Free markets make for a level playing field, ensuring the best products get to the consumers at the lowest price by rewarding hard working people who go the extra mile to bring the people what they want….except when someone other than the established upper class might take some of their wealth away. Then “free” markets make laws to ban that shit immediately.
The illusion that capitalism benefits anyone other than the haves over the have-nots is laid bare once again, this time in the automotive industry. Recently there have been two articles about Tesla Motors at wired.com that caught my interest.
For those who haven’t heard of them, Tesla makes electric cars that actually look cool. That whole ‘you gotta be some kind of nerdy hipster to do away with gas guzzlers’ thing? Tesla says “Fuck that shit. Our cars will not only run on batteries, they will also look so awesome that autophiles will bust a nut at the sight of them.” Currently they cater a relatively wealthy demographic, but they are continually getting closer to producing an electric car that the masses could feasibly acquire.
The first article looks at how maintaining an electric vehicle requires so much less than a traditional gas car. No oil, pistons, air filters, pumps, belts, spark plugs, or any of that myriad of other bits and pieces that car garages charge you through the nose to look after for you. All this makes other car dealers very unhappy. These problems that Tesla is trying to make better is how car shops make money. In their eyes, selling the public a sub-standard product is preferable as it will ensure years of expensive repairs. On top of that, Tesla is offering flat rate plans for what little maintenance one might need for their electric car, rather than charging for each and every little thing they do. If the public ever got used to ideas like that, it would be the end of both seedy garages that will screw you out of a couple hundred bucks as well as the posh dealership garages that will screw you out of thousands.
The second article looks at how Tesla sells its vehicles. Apparently Tesla is trying to make the process of buying a car not suck gangrenous donkey sack. By selling only direct over the internet, Tesla stores are located in malls, not lots; staffed with informative promoters, not pushy salesmen; providing a consistent experience across stores, not a terrifying crap shoot. Taking away the dealership middleman may make things fantastically better for the customer, but threatens another crux of the established car industry. Oh the horror! If this catches on, people would stop putting up with manipulative pressuring assholes car salespeople, who would then, in turn, have to get some other job.
So this all sounds great. A new age of cleaner cars, better buying experiences, and a substantial drop in the sleaziness that the average person is exposed to. Except that the only losers in this scenario, the car dealers, have lots and lots of money. Enough money to buy big powerful lobbyists. But but we live in democracy with a free market, right? Whatever. People with money say no go. New Jersey has now banned Tesla stores, as car dealer lobbyists insist that Tesla’s better way of doing things gives them an unfair advantage. Legal battles like this are happening in many other places across the states.
A very grim and cynical part of me thinks it’s hilarious when capitalism advocates point at the corruptibility and horror of other economic systems. All the “free” market does is allow oppressors to pretend that they have earned the right to screw over the masses. Once stymying collective progress becomes easier and/or more profitable than short term individual gains, that invisible hand is much more likely to be used to beat down the public, rather than be any kind of positive force.
7 comments
March 20, 2014 at 6:57 am
stephenpruis
Don’t forget Texas and Arizona did the same. Now, which of these states is not like the other? Answer: none they are all Republican-led states; you know “Free Market” Republicans.
LikeLike
March 20, 2014 at 9:18 am
john zande
This is just the kind of thing that might make we customers mighty angry.
LikeLike
March 20, 2014 at 1:29 pm
bleatmop
The only freedom Republicans want in markets is for the freedom of their markets to dominate the globe. Any deviation from this is pinko-commie bullshit that must be legislated away.
That said, those care are freaking phenomenal. I would love to have one. Although is there any word on if they function in the -60C windchills that we occasionally get here every winter in Alberta?
LikeLike
March 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Mystro
@bleatmop
Cold weather concerns me too, but it seems Tesla is ahead of most electric cars on that front too. The batteries have some climate control, so in winter, the battery will use some of it’s juice to keep itself from freezing. So, if one were to keep it plugged in while not driving, cold shouldn’t be a problem. From what little I’ve read, they lose about 15-30% of range in extreme cold from overcoming extra friction from snow and winter tires, and keeping the car warm. However, there wasn’t much I could find on our kind of winter.
