Legislators won’t allow direct sales of cars because it will cost jobs and revenues, and won’t likely benefit consumers.
…and I think I have said the above at least 5 times.
Okay. So are you defending that claim or arguing against it?
As I said in post #12…
As a person with no stake in the matter I would be inclined to let people sell cars directly, but if my job were to protect the state’s interest I am not sure that I would.
You’ve said a great deal but it’s beyond TLDR - I am trying to get you to summarize your thoughts and I doubt I’m the only one who needs it. 
I believe I said somewhere back in TLDR-land that you seemed to be arguing all sides of the issue. You’re more or less confirming that here.
So do you think 3 states are wrong, or 47? Do you really think laws predating WWII and applying to economic, communication and consumer issues not much seen since then are a sensible basis for enforcing dealer-based sales today, given the 0.064 rate of support today?
This is a false dichotomy. States can and should do whatever is in their best interest, and that decision is based on state specific facts and figures.
You figures are wrong. Tesla cannot sell cars in TX, VA, MD, AZ, and NJ. In GA, they can only sell 150 cars/year. In CO, their one store was grandfathered in, but not more will be built. NY and OH have pending laws to restrict sales. There are actually only 3 states that have specifically addressed the issue in a light favorable to Tesla. Most other states haven’t address the laws on their books that speak to the issue.
When the laws were written is not really relevant at all.
Done here, thanks.
I see what you are saying, but what is it about buying a car from a dealership that makes a car less likely to harm or injure people? I can get just as drunk and drive my dealership purchased car as I can a car bought entirely online. The safety features required in the cars are enforced in production, not at the point of sale.
Further a house doesn’t require middle men. Anyone can buy a house from their neighbor with cash today and write the transaction on a napkin. Now, if you want protection from subsequent purchasers, you need to record your napkin and hire a lawyer to make sure that the required information is there. If you want to make sure that your neighbor has good title, you have to hire a lawyer to do a title search, etc. but these are all optional.
The middle men in a house transaction are only there when you are borrowing money to buy the house and they are there for the bank’s protection, not the consumer’s.
I can’t think of any consumer protection that the dealer adds that couldn’t also apply to the online company.
I was mostly discussing the differences between cars and TVs, and why the former is more heavily regulated. But even in this example, I think having a local presence where people interact face to face makes it less likely someone is going to knowingly put your safety at risk. Additionally, servicing and recalls are made easier. That said, I agree that if there is an effect, it is fairly minimal.
I can buy a car from my neighbor too. What I cannot do is actively sell houses or cars for profit in most jurisdictions without a license of some sort.
Some of those restrictions are for the bank, but many are for consumers as well.
They could, but they are much harder to regulate. How can NJ, for example, regulate a company with no physical presence in its state?
Easily - through the business licensing process. Once you have a physical presence in the state, the state can regulate your actions that are in the state.
You mentioned revenues in one of your posts - the same numbers of cars will be sold by Tesla regardless of whether they go through dealers or directly - so I don’t understand your revenue argument. Tesla wants revenue in New Jersey. New Jersey has decided it would rather Tesla sell in New York and Pennsylvania, and keep the jobs out of state. I don’t think the desires of New Jersey are winning this round (any more than Texas is winning with their showrooms where they can’t talk price).
Are you purposely misreading what I wrote? The question was:
[QUOTE=Brickbacon]
How can NJ, for example, regulate a company with no physical presence in its state?
[/QUOTE]
Again, if Tesla or any other company, has no physical presence in a state, how is that state going to regulate the company, or control their residents who interact with that company?
Only because their customers are generally not price sensitive. So even if having a dealership increases costs a bit, I doubt it would be a huge hindrance for their consumers.
NJ and other states are benefiting because allowing Tesla to sell cars directly means allowing everyone to sell cars directly. As a result, other manufacturers’ dealerships will lose money, close down, fire employees, etc. No state really gives too much of a shit what Tesla, at its current size, does. The issue is upsetting the dealership model which has lots of money, jobs, and revenue tied up in it.
I have stated this at least a dozen times. Why are you asking essentially the same question that has been asked a million times before?
Commentary from Harvard Business Review on the subject:
Because you continue to say revenue is an issue in your response, even though there is ZERO revenue impact. The dealer model does little for the consumer (see the Harvard Business Review commentary I posted). Selling directly IN STATE offers the same amount of revenue and service.
The only reason there would not be a presence is because the State won’t allow a direct sales model. I have had two different legal fights. I forced GM into arbitration, even though I purchased through a dealer. The truck (the mid-80s diesel engine Suburban) was shit and a lemon. They gave me a new truck. The second time was a dealer’s service dept. They went bankrupt before I could collect.