You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
95% plus of voters back Tesla's position.
Not to mention that Tesla has the constitution on their side. I can't believe the constitution would allow a state to make it illegal to sell a legal product absent a dealership agreement.
Tesla doesn't. There are lots of choices for cars.But it is also against the law to have an monopoly on a single product.
But it is also against the law to have an monopoly on a single product. Direct car sales is great, if they can sell them through independent retailers. We cannot just look at it from one point of view, it is best to understand the legality of it from every aspect.
But it is also against the law to have an monopoly on a single product.
But it is also against the law to have an monopoly on a single product. Direct car sales is great, if they can sell them through independent retailers. We cannot just look at it from one point of view, it is best to understand the legality of it from every aspect.
... The problem actually becomes recursive, if you think about it too much...
Yes, lets do that - where do retailers get the cars to sell to end customers? They all would need to go to Tesla.But it is also against the law to have an monopoly on a single product. Direct car sales is great, if they can sell them through independent retailers. We cannot just look at it from one point of view, it is best to understand the legality of it from every aspect.
But it is also against the law to have an monopoly on a single product. Direct car sales is great, if they can sell them through independent retailers. We cannot just look at it from one point of view, it is best to understand the legality of it from every aspect.
Evil Robert, evil! Now you have me thinking about it - how do I get out of this!
Back to the Bloomberg article:
If I were a Tesla PR guy, I'd be unhappy with this article. Tesla isn't trying to topple car dealers. Tesla is trying to sell its products to its customers in the way it chooses, and it's chosen not to use franchised dealers for good and sufficient reasons. I'm sure that Tesla really doesn't care about disrupting how its competitors sells cars. If anything, Tesla is probably delighted that its competitors use the least-trusted and least-liked distribution channel; it gives Tesla a competitive advantage.
But it is also against the law to have an monopoly on a single product. Direct car sales is great, if they can sell them through independent retailers. We cannot just look at it from one point of view, it is best to understand the legality of it from every aspect.
Franchised monopolies are an entirely different kettle of fish. Your utility, PG&E, has a monopoly but is also required to submit all of its prices to the California Public Utilities Commission for approval. It doesn't make sense to have two or more sets of wires running down your street to provide competition to PG&E. Tesla is not at all like PG&E: you can readily by a car from dozens of sources, so there's no need to set up an elaborate regulatory scheme to keep prices reasonable.The whole monopoly thing is bs IMO, in Northern California there is only 1 company you can get your electricity from. You can do without a car, but you cannot do without electricity. I know this is very simplistic but there are many example these kinds of monopolies it just gets back to the money. Who has more of it to spread around to the politicians, which in turn gives the special interest the ability to get what they want. I could go on and on but I will not.
Hopefully the base case has a stopping condition...
Tesla is only a monopoly for selling, servicing, and maintaining Tesla cars.