In short, it seems Tesla’s view of winter is: mostly harmless.
LikeLike
March 20, 2014 at 8:41 pm
jasonjshaw
Reblogged this on Government Simplified and commented:
Bullying isn’t just a problem in our schools, it is also a problem in the “free market” economy.
LikeLike
March 21, 2014 at 9:49 am
VR Kaine
Wired.com has some great stuff, and the Tesla’s are cool.
As a capitalist, I’m all for Tesla trying to disrupt any part of the oligarchy (as you put it) that exists, and by that I mean any part of the model – sales, distribution, service, operations, etc.. In a “free” market which a true capitalist believes in (and by “free” I mean one that includes necessary government protections for contracts, IP, etc.) there would be few (if any) barriers to entry to newcomers. Here I think we’re in total agreement.
As food for thought, where I disagree is on three points:
1) Why does the oligarchy exist? Because the people you and I elect work to keep it that way and allow it to thrive. The big automakers wouldn’t have the power that they do if government didn’t keep creating protectionist rules and propping them up financially.
2) The second one isn’t a direct disagreement per se, but a disagreement by omission – you neglect to point out that Tesla, even though profitable and that its founder is a bazillionaire, continues to receive tax breaks and free government handouts.
They were propped up in the beginning (which I MIGHT not have a problem with), but your article seems to indirectly support and be OK with the government continuing to hand out free money a) where it isn’t needed, and b) for a billionaire to build what are simply ego toys for rich people when that government money could be going to help “the have not’s” by way of more social services, and c) in a fashion that you yet critize in your title and first paragraph?
3) Your comment: “The illusion that capitalism benefits anyone other than the haves over the have-nots is laid bare once again, this time in the automotive industry.”
Um, no. The mistake here is thinking that the “have not” determination is only made by money. As far as capitalism is concerned, the only “have not’s” are people who lack skills and aptitudes considered to be valuable to one another, or those who refuse to trade those skills and aptitudes for cash. It’s not just to do with wealth or material things. The idea of Tesla, the idea of its business model, the idea of even an electric car is valuable and one does not have to be either a) rich to think that up, or b) rich to get that going. They don’t have to be a “Have”, and proof of this is widespread. In fact, there are a number of capitalists willing to back someone based upon the value of their idea and still leave that person with ownership of that idea. It’s why, and only through capitalism, that someone can be completely broke on their ass one day and then be able to actually afford a Tesla five years later.
What they do with their money AFTER they can afford that Tesla has not to do with capitalism, but with charity, and that is a whole other conversation. An interesting one, too, considering the food and charity one could provide to these so-called “have not’s” instead of making what is clearly an egotistical “I’m a 1%er look at the cool shit I can buy” purchase such as a Tesla.
LikeLike
March 21, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Mystro
@VR Kaine
1) So, big money influencing government is bad, an evil one would expect in an economic system where money rules all. Our electoral choices are ‘Person A who caters to Big Business over the people’ vs ‘Person B who caters to Big Business over the people’. This “disagreement” seems to reinforce my point rather than counter it.
2) Omitted as it isn’t relevant to the message of the post. Again, it seems you’re arguing for our side. What you wrote kinda reads as “Even IF Tesla was free from the influence of groups with tons of money, the capitalist system in place would still be screwing over poor people.” You’re highlighting that only a rich person has any chance against the super rich people and how inequity runs rampant in capitalism.
3) Maybe in your imaginary utopia where capitalistic ideals reign supreme. But back in the real world people with lots of money get all the breaks and they then go on to skew the game so it’s even harder for the poor to leave poverty, regardless of their skills and aptitudes. The power of those having money has shifted much too far into way too few hand for the principals you’re espousing to hold any real weight.
LikeLike