore.
Interestingly, my father worked for Chrysler outside of Detroit from the late 1950s into the 1970s.
And oddly enough, he drove a VW Beetle in the 1960s. As you can imagine, when things were good, he was just viewed as the eccentric guy who drove a puny foreign car (why would anybody in their right mind do that?).
In the 1970s (and 1980s) doing something similar was probably a moderately dangerous move.
I've been back many times during my life and in the 1990s and onward, I see plenty of foreign cars.
Interestingly, my father worked for Chrysler outside of Detroit from the late 1950s into the 1970s.
And oddly enough, he drove a VW Beetle in the 1960s. As you can imagine, when things were good, he was just viewed as the eccentric guy who drove a puny foreign car (why would anybody in their right mind do that?).
In the 1970s (and 1980s) doing something similar was probably a moderately dangerous move.
I've been back many times during my life and in the 1990s and onward, I see plenty of foreign cars.
That is a bunch of BS, this is not Detroit of the 70s, that stuff doesn't happen. People drive foreign cars around just like any other area.
In Michigan, 79% of new cars purchased are Ford, GM, or Chrysler. In California, 22%.
http://wot.motortrend.com/patriotic-car-shopping-which-state...
http://wot.motortrend.com/patriotic-car-shopping-which-state...
Yes, of course there is going to be more, people usually work for those companies and get discounts. Vandalism, aggression, nope.
Cold weather performance is trumpeted a lot by EV detractors, but the number one selling new car in Norway last month was the Tesla Model S.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/08/tesla-norway-idUSL...
Here's an interesting interview from Elon Musk about the Tesla battery winter performance. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/01/interview-with-elon-musk...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/08/tesla-norway-idUSL...
Here's an interesting interview from Elon Musk about the Tesla battery winter performance. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/01/interview-with-elon-musk...
I live in a very cold place with weather comparable to Norway. There are lots of problems when it comes to dealing with cars in the winter. I have no doubt that Tesla could be a decent choice for a car, but it makes perfect sense to be a bit wary about electric vehicles manufactured in California sunshine, especially if you don't have a garage to store the car in.
In addition to battery life and cabin heating issues, there can be lots of small problems. I'm a bit worried about the fancy electric door handles, for example. I've been locked out of my car because the locks were frozen and sometimes even the doors themselves frozen solid.
I have no doubt that Tesla can overcome these issues but they will have to do extensive testing as well as make it known to the public that their car is a reliable vehicle even in wintertime.
People up here in the north tend to favor simple and solid cars and marketing Teslas and other electric vehicles is going to be difficult. The issue is half technical and half marketing.
In addition to battery life and cabin heating issues, there can be lots of small problems. I'm a bit worried about the fancy electric door handles, for example. I've been locked out of my car because the locks were frozen and sometimes even the doors themselves frozen solid.
I have no doubt that Tesla can overcome these issues but they will have to do extensive testing as well as make it known to the public that their car is a reliable vehicle even in wintertime.
People up here in the north tend to favor simple and solid cars and marketing Teslas and other electric vehicles is going to be difficult. The issue is half technical and half marketing.
> "it makes perfect sense to be a bit wary about electric vehicles manufactured in California sunshine"
It makes no more sense than a Florida driver being wary of overheating a car made in Detroit. There may actually be some winter weather technical problems that Tesla has yet to resolve, I honestly don't know. But everything in your post is either speculation or a fallacy called argumentum ad populum [1].
If I were to speculate, I'd assume that an electric vehicle would be more reliable than a gas powered one in the winter, not less. Ignition is simpler, there are less moving parts, etc. But it's still speculation, and you can't make an argument from a point of ignorance.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
It makes no more sense than a Florida driver being wary of overheating a car made in Detroit. There may actually be some winter weather technical problems that Tesla has yet to resolve, I honestly don't know. But everything in your post is either speculation or a fallacy called argumentum ad populum [1].
If I were to speculate, I'd assume that an electric vehicle would be more reliable than a gas powered one in the winter, not less. Ignition is simpler, there are less moving parts, etc. But it's still speculation, and you can't make an argument from a point of ignorance.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Detroit manufacturers have desert proving grounds for hot weather. Tesla doesn't seem to have the same for the cold, having just done 'days' of pre-launch testing in the cold: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/cold-weather-climate-testing.... Even my parents' Prius, from a long-established manufacturer, runs far less efficiently in Wisconsin winter.
At no point did I intend to imply that Tesla is a bad car in the Winter. I've never owned one yet, I don't really know. But as this thread shows, many people do assume so.
Had I really speculated that it really is, you'd be right.
Tesla's challenge in the North is convincing people that it is a car that is reliable even in the winter. This is going to be a harder task than actually making the car reliable in the cold.
Had I really speculated that it really is, you'd be right.
Tesla's challenge in the North is convincing people that it is a car that is reliable even in the winter. This is going to be a harder task than actually making the car reliable in the cold.
Even still, it's probably much less controversial to say that most drivers in cold-weather climates will have less certainty of how the car will perform and hold-up. Maybe it will be a better cold-weather car, maybe worse, maybe the same. I'm of the mindset that I were buying a car in a cold weather climate, I'd prefer to let everyone else learn those lessons first while I stick with something more predictable.
This was on Reddit a couple of days ago, it seems that the Tesla door handles are able to break through ice so you can still get into the car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYXKY7fpHWA
From your first link:
> "Electric cars have been especially popular in Norway because of generous subsidies, free parking, government-provided re-charging stations, the right to use express lanes on highways and exemptions from tolls."
Yeah, Michigan has (almost) none of that.
Cold weather battery performance could be ignored here if there were charging stations all over. Sure, there are a handful of charging stations scattered around if you live in Ann Arbor or something, but it's not like I can drive from there to Traverse City and reliably find charging stations. Especially in cold weather where I couldn't make it on one charge without freezing in the cabin. And good luck in the Upper Peninsula.
I'd love to own a Tesla / other electric vehicle. But between the cost, the winter performance, and the current lack of infrastructure, it's just not smart IMHO.
> "Electric cars have been especially popular in Norway because of generous subsidies, free parking, government-provided re-charging stations, the right to use express lanes on highways and exemptions from tolls."
Yeah, Michigan has (almost) none of that.
Cold weather battery performance could be ignored here if there were charging stations all over. Sure, there are a handful of charging stations scattered around if you live in Ann Arbor or something, but it's not like I can drive from there to Traverse City and reliably find charging stations. Especially in cold weather where I couldn't make it on one charge without freezing in the cabin. And good luck in the Upper Peninsula.
I'd love to own a Tesla / other electric vehicle. But between the cost, the winter performance, and the current lack of infrastructure, it's just not smart IMHO.
You missed the point.
Norway's average temperature is way colder than Michigan's.
http://www.weather-and-climate.com/uploads/average-temperatu...
Oslo, Norway is one of the southern cities... Norway's geography extends all the way up to the arctic circle. Its latitude is more similar to Alaska.
Tromsø, Norway is very far above the arctic circle, and my understanding is that the Tesla has been performing quite well even way up north in Tromsø.
To give you an idea of how far North Tromsø is... their record snowfall in 1997 amounted to 95 inches of snow.
Basically, Tesla has figured out the "Cold Electric Vehicle Battery" thing. The Tesla's popularity across Norway is proof of that.
Norway's average temperature is way colder than Michigan's.
http://www.weather-and-climate.com/uploads/average-temperatu...
Oslo, Norway is one of the southern cities... Norway's geography extends all the way up to the arctic circle. Its latitude is more similar to Alaska.
Tromsø, Norway is very far above the arctic circle, and my understanding is that the Tesla has been performing quite well even way up north in Tromsø.
To give you an idea of how far North Tromsø is... their record snowfall in 1997 amounted to 95 inches of snow.
Basically, Tesla has figured out the "Cold Electric Vehicle Battery" thing. The Tesla's popularity across Norway is proof of that.
Detroit also got 95 inches of snow last year. The average temperature in Norway is NOT way colder than Michigan. In fact, they look quite similar. http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/detroit/michigan/united...
