Why does Chris Christie hate the free market

Datsun1500 wrote: Do you demand to know exactly what Best Buy paid for the TV, so you can decide fair profit?

At no point have I suggested that I dictate or even know what the dealer makes.

What I want is for Nissan and Toyota to compete with one another by offering their cars at prices which the dealers don't berkeley with so I can make an informed decision about which one I want, rather than trying to decide which one I want while also researching what other people have paid so I know how badly I'm being taken for a ride when they tell me that they can get one in the color I want, but this month's incentive won't apply because they'll have to truck it over.

If all the dealerships are playing by the same rules, I don't need to know what they make, because the competition between the Nissan shop and the Toyota shop will hopefully cause them to keep things sane.

You know, supply and demand in a competitive marketplace.

z31maniac wrote: Or would rather every retailer HAS to sell for the exact same price?

You're kidding yourself if you don't believe every retailer sells for about the same profit/price. A car is a car is a car, it's absurd that the price can vary up to 20% just BECAUSE.

As stated by others, thats infuriating. I don't mind paying somebody a reasonable price with a reasonable profit, but I do mind when the game is RIGGED and everyone plays it as such to squeeze every last dime out of you.

Once again, this comes down to a mindset, which is either (what is best for everybody) or (what is best for the person with the money). The current system is best for the people with the money, therefore, why on EARTH would I like a system that is designed to penalize me?

In reply to HiTempguy:

I think everyone might be missing the key component here which is time. When I buy a commodity on amazon I just decide what I want and I make the purchase. Going forward people want to spend less time making purchases of any kind. Those customers are beginning to expect the same experience that they have Online. This amazon sales experience is driving change. Auto purchases are not materially different than buying a car.

The reality is that Tesla is not trying to break the dealer cabal, they are just trying to provide a modern online sales experience. Perhaps dealers can provide that in the future, but currently they do not compete with amazon. Dealers do not have to provide that experience currently but that day is coming.

I think it is funny that people are upset about paying excessive dealer (or manufacturer) markups, but don't seem to mind that Tesla is doing this to try to maximize THEIR markups.

As I said earlier, this has nothing to do with Chris Christie.

Tesla is grandstanding.

They have figured out how to get an enormous amount of free advertising by taking a "free market position", while undermining