Detroit is also one of the Southern cities in Michigan. Average temperatures in tromso (https://weatherspark.com/averages/28894/Troms-Norway) are actually warmer than in Marquette. (http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/U...)
In Michigan's upper peninsula it's not uncommon to get 2 or 3 times that much snow.
Detroit is also one of the Southern cities in Michigan. Average temperatures in tromso (https://weatherspark.com/averages/28894/Troms-Norway) are actually warmer than in Marquette. (http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/U...)
In Michigan's upper peninsula it's not uncommon to get 2 or 3 times that much snow.
You misunderstand (as do others...).
Tromsø got 95 inches of snow from a single month in 1997. All 95 inches were during the month of December IIRC. On the average, Tromsø gets a ton more snow than that across its year.
Tromsø is one of the snowiest locations in the world.
Tromsø got 95 inches of snow from a single month in 1997. All 95 inches were during the month of December IIRC. On the average, Tromsø gets a ton more snow than that across its year.
Tromsø is one of the snowiest locations in the world.
I didn't misunderstand, you mis-stated. I'm not sure if it's from a single month either, as this source says it was 95 inches for the season. http://www.stephenhudson.net/TromsoClimateReports/Tromso_Sno...
No, I think I understood your point, and the point of the second article. (Thanks for that, by the way, I wasn't aware that Tesla had improved battery performance by keeping them warm. A neat idea.) I just didn't write my response very well, and for that I apologize.
What I was referring to was mostly the amount of energy the climate control system uses. Heating the cabin is going to suck some juice. I've talked to Chevy Volt owners about their winter performance and they say heating is their biggest problem in the winter. Even with the gasoline engine running to provide some waste heat for the cabin, they still get 50% of their normal range if they turn the heat on. If they're OK with driving to work wearing thick gloves and a winter parka while scraping the ice from the inside of their windshield, they only lose about 20% of their range which I presume is purely due to cold-weather battery performance at that point. Elon claims in the second article only 10% loss due to heating the cabin which frankly I don't believe and am chalking up to "MPG benchmarking nonsense." I admit I could be wrong, but I'd have to see some compelling numbers.
I believe my main point still stands though, which is that the government of Norway has built up the infrastructure and given people incentive to drive these cars. This doesn't exist in Michigan. Chargemap.com says that there are 1,416 charging stations in Norway. According to energy.gov, Michigan has 700. Meanwhile, according to the population density map on Wikipedia (1994 was the newest I could find, sadly) almost all the population in Norway is condensed into very small areas along the edges. Michigan is all over the place (except for the UP, which is noticeably lower). Assuming they only installed charging stations where there are people, this means that while in Norway, you likely have access to a charging station wherever you drive, unlike Michigan. So basically, we're comparing apples to kumquats here and you can't just point to the popularity of Tesla as proof of anything other than Norway's government was forward thinking.
What I was referring to was mostly the amount of energy the climate control system uses. Heating the cabin is going to suck some juice. I've talked to Chevy Volt owners about their winter performance and they say heating is their biggest problem in the winter. Even with the gasoline engine running to provide some waste heat for the cabin, they still get 50% of their normal range if they turn the heat on. If they're OK with driving to work wearing thick gloves and a winter parka while scraping the ice from the inside of their windshield, they only lose about 20% of their range which I presume is purely due to cold-weather battery performance at that point. Elon claims in the second article only 10% loss due to heating the cabin which frankly I don't believe and am chalking up to "MPG benchmarking nonsense." I admit I could be wrong, but I'd have to see some compelling numbers.
I believe my main point still stands though, which is that the government of Norway has built up the infrastructure and given people incentive to drive these cars. This doesn't exist in Michigan. Chargemap.com says that there are 1,416 charging stations in Norway. According to energy.gov, Michigan has 700. Meanwhile, according to the population density map on Wikipedia (1994 was the newest I could find, sadly) almost all the population in Norway is condensed into very small areas along the edges. Michigan is all over the place (except for the UP, which is noticeably lower). Assuming they only installed charging stations where there are people, this means that while in Norway, you likely have access to a charging station wherever you drive, unlike Michigan. So basically, we're comparing apples to kumquats here and you can't just point to the popularity of Tesla as proof of anything other than Norway's government was forward thinking.
Fair enough. You do have a point there.
I'm just making sure that the "Tesla Warm Battery" thing gets some attention.
I'm just making sure that the "Tesla Warm Battery" thing gets some attention.
95 inches in 1997 was not the amount of snowfall that year.
It was the record depth of snow that accumulated on the ground. Meaning that more snow than that likely fell through the year.
It was the record depth of snow that accumulated on the ground. Meaning that more snow than that likely fell through the year.
Winter driving in Norway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxR99bGYEAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxR99bGYEAQ
That article is from October of last year.
Exactly this. I'm about to graduate with a BS in Computer Science from Oakland University. We're less than a mile away from Chrysler World HQ. I'd say about 90% of my classmates already are, or are going to, work for one of the Big 3 or Big 3 suppliers. If you explained this situation to most people you met on the street, they would probably be in favor of fucking over Tesla.
Cars are pretty much the backbone of the entire economy here in MI. It's getting better, but not fast enough. Apparently what happened to Flint and Detroit wasn't enough of a wakeup call for everyone.
Cars are pretty much the backbone of the entire economy here in MI. It's getting better, but not fast enough. Apparently what happened to Flint and Detroit wasn't enough of a wakeup call for everyone.
- I haven't seen one media story about this yet, outside of social media.
I also live in michigan and both of the major detroit newspapers had this on the front page early this morning [0][1].
- Tesla isn't a name brand here like Ford or GM. In fact, if you asked a lot of people if we should help the Big Three with this sort of legislation, you might be surprised by the answer. Remember, they generate a LOT of jobs in this state: not just the Big Three, but the tier 2 and tier 3 manufactors. While I think logic would win out in the day, I wouldn't assume that everybody in Michigan _wants_ Tesla. It isn't in their best interest.
This is about helping dealerships, not manufacturers so you'd think that any support for the Big Three manufactures wouldn't correlate with support for this bill.
[0] - http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2014/10/16/t... [1] -http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/10/17/michigan-ve...
I also live in michigan and both of the major detroit newspapers had this on the front page early this morning [0][1].
- Tesla isn't a name brand here like Ford or GM. In fact, if you asked a lot of people if we should help the Big Three with this sort of legislation, you might be surprised by the answer. Remember, they generate a LOT of jobs in this state: not just the Big Three, but the tier 2 and tier 3 manufactors. While I think logic would win out in the day, I wouldn't assume that everybody in Michigan _wants_ Tesla. It isn't in their best interest.
This is about helping dealerships, not manufacturers so you'd think that any support for the Big Three manufactures wouldn't correlate with support for this bill.
[0] - http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2014/10/16/t... [1] -http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/10/17/michigan-ve...
Fucking over Tesla = helping the big 3.
> Telsa isn't going to get much traction here until they improve cold weather battery performance.
are you joking? Toronto has plenty of Teslas and they work just fine.
are you joking? Toronto has plenty of Teslas and they work just fine.
[deleted]
Yes, thanks, we know. One could even say this is the core reason for many of the USA's other problems: the continuing financial crisis, for-profit medical system, huge rates of incarceration, justice system inequalities based on money, ever-widening income disparity, obscenely massive government spending, I could go on.
The only solution is to have the legislators pass a law to stop it. Because they are huge beneficiaries of the current corruption, that is unlikely to happen and the American government and economy will continue to erode.
Not sure how to fix this. Open to suggestions.
The only solution is to have the legislators pass a law to stop it. Because they are huge beneficiaries of the current corruption, that is unlikely to happen and the American government and economy will continue to erode.
Not sure how to fix this. Open to suggestions.
This just came up in another comment on HN: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
I watched the whole thing waiting for his proposed solution. There are plenty of people that at the end of that talk would be willing to give of themselves (time and money) to fix the problem. So what does he give us?
? I dunno, love or something
This is so disappointing. If we really cared, then wouldn't it be worth starting with a strategy, a plan with steps that could result in a solution? Drumming up enthusiasm to do "something" without a call to action is just raising awareness nonsense.
Of course, if we did have a plan to stop corruption, very powerful people would likely oppose it. The amount of money held by those that would be hurt by fixing campaign finance is staggering and they are probably not willing to to restrain themselves ethically from doing whatever it takes to prevent reform.
So there's that too.
? I dunno, love or something
This is so disappointing. If we really cared, then wouldn't it be worth starting with a strategy, a plan with steps that could result in a solution? Drumming up enthusiasm to do "something" without a call to action is just raising awareness nonsense.
Of course, if we did have a plan to stop corruption, very powerful people would likely oppose it. The amount of money held by those that would be hurt by fixing campaign finance is staggering and they are probably not willing to to restrain themselves ethically from doing whatever it takes to prevent reform.
So there's that too.
He has a plan: https://mayday.us/
Wow - I've respected him for a while, but this is just amazingly well put. Game changing for me.
A friend of mine pointed out that the way US politicians have to campaign, they're always in need of donations for funding for electoral reasons. Even if you're not particularly prone to corruption, there's the problem that the only people you have time to give your ear to are the people who are going to give you money. It's a simplified view, but it does illustrate one problem with the way the US elects its officials.
I'm sure they have issues of their own, but I believe Japan has a uniform cap on what politicians can spend on election campaigns. Just one possible solution.
Which continuing financial crisis are you referring to?
What I mean is after the financial crisis of 2008, the US has made no significant law changes, has not increased enforcement and all the key players are still in their cushy positions (and not in jail.) We have fixed nothing so it is only a matter of time before it happens again.
> We have fixed nothing so it is only a matter of time before it happens again.
So, you meant to say "imminent financial crisis" then?
So, you meant to say "imminent financial crisis" then?
global capitalism?
What about when campaign finance reform was passed? I thought that it was a fantastic idea, but we ended up with super PACs, which have seemingly unlimited funds. Even worse, the politicians they support can say that they don't have control and shed any liability.
I too want to hear ideas for fixing the system, but I think it is going to take more than just a few laws being passed.
I too want to hear ideas for fixing the system, but I think it is going to take more than just a few laws being passed.
Check out Lawrence Lessig and MAYDAY
It's always the same story with Lobbying.
If you say "I'm giving you $1M to pass this law", it's corruption, if you say "I'm giving you $1M, but if you don't pass this law i'm going to withdraw it", then it's lobbying.
If you say "I'm giving you $1M to pass this law", it's corruption, if you say "I'm giving you $1M, but if you don't pass this law i'm going to withdraw it", then it's lobbying.
Hence, lobbying equals corruption. Period.
You can't paint all lobbying with the same brush. There are beneficial lobbying groups out there helping to bring a voice to issues in an arena where they would otherwise normally be drowned out. We just focus on the bad ones because they tend to have greater influence. Absolutist positions such as this are rarely true and sensible.
If the question was whether or not to ban lobbying, how do the benefits of lobbying stack up against the damage? That whole cost-benefit analysis thing...
Lobbying also includes when you call your representative to complain about a certain issue.
So, to ban lobbying outright is to ban input from every citizen to their representative.
So, to ban lobbying outright is to ban input from every citizen to their representative.
Solution: Only a candidate can pay for ads, campaigning, and the like. There is a campaign contribution cap reasonably low as your average citizen could reach it. None of these BS PACs, none of this "I'll make a large donation if you 'listen' to what I want".
What happens in the rich candidate vs poorer candidate elections then? The richer one would get a lot more viewership and exposure, increasing his chances to win.
It doesn't solve the problem.
It doesn't solve the problem.
Hell, allocate a specific amount to each candidate for elections. We already have such a system in place[0]. Just make that mandatory.
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_...
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_...
Easy, limit them to the same campaign contribution as everybody else.
The problem, of course, is that the courts have struck down similar (actually, less restrictive) laws. So it doesn't seem as though there is any path that would lead us to that from where we currently stand.
Nobody but a lobbyist would use "lobbying" to describe direct contact by unpaid citizens.
Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of lumping unlike things together so one can say "if you hate me you must also hate yourself"?
Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of lumping unlike things together so one can say "if you hate me you must also hate yourself"?
I am not a lobbyist, but I am aware of the fact that contacting your representative to do something you want him/her to do is, in fact lobbying them. It's literally the dictionary definition:
"seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue."
My personal opinion is that an individual calling their representative is not the same as tons of money being poured into campaigns, but the fact remains that it is, by definition, lobbying.
Therefore, doing away with ....all.... lobbying, as the original post suggested we do, removes our voices from the system as well.
Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of speaking for a fictitious group of people so one can say, "I believe the thing you're saying is wrong, therefore everyone believes the thing you're saying is wrong"?
"seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue."
My personal opinion is that an individual calling their representative is not the same as tons of money being poured into campaigns, but the fact remains that it is, by definition, lobbying.
Therefore, doing away with ....all.... lobbying, as the original post suggested we do, removes our voices from the system as well.
Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of speaking for a fictitious group of people so one can say, "I believe the thing you're saying is wrong, therefore everyone believes the thing you're saying is wrong"?
What is your point, then, exactly? First of all, it's clear the original post wasn't talking about "lobbying" as you've quoted its definition but not its actual usage. So why bring it up at all, if not to discourage those who support campaign reform simply by browbeating them into submission?
Seriously, why discuss trivial definitional disagreement when it only serves to muddy the waters and decrease the SNR of the conversation?
Seriously, why discuss trivial definitional disagreement when it only serves to muddy the waters and decrease the SNR of the conversation?
Because when it comes to campaign reform, there is only one way to accomplish it; legislation. Word choice and accurate usage are the most important things when it comes to legislation. You've never experienced tedious noise until you've been involved in the process of drafting federal legislation.
It's not implied purpose that matters. If you leave ambiguity, someone will read ambiguity. That's why there are entire panels and institutions dedicated to interpreting the meaning of the law.
So, I brought it up, because if you say 'we should do away with all lobbying', that does, by definition, include contacts by citizens to representatives. The original question was whether the benefits from good lobbying outweighed the drain of bad lobbying. I put my two cents in because I felt it necessary to define lobbying to render the question null through poor word choice.
The real question is whether or not substantive campaign finance reform needs to occur. Businesses and citizens both should have access to their representatives. It's whether or not a business or wealthy enough citizen should be able to effectively buy an elected official.
But that wasn't the question.
It's not implied purpose that matters. If you leave ambiguity, someone will read ambiguity. That's why there are entire panels and institutions dedicated to interpreting the meaning of the law.
So, I brought it up, because if you say 'we should do away with all lobbying', that does, by definition, include contacts by citizens to representatives. The original question was whether the benefits from good lobbying outweighed the drain of bad lobbying. I put my two cents in because I felt it necessary to define lobbying to render the question null through poor word choice.
The real question is whether or not substantive campaign finance reform needs to occur. Businesses and citizens both should have access to their representatives. It's whether or not a business or wealthy enough citizen should be able to effectively buy an elected official.
But that wasn't the question.
The question is whether or not to ban lobbying is not a reasonable one, if only because lobbying would not be able to be banned just on a principle of free speech alone. People have a voice—good, bad, whatever—and lobbying provides an efficient means of communicating that voice. The question is rather how to reduce, if not obviate, the damage caused by the role of money in lobbying without violating free speech rights.
Yeah... I think the whole premise behind SuperPACs is the ridiculous notion that money = speech and campaign contributions are protected free speech.
Money is not speech, despite the Citizens United ruling.
So Congress could set limits on how much money the New York Times could spend to cover federal elections?
[deleted]
News coverage of federal elections is vastly different than candidate advocacy.
LOL what? The New York Times has endorsed a Democratic president for the last 50 years or something.
Agreed. But news agencies seem to cross that divide when they feel the need to endorse political candidates.
It doesn't matter how different it is: If money is not speech, why couldn't Congress prevent the Times from spending money to write and print articles about candidates?
Is it? I think instead of funding a superPAC I'll start a news organization to cover the election as I see fit.
Have a guess. I have one: the consumer pays up nicely in the end. Lobbying is done (most of the time) for the benefit of coorporations who wan't to expand their business volume.
There are beneficial lobbying groups out there helping to
bring a voice to issues in an arena where they would
otherwise normally be drowned out.
In 2010, Coca-cola spent $2.9 billion on advertising. They only did that because Pepsi spent about the same amount.
"Good" lobbyists only exist because bad lobbyists exist. If you could cut the budget of every lobbying firm by 50% then nothing would change. The only thing that affects outcomes i proportional spend.
1: In fact it is advertising, to an audience segment of one.
Companies like coca cola and mcdonalds have to advertise that much because they offer poor quality products that would otherwise be irrelevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344345
You know what's also a good way to bring issues into 'the arena'? People's initiatives. Democracy is only really a stable system that can protect civil rights if you go all the way with it. There shouldn't be a law that the people as a whole cannot throw out. Otherwise a political system is not worth being called 'democracy' (= reign of the people). The government is supposed to be serving the people as a whole, not just a few financially strong and powerful groups.
With all the communications and monitoring technology, I am surprised we still have the antiquated representative system. This system came about in an era where the travel time of a message was in days not milliseconds.
Democracy != Republic
Look at how screwed up California is due to the ability of propositions to be enacted without any concern for how they'll be financed.
Look at how screwed up California is due to the ability of propositions to be enacted without any concern for how they'll be financed.
Lobbying in the form of "We think this is a good idea, and here's why you should vote for it" is fine, regardless of the issue. Lobbying in the form of "We think this is a good idea, and a million dollars says you should vote for it" is bad, regardless of the issue, even if the position they advocate is a good one.
How do you reconcile freedom of speech with restrictions on campaign contributions. The courts have been pretty consistent in finding the various campaign finance laws to be overly broad and restrictive when it comes to the 1st Amendment.
Reconcile? Money isn't speech.
Sure, people can spend money on tools for speech, but that's not what causes problems. It's when people give money to a political group that things get nasty and voting power starts to shift to those with cash.
Sure, people can spend money on tools for speech, but that's not what causes problems. It's when people give money to a political group that things get nasty and voting power starts to shift to those with cash.
Money is speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean standing on a soapbox in a public square denouncing King George. It covers most forms of communication; oral, print, radio, tv, internet, billboards, you name it. Just because the 1st Amendment doesn't explicitly protect PACs doesn't mean that they're not an extension of what the Founding Fathers meant to protect.
> Sure, people can spend money on tools for speech, but that's not what causes problems.
That is what PACs do. The problem is that people are spending too much money on advertising for candidates. Any solution in which people can spend unlimited money on tools for speech has not drawn a line between money and speech.
That is what PACs do. The problem is that people are spending too much money on advertising for candidates. Any solution in which people can spend unlimited money on tools for speech has not drawn a line between money and speech.
There's nothing corrupt about it. The voting citizens of Michigan like the auto industry the way it is and they have an understandable fear of disruptive new technologies. It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers. Many of the people he represents are employed by those companies in some way and it's his job to advocate for their interests and work with their lobbyists. It's good that a senator's campaign is funded by the businesses from his or her state, as opposed to being funded by organizations that have nothing to do with the concerns of the state's citizens. The people and their representatives are on the same team.
Representative democracies work the same in the US, the Netherlands and all over. If a majority of the people of Michigan were vocally demanding Tesla dealerships, they would get them. That might be the case in a few years, but all we can do now is let the system work. There's a midterm election coming up soon and all of the Michiganders on hn can vote and convince others to vote for Tesla, but change may take time.
Representative democracies work the same in the US, the Netherlands and all over. If a majority of the people of Michigan were vocally demanding Tesla dealerships, they would get them. That might be the case in a few years, but all we can do now is let the system work. There's a midterm election coming up soon and all of the Michiganders on hn can vote and convince others to vote for Tesla, but change may take time.
>It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers
I, for one, agree with you wholeheartedly. This is politics in action. Just because you don't particularly agree with a decision doesn't mean it isn't working as intended.
When subjects like this are broached on this forum, we hear about lobbying and corruption, as if companies like Tesla-- who direct tax credits to rich people and play states off other for employment-- are above this. The tech industry in general is a huge lobby.
I, for one, agree with you wholeheartedly. This is politics in action. Just because you don't particularly agree with a decision doesn't mean it isn't working as intended.
When subjects like this are broached on this forum, we hear about lobbying and corruption, as if companies like Tesla-- who direct tax credits to rich people and play states off other for employment-- are above this. The tech industry in general is a huge lobby.
This is exactly democracy, warts and all. The crowd wants something, and they're gonna get it, good and hard.
> It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers.
Except, you know, that the contributions weren't from automobile manufacturers, but from the dealerships, whose interests are in conflict with the manufacturers (the more one party earns, the less there is for the other).
Except, you know, that the contributions weren't from automobile manufacturers, but from the dealerships, whose interests are in conflict with the manufacturers (the more one party earns, the less there is for the other).
Do these donors represent the interests of the corporations or the citizens?
They represent the corporations but in the case of an autodealer association they are probably claiming to represent their employees. Think of them similar to a union except they are lobbying legislators instead of corporations.
Automotive dealerships are not at all like a union. There's a critical distinction here between labor and capital.
I never said auto dealerships but the autodealer associations in each state. The associations are the ones that are doing the lobbying on behalf of dealers. IIRC Ford tried to do direct sales to customers in the 90s maybe? The Ford dealers lobbied and shut Ford out.
No, representative democracies do not work the same all over. Some have a 98% reelection rate, but not all.
Oh, get of your high horse.
In the Netherlands it's done via mutual favors, usually in the form of cushy and insanely overpaid jobs for former politicians and civil servants in exchange for favorable laws and government contracts. This happens openly in a way that would be called scandalous corruption in Germany.
In the Netherlands, we call what happens in other countries corruption and think our own shit doesn't smell. And because international corruption stats are usually self-reporting, we maintain the illusion we are squeaky clean. Bullshit.
In the Netherlands it's done via mutual favors, usually in the form of cushy and insanely overpaid jobs for former politicians and civil servants in exchange for favorable laws and government contracts. This happens openly in a way that would be called scandalous corruption in Germany.
In the Netherlands, we call what happens in other countries corruption and think our own shit doesn't smell. And because international corruption stats are usually self-reporting, we maintain the illusion we are squeaky clean. Bullshit.
There are fairly objective rankings of this sort of thing[1] and both The Netherlands and Germany score significantly better than the US.
That we also have corruption does not mean it is as bad as elsewhere and does not mean we don't get to call out blatant examples of it, especially blatant examples of the sort that are easy to get rid of by calling them out.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
That we also have corruption does not mean it is as bad as elsewhere and does not mean we don't get to call out blatant examples of it, especially blatant examples of the sort that are easy to get rid of by calling them out.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
The issue is, the Netherlands, in it's firm believe that it's so much better than other countries, has created a warped perception of corruption, which makes us look good in those survey based rankings. Because we actually believe our own delusion.
Take for instance the recent German corruption scandal that forced President Wulff to resign. Receiving such favors is business as usual in the Netherlands, and simply doesn't count as corruption. The media don't care either, with the exception of shock-blog GeenStijl. But even when the latter presents cold hard evidence, nine out of ten times the entire establishment including the media just goes "meh".
Doing business in the Netherlands that involves government contracts or regulation usually means having to bribe people in some way.
I'm not saying it's that much worse than in other countries (but it tends to shock our German and Nordic friends), but we definitely don't have the moral right call out American corruption via campaign contributions when the only difference is the way politicians get paid off.
Take for instance the recent German corruption scandal that forced President Wulff to resign. Receiving such favors is business as usual in the Netherlands, and simply doesn't count as corruption. The media don't care either, with the exception of shock-blog GeenStijl. But even when the latter presents cold hard evidence, nine out of ten times the entire establishment including the media just goes "meh".
Doing business in the Netherlands that involves government contracts or regulation usually means having to bribe people in some way.
I'm not saying it's that much worse than in other countries (but it tends to shock our German and Nordic friends), but we definitely don't have the moral right call out American corruption via campaign contributions when the only difference is the way politicians get paid off.
> we definitely don't have the moral right call out American corruption via campaign contributions when the only difference is the way politicians get paid off.
Why not? I'm not a politician. I didn't pass laws for favours. When I can't point at corruption when I see it, just because it also happens closer to me, aren't we just making the problem bigger?
In fact, what you're saying only underlines my point. Different countries are half-blind to the local flavour of corruption. How about we Dutch call out American corruption, and Americans call out ours? I realize nothing's really changing because all we're doing is arguing on the internet, but what in the world could be wrong with that?
Moral high ground, screw that. It's corruption, plain and simple.
Why not? I'm not a politician. I didn't pass laws for favours. When I can't point at corruption when I see it, just because it also happens closer to me, aren't we just making the problem bigger?
In fact, what you're saying only underlines my point. Different countries are half-blind to the local flavour of corruption. How about we Dutch call out American corruption, and Americans call out ours? I realize nothing's really changing because all we're doing is arguing on the internet, but what in the world could be wrong with that?
Moral high ground, screw that. It's corruption, plain and simple.
Well, I'm from the US, and it stinks like corruption of a particularly obvious sort. He can stay on his high horse all he likes.
That's rather dramatic but then again this is the sort of response the blog post is meant to elicit. Tesla has proven to be very adept at working with state governments for financial gain so it would appear that they're not complaining about the closeness of state government and automobile companies. Just that they came out on the losing end for now of this particular instance
- "Greater Phoenix Economic Council President and CEO Barry Broome said Nevada offers of upfront incentives and cash put it as much as $300 million ahead of other states bidding for the plant. Tesla considered Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and its home state of California"
- "Greater Phoenix Economic Council President and CEO Barry Broome said Nevada offers of upfront incentives and cash put it as much as $300 million ahead of other states bidding for the plant. Tesla considered Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and its home state of California"
I disagree. It's blatant corruption and it's not dramatic to call it out.
So do you expect, now that Tesla's made people aware of this, that the politician will be prosecuted for corruption? Or do you think what's happening here is legal but it just makes you feel uncomfortable? And if it's the latter how do you think you'd feel about Tesla if you were privy to all the discussions and offers and horse trading that would have occurred over the location of their battery plant?
I can't speak for him, but I'm sure he won't be prosecuted, I don't refer to prosecutions to decide what qualifies as "corruption", and I'm sure I'd be fairly aghast at the crap Tesla did for their battery plant.
Your last question puzzles me. Are you under the impression that one can't complain about this guy unless one thinks everything Tesla does is wonderful?
Your last question puzzles me. Are you under the impression that one can't complain about this guy unless one thinks everything Tesla does is wonderful?
No.As long as you're consistent that's all. Freedom fighters vs terrorists kind of thing.
> media who like scandals
Media only likes scandals about foreign enemies. Otherwise they are self-censoring in order not to loose faith in the economy which growth is just based on promise.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
Media only likes scandals about foreign enemies. Otherwise they are self-censoring in order not to loose faith in the economy which growth is just based on promise.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
> Don't you guys have rules against this? Or media who like scandals?
Some animals are more equal than others.
Political corruption like this is seen as being so common place here that the media largely ignores it.
Also, the US is a BIG place. There are 4 states in the US with larger populations than the Netherlands. However, news is generally distributed at the national and local levels (local news stations and national media outlets). Very few people watch local news anymore, so local news tends to be more like Buzzfeed than informative. National news is headed that way as well.
Overall though, people aren't interested in stories about corruption. So the politicians get away with it, because stories about OMG EBOLA WILL KILL YOU draw more viewers than yet another political corruption story.
Also, the US is a BIG place. There are 4 states in the US with larger populations than the Netherlands. However, news is generally distributed at the national and local levels (local news stations and national media outlets). Very few people watch local news anymore, so local news tends to be more like Buzzfeed than informative. National news is headed that way as well.
Overall though, people aren't interested in stories about corruption. So the politicians get away with it, because stories about OMG EBOLA WILL KILL YOU draw more viewers than yet another political corruption story.
The reason it isnt counted as corruption is because they use it as campaign funds.
Domestic spying aside, this is the biggest problem I have with the my govt. How can you be representing your constituents when your pocket is filled by corporations.
Domestic spying aside, this is the biggest problem I have with the my govt. How can you be representing your constituents when your pocket is filled by corporations.
Constitutional right to Free Speech for corporations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
That's not a scandal. A scandal is, that guy gets caught screwing his secretary, or propositioning other men in a bathroom.
We have the best legislators money can buy
[deleted](1)
As an outsider, it really is difficult to understand why these practices are supported/allowed by the public.
Is this information even available to people outside of the tech community?
What in the hell is wrong with US politics* that allows for this to happen so blatantly, and so regularly, without any repercussions at all?
* I'm aware that it's not (in general) a US-only problem, but for Tesla and the car dealership world, it seems that this is a real problem
What in the hell is wrong with US politics* that allows for this to happen so blatantly, and so regularly, without any repercussions at all?
* I'm aware that it's not (in general) a US-only problem, but for Tesla and the car dealership world, it seems that this is a real problem
The costs of this legislation are distributed across all consumers, while the benefits are concentrated in the hands of a small group of automobile dealers. This gives the dealers a large incentive to lobby politicians, and little incentive for consumers to pay attention and vote accordingly. This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world.
On the bright side, in the long run new technologies tend to win out, even though the delays caused by concentrated interests can be quite significant.
One way to fix this problem would be to restrict the scope of government so that politicians simply aren't able to do things like this, no matter how much the automobile industry lobbies them. If there are other solutions I'd be very interested to hear them.
On the bright side, in the long run new technologies tend to win out, even though the delays caused by concentrated interests can be quite significant.
One way to fix this problem would be to restrict the scope of government so that politicians simply aren't able to do things like this, no matter how much the automobile industry lobbies them. If there are other solutions I'd be very interested to hear them.
>This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world.
It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'.
Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrated with Uber. Exactly the kind of situation where government should be stepping in. People can hand-wave all they like about 'new technology' and 'disruption' but at the end of the day the vasty majority of people in society think drivers should have valid insurance and there is no sign of that opinion shifting. There is no need for a 'fix' to government in this case. It is working as it should.
The fact that Silicon Valley gurus are backing Uber so strongly in their quest to fill our roads with uninsured drivers just makes the rest of the world view them as greedy sociopaths looking to make society more dangerous for their own personal gain. Sadly the rest of the technology sector then gets tainted by this asshole behaviour.
It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'.
Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrated with Uber. Exactly the kind of situation where government should be stepping in. People can hand-wave all they like about 'new technology' and 'disruption' but at the end of the day the vasty majority of people in society think drivers should have valid insurance and there is no sign of that opinion shifting. There is no need for a 'fix' to government in this case. It is working as it should.
The fact that Silicon Valley gurus are backing Uber so strongly in their quest to fill our roads with uninsured drivers just makes the rest of the world view them as greedy sociopaths looking to make society more dangerous for their own personal gain. Sadly the rest of the technology sector then gets tainted by this asshole behaviour.
Actually, Germany is allowing Uber now. Their court overturned the ban a month ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/business/international/ube...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/business/international/ube...
[deleted]
Uber drivers are insured. It's a requirement to drive a car. The opposition to Uber is because te cities lose out on the punitively expensive tax medallion revenue.
Can you provide a reliable source that German Uber driver carry commercial insurance?
While you're right that in order to drive a car you need insurance such insurance is personal and never pays for damage, which results from commercial transactions.
Note also that there's a difference in third party liability insurance between the US and Europe. While In the US the person usually carries insurance, which is also valid when she, say, rents a car, this is not the case in Europe. The insurance is bound to the vehicle and not the person.
I for one, would be very, very vary to take an Uber anywhere in Europe unless the company can prove beyond a doubt that they, or the driver carries adequate insurance to cover any damages to me, or my property.
While you're right that in order to drive a car you need insurance such insurance is personal and never pays for damage, which results from commercial transactions.
Note also that there's a difference in third party liability insurance between the US and Europe. While In the US the person usually carries insurance, which is also valid when she, say, rents a car, this is not the case in Europe. The insurance is bound to the vehicle and not the person.
I for one, would be very, very vary to take an Uber anywhere in Europe unless the company can prove beyond a doubt that they, or the driver carries adequate insurance to cover any damages to me, or my property.
Standard insurance policies have restrictions that exclude driving other people for money. As soon as you do that, your insurance policy is invalid and you're driving uninsured. (Also, I believe Germany has specific minimum insurance requirements in law for taxi drivers and equivalents.)
You seem to have your facts wrong.
https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-...
http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance
https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-...
http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance
I'm talking about the case in Germany. Why are you linking to articles that start with the words "In The US"?
This is the kind of blind defence of Uber that gives the entire tech sector a bad name.
This is the kind of blind defence of Uber that gives the entire tech sector a bad name.
It's more complicated than that, insurance was a big issue in Germany. There is a mandatory minimum of 7.5 million EUR for damages to persons in Germany, the insurance offered by Uber was lower than that according to the news a while back.
There were also other issues in Germany like the mandatory health check for taxi drivers and the shorter intervals for the mandatory car maintenance for taxis.
There were also other issues in Germany like the mandatory health check for taxi drivers and the shorter intervals for the mandatory car maintenance for taxis.
Ah, ok. Some of those regulations sound quite absurd to me, but I'm not familiar enough with the situation to comment.
The taxi market is very different in Europe than in the US and different in every country. Uber faces a different set of challenges in different countries. Taxi service is not universally crap around the world and Uber is not answering the need of the people as strongly everywhere.
For example in the UK, GPS tracking, booking of your taxi online, pre-pay, ... was already available before Uber. 10 years ago the black cabs were in the street for the same reason GP describe but against mini-cab and private hire companies (and older tech). A regulation was created from that requiring them a commercial insurance and twice a year inspection of the vehicle.
For example in the UK, GPS tracking, booking of your taxi online, pre-pay, ... was already available before Uber. 10 years ago the black cabs were in the street for the same reason GP describe but against mini-cab and private hire companies (and older tech). A regulation was created from that requiring them a commercial insurance and twice a year inspection of the vehicle.
Well, let's say you're crippled for life in a taxi accident. The intention is that the insurance payout should compensate you for the lost economic utility of your limbs for the rest of your life. Suddenly 7.5M EUR is not that much.
The problem is that politicians are not accountable to the voting public. They're supposed to be, but it's basically a big joke.
This comment from another one of today's discussions seems particularly fitting here [1]:
> > We want to make sure that the incentives of the people in power are aligned with the people who are not in power.
> This is really a tough ask. Unless decision makers, i.e., those in power, are accountable, every single day, to those not in power, decision makers will soon align themselves with private, capitalist corporations. You have a multi billion dollar arms manufacturer, oil corporations funding millions to election campaigns of US presidents. And then you have US citizens who get to vote once in five years; we also know that the voting itself can be rigged, public opinion can be swayed and etc., Now, whom do you think would the president side with? Oil corporation or US citizens? The answer is obvious!
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8466080
This comment from another one of today's discussions seems particularly fitting here [1]:
> > We want to make sure that the incentives of the people in power are aligned with the people who are not in power.
> This is really a tough ask. Unless decision makers, i.e., those in power, are accountable, every single day, to those not in power, decision makers will soon align themselves with private, capitalist corporations. You have a multi billion dollar arms manufacturer, oil corporations funding millions to election campaigns of US presidents. And then you have US citizens who get to vote once in five years; we also know that the voting itself can be rigged, public opinion can be swayed and etc., Now, whom do you think would the president side with? Oil corporation or US citizens? The answer is obvious!
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8466080
> allowed by the public
Well, democracy is largely bullshit so your phrase endears the democratic process with more credit than it is due.
We suppose that our quality of life and our pace of change are side effects of our current leadership process. I personally suppose that is is but a partial input to a more complex contrivance of systems which have led us to where we are.
Well, democracy is largely bullshit so your phrase endears the democratic process with more credit than it is due.
We suppose that our quality of life and our pace of change are side effects of our current leadership process. I personally suppose that is is but a partial input to a more complex contrivance of systems which have led us to where we are.
Don't be too quick to condemn democracy. Granted, most of the propaganda about the vox populi is false. But its key virtue is that it allows change of government without bloodshed. As Popper said, "We are democrats, not because the majority is always right, but because democratic traditions are the least evil ones of which we know". It's not the best system, but it's probably the least bad one.
> But its key virtue is that it allows change of government without bloodshed.
This is a strongest point I ever heard in favour of democracy, and ironically, I don't remember ever being taught it in school or see it mentioned often.
This is a strongest point I ever heard in favour of democracy, and ironically, I don't remember ever being taught it in school or see it mentioned often.
Karl Popper takes a parallel approach to epistemology and political theory. In his theory of knowledge, he is not worried about how theories provide a representation of reality, but rather with how they can be falsified or disproved through critical experiments. Similarly, in politics he is not concerned with how governments represent the people, but simply with how the citizenry can throw out and replace the government. It's a refreshingly pragmatic approach.
It's easily refuted by pointing out the identical nature of the two major parties in the US, in practice if not in platform. It's been demonstrated over and over again that we can't "throw the bums out," because the replacement bums will soon emulate their predecessors.
I don't think this refutes the essence of this idea, i.e. bloodless transfer of power. Sure that all new politicians end up being like the old ones, but thanks to short terms and established procedures of power transfer politicians don't feel the need of killing their way to the top or violently defending their seats. After all, even if you lose your seat this time, you can get it back in few years.
"...it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-WLS Churchill
Tesla's rivals are big employers in Michigan. That is also a factor, their employee's have only experienced the positive side of protectionism.
It's possible the Big 3 would actually prefer a Tesla-like direct-to-consumer model; for example, Chrysler tried opening a Chrysler-owned store in LA a few years ago, only to have it shot down by local law.
I'd imagine that if one of the Big 3 started doing direct sales, dealers would stop selling their cars en masse. There's no way for an established manufacturer to stop selling to dealers.
I'd imagine that if one of the Big 3 started doing direct sales, dealers would stop selling their cars en masse. There's no way for an established manufacturer to stop selling to dealers.
Dealers are nice because they hold inventory on their books instead of the manufacturers.
Tesla doesn't care about that much because they don't have any inventory.
Tesla doesn't care about that much because they don't have any inventory.
So charge customers more who want to take a vehicle off the lot vs waiting for it to be produced on demand. If there is a cost, pay for it if you want it.
The dealers are probably big employers in Michigan too!
This may get me downvoted, but I think the problem has more to do with the voters than the politicians. If people took the time to research candidates and issues independently instead of voting for whoever had the loudest ads, we might not see so much money in politics.
Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do, but talk to normal folks and they just. don't. care. about much of anything political, and they use their horribly inadequate math skills and emotion to make decisions, instead of reason.
Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do, but talk to normal folks and they just. don't. care. about much of anything political, and they use their horribly inadequate math skills and emotion to make decisions, instead of reason.
Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do,
This is, at best, silly. It's not like people on HN are any more informed on politics than the average person. They think they're more informed, which makes for worse political discussion, because they've invested more of their identity[1] in being right.
Most people are rationally ignorant about politics. It's not like being more aware will necessarily lead to the positions you want. It wouldn't take much to convince workers in Michigan to pass a law that makes things more difficult for cars made in California.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
This is, at best, silly. It's not like people on HN are any more informed on politics than the average person. They think they're more informed, which makes for worse political discussion, because they've invested more of their identity[1] in being right.
Most people are rationally ignorant about politics. It's not like being more aware will necessarily lead to the positions you want. It wouldn't take much to convince workers in Michigan to pass a law that makes things more difficult for cars made in California.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
I'm first to call out all the bullshit general population believes in, but in this case I think it is counterproductive to blame people.
Behind all politicians there is a system designed to optimize for deceiving the electorate into believing what the politicians want. Millions if not billions of dollars and man-hours are spent every year to improve that system (that's not counting the private research branch known as advertising industry). Your average citizen Joe doesn't stand a chance here.
The fact that general population doesn't care about important issues (hint: what's on the news is mostly irrelevant) is a different thing and it hurts me, but I have no clue what we can do with it.
Behind all politicians there is a system designed to optimize for deceiving the electorate into believing what the politicians want. Millions if not billions of dollars and man-hours are spent every year to improve that system (that's not counting the private research branch known as advertising industry). Your average citizen Joe doesn't stand a chance here.
The fact that general population doesn't care about important issues (hint: what's on the news is mostly irrelevant) is a different thing and it hurts me, but I have no clue what we can do with it.
But the electorate could at least do some simple mathematics and rudimentary cost-benefit analysis. Why does the US spend disproportionately more addressing (supposedly) terrorism than it does road safety? Why do people fear crime when it's at historically low levels? Why can politicians get elected by making economically, or even mathematically, impossible promises? I think that at some point you have to consider whether the voter is complicit in the situation the US is in by being wantonly, even willfully, ignorant.
Anti competitive, interest driven legislative behavior happens everywhere, as does the mixture of money and politics. See the Amazon law in France as an example.
If anything, in the USA citizens seems more aware and active in such cases. The fact there's a constitution as a moral compass doesn't hurt, either.
If anything, in the USA citizens seems more aware and active in such cases. The fact there's a constitution as a moral compass doesn't hurt, either.
>Is this information even available to people outside of the tech community?
You overestimate how much people outside of the tech industry care about what is, at this point, a rich person's toy.
Most people couldn't care less whether someone buying a $100,000+ vehicle is modestly inconvenienced. When/if circumstances change, and Tesla builds a car for the masses, the laws will change accordingly. People are self-interested.
You overestimate how much people outside of the tech industry care about what is, at this point, a rich person's toy.
Most people couldn't care less whether someone buying a $100,000+ vehicle is modestly inconvenienced. When/if circumstances change, and Tesla builds a car for the masses, the laws will change accordingly. People are self-interested.
To a first approximation, 0% of voters care if they can buy a Tesla. Some large portion of people also wouldn't see the problem with requiring a dealership (or would prefer it, because of whatever concerns about service (I'm not endorsing that argument, just pointing it out)).
It's because US politics (and no implication is intended about how similar or different it is in other countries) is basically a team sport. The real-world consequences of politics matters much less than "our side" winning. Sides are often defined by political parties, but can also be defined by geography or industry.
The elected officials here are members of the right party or cater to the right industry or are from the right region, so they'll continue to get elected. What they do in office matters comparatively little.
The elected officials here are members of the right party or cater to the right industry or are from the right region, so they'll continue to get elected. What they do in office matters comparatively little.
Why is it that first world countries have the most unaccountable political systems ever seen? Even here in Canada, Rob Ford anyone?
Here too in Canada we've banned Zenn, a Canadian electric car company - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN but we're making prominent bike lanes, go figure.
Here too in Canada we've banned Zenn, a Canadian electric car company - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN but we're making prominent bike lanes, go figure.
I think this might be the relevant change (contained in bill S-1 which was substituted in the Regulatory Reform Committee):
"2 (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer 3 other than through <del>its</del> franchised dealers, unless the retail 4 customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local 5 government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a 6 manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the 7 purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles 8 or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor 9 vehicles through the <del>manufacturer's</del> FRANCHISED new motor vehicle 10 dealers THAT SELL AND SERVICE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES PRODUCED BY THE 11 MANUFACTURER."
Link to the passage of the bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...
Link to the substitute bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...
"2 (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer 3 other than through <del>its</del> franchised dealers, unless the retail 4 customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local 5 government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a 6 manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the 7 purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles 8 or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor 9 vehicles through the <del>manufacturer's</del> FRANCHISED new motor vehicle 10 dealers THAT SELL AND SERVICE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES PRODUCED BY THE 11 MANUFACTURER."
Link to the passage of the bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...
Link to the substitute bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...
Setup 100% Tesla-owned franchise. Sell through that.
I'm not sure you can do this. Isn't the point of the franchise that it's owned by someone else?
For example, if McDonald's corporate opens a location owned by them, can they called it a "franchise" location?
For example, if McDonald's corporate opens a location owned by them, can they called it a "franchise" location?
I think you can have it owned by a different company but with the same leadership as the parent. Isn't this how liability shields work? Lots of different LLCs with the same people at the helm?
It is easy enough to define franchise as having different control than the parent. This is fairly standard. In fact, the bill has some language about franchises not being acquired, owned, or controlled by a manufacturer or any entity in which the manufacturer has a 45% ownership interest.
Honestly, if the loophole was that simple I would think they would have started with this.
The State of Illinois would like to extend a warm welcome to the people of Michigan, and invite them (and their tax dollars) to visit one of the several Tesla stores in the Chicago area.
Just called the governor's office and the lady answering the phone was quite nice. I urge all other residents of Michigan to do the same.
FYI: Here's a direct link to the web form for sharing your opinion with the Michigan governor's office:
https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/GovRelations/ShareOpinion.aspx
As a Michigan native (though long gone) and someone erring on the side of conservatism, this is just a disappointment all around. Michigan is historically manufacturer friendly - to a fault, so they really went out of their way here.
Eventually all of these statutes will probably be stricken down due to the commerce clause... you are buying the vehicle direct from another state, therefore it's interstate commerce.
Eventually all of these statutes will probably be stricken down due to the commerce clause... you are buying the vehicle direct from another state, therefore it's interstate commerce.
Manufacturer friendly, or Michigan-based manufacturer friendly?
By striking a single, but critical, word from MCLA 445.1574(14)(1)(i), the law governing franchise relations in Michigan, the dealers seek to force Tesla [...]
Well, don't tell us what it is or provide any links to it... /eyeroll. I believe their complaint is about line 3 on page 6 of the following document: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengros...
I support Tesla's efforts and deplore the legislative pandering to incumbent industries, but drumming up support for a legal/political conflict without articulating the actual issue is counter-productive. All that happens is that people send emails or make phone calls to the legislative body saying they're outraged, and then get fobbed off with technicalities because >95% of the outraged people don't actually know what they're complaining about, they only know one party's assertion of what the downsides will be. If you want an internet army to go into battle for you, arm them properly with the facts.
Well, don't tell us what it is or provide any links to it... /eyeroll. I believe their complaint is about line 3 on page 6 of the following document: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengros...
I support Tesla's efforts and deplore the legislative pandering to incumbent industries, but drumming up support for a legal/political conflict without articulating the actual issue is counter-productive. All that happens is that people send emails or make phone calls to the legislative body saying they're outraged, and then get fobbed off with technicalities because >95% of the outraged people don't actually know what they're complaining about, they only know one party's assertion of what the downsides will be. If you want an internet army to go into battle for you, arm them properly with the facts.
Does anyone else get the sense that the Tesla Legal and Public Relations departments are starting to have fun attacking the politicians who push these bills through? The wording feels different than most corporate press releases.
When I hear about Tesla not being able to sell directly to customers, and have to go through dealer, I always wondered why different corporate structure can not be created, where some head company owns Tesla and all dealerships used to sell Tesla cars? This way it is not manufacturer selling these and control of the distribution is still within parent organization.
IIRC in many states dealerships are required to have independent ownership from the manufacturer and no individual/company can own more than one.
Is there some sort of test tho? I.e. what I was proposing - dealearship could be separate company and owned by head corporation, which in turn owns Tesla itself. So dealership is separate entity and not directly controlled by Tesla.
The funny thing is that Michigan's legislature is run by yokel conservatives who made a big show of becoming a "right to work" state (i.e. making it illegal to have mandatory all-union workplaces) - when corporate interests and Fox News talking points were at stake, they were remarkably eager to thump their chests about free association.
Harsh statements, but no facts from objective sources. Looking for that, I can find stuff from 'the other side' at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ejuo53qtuul1s2fn2o4sa255))/... where if I reading this right (aside: 'interesting' reuse of "(i)" as both ninth letter of the alphabet and Roman numeral) section i reads
"(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following:
(i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through its franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor vehicles through the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers."
, but that text isn't recent (see the history at the bottom).
What exactly did they change and what were the arguments?
"(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following:
(i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through its franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor vehicles through the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers."
, but that text isn't recent (see the history at the bottom).
What exactly did they change and what were the arguments?
Here's a diff of the changes
https://www.diffchecker.com/idjdre6n
[deleted]
The state Senator responsible for this is up for election in 2 weeks. This is his opponent and she accepts donations: http://www.voteforshari.com/
Here's a follow-up article on the issue from today. Some are claiming that Tesla direct sales are already illegal in Michigan:
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/tesla_di...
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/tesla_di...
Michigan is in the toilet. Detroit is bankrupt, huge parts of the city are abandoned ruins, and the rest of the state isn't much better off. Tesla probably would not sell many cars there anyway. If I'm wrong, it's a good opportunity for northern Indiana or Ohio to court a Tesla store.
> If I'm wrong
You are.
The suburbs of Detroit are some of the wealthiest zip codes in the country, much of the Western coast is filled with beach towns and million-dollar lake houses, the HQs of dozens of multi-billion dollar business are there, and Michigan is the 9th most populous state in the US. Tesla would sell plenty of vehicles there.
You are.
The suburbs of Detroit are some of the wealthiest zip codes in the country, much of the Western coast is filled with beach towns and million-dollar lake houses, the HQs of dozens of multi-billion dollar business are there, and Michigan is the 9th most populous state in the US. Tesla would sell plenty of vehicles there.
While I agree with you about Detroit, the rest of the state is doing fairly well.
Honestly Tesla, STAY OUT OF MICHIGAN.
If you refuse to do business with the state, go as far as to discourage people living there form buying them, eventually there could be enough public pressure to bring about a change.
If not that, perhaps a few billboards equating the politicians to Neanderthals might work
Its time to ignore the states that refuse to play fair, shame them, and perhaps their voters will wake up.
If you refuse to do business with the state, go as far as to discourage people living there form buying them, eventually there could be enough public pressure to bring about a change.
If not that, perhaps a few billboards equating the politicians to Neanderthals might work
Its time to ignore the states that refuse to play fair, shame them, and perhaps their voters will wake up.
At this point in time, Tesla is still less than a rounding error on automobile sales. Ignoring potential markets and counting on the public to "do the right thing" would seem like a suicidal strategy to me. Do you have examples of where this approach has worked?
I'm not sure that would work in a state as car-centric as Michigan; "out of sight, out of mind." Lots of other cars to buy, especially given Tesla's demographic when compared with Michigan's demographic.
Yea because we should force anyone who wants to break into an established market to pay for a shit ton of marketing and political attack ads! /s
Tesla wants to have its cake and eat it too. You can't take a 500 million loan from taxpayers ( the vast majority of whom DON'T benefit from and can't afford your product ) and then on the other hand claim unfair treatment by local governments.
Maybe you're forgetting that the auto industry received bailouts that were two orders of magnitude greater than the loan that Tesla took from the government. And, unlike the rest of the auto industry, Tesla paid back its loans, and did so ahead of time.
First, that's kind of a strawman. I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure ). And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. Au contraire, by paying back the loans early, Tesla avoided granting the government shares of TSLA, and thus stiffed the taxpayer out of any possible return. I understand everyone in SV wants Tesla to succeed, but it's not the most meritocratic, little-upstart-vs-entrenched-player story their PR would like you to believe.
>>I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure
Just like the car companies, who were also bailed out at their most dire time. Except the car companies declared bankruptcy anyway due to gross mismanagement and horrible business practices. From wikipedia: "In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[85] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[86] In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 [87] followed by General Motors a month later.[88]"
>>And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction.
There are an incredible number of government-business transactions that the taxpayer does not directly benefit from. In Tesla's case, I'd argue that the benefits were actually there. You may not be able to afford one of their cars, but having a high-tech electric car company enter the market and succeed against well-entrenched incumbents is in everyone's best interest. You may disagree but I think you'd (fortunately) be in the minority.
Just like the car companies, who were also bailed out at their most dire time. Except the car companies declared bankruptcy anyway due to gross mismanagement and horrible business practices. From wikipedia: "In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[85] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[86] In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 [87] followed by General Motors a month later.[88]"
>>And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction.
There are an incredible number of government-business transactions that the taxpayer does not directly benefit from. In Tesla's case, I'd argue that the benefits were actually there. You may not be able to afford one of their cars, but having a high-tech electric car company enter the market and succeed against well-entrenched incumbents is in everyone's best interest. You may disagree but I think you'd (fortunately) be in the minority.
Cake and eat it too? These are completely unrelated issues. They took a loan and also they want to be able to sell their product. Sounds fair to me.
But this really comes down to voting. Why does a better funded candidate win? Because a TV ad convinced some idiot to vote for that candidate? I see informercials and "work from home and make millions" scams all the time. But I don't buy the product whatever it might be. Yet voters seemingly are completely ignorant. So candidates who are well funded by special interests end up winning. But often these anti-competitive practices are in primarily Democrat controlled areas. Uber is a great example: Austin, DC city councils for example are entirely Democrat and thus beholder to "labor" and anti-competitive practices. This isn't exclusively a democrat practice, however much of the time it is. The NY and San Francisco war against AirBnB for example is about collecting more taxes. The anti-competitive closed-shop system is entirely democrat supported. The endless taxes and regulation of business is a democrat obsession. Certain national democrats sometimes go against the trend, especially the tech-oriented. But the boots on the ground Democrats are especially prone to anti-competitive tendencies. Protectionism is a hallmark of the AFL-CIO and they completely support (and significantly fund) the Democrat party. I'm not saying "Republicans are good," there are plenty of shit Republicans, however philosophically, Democrats are anti-competitive by nature because the concept of the free market goes against their core values of so-called 'economic justice.' Honestly ask yourself, if this Tesla decision were in the hands of Rand Paul or John Conyers, who would be more likely to support the free market in this situation? Would Ronald Reagan be more likely to support Tesla that Obama? Almost certainly, based on their records. Obama for instance through his supporters on the NLRB have opposed companies such as Boeing to build non-Union factories -- which is in-effect the same thing we have with Tesla -- an attempt to maintain a type of monopoly and artificially constrain the free market in order to serve a specific narrow group of voters and interests. That's what's happening here: the auto dealers, just like the AFL-CIO did with Boeing, are attempting to artificially protect their monopoly position, to the detriment of the population as a whole. I know this comment won't win me many friends here, but I hope that everyone at least researches guys like Rand Paul -- not the propaganda (in either direction) but what he actually says and stands for. If we can get more politicians like him, then perhaps we can start to realize that we can have freer markets, more personal freedoms and perhaps a government that knows when to get out of the way (and knows when to get in the way.) If anyone has the time or the inclination, read the book 'Economics in One Lesson.'
The politician called out by name here, state senator Joe Hune, is a Republican. The Republican Party also controls the legislature that passed this bill: they hold a supermajority (68%) of seats in the Michigan Senate, and a majority (54%) of seats in the Michigan House. And, the governor is a Republican. So I doubt the explanation for this case, at least, can be laid specifically at the feet of the Democratic Party trying to restrict trade.
The destructive influence of lobbying is not restricted to a single party, as you seem to be arguing. Off the top of my head, I would point to three-strike laws, which strongly favour the (privatized) prison sector, or hawkish foreign policies, benefiting armament and security companies, as examples of areas in which Republican-directed lobbies have distorted US policy.
In the Netherlands, we call this corruption.
(It happens too, but so openly? Don't you guys have rules against this? Or media who like scandals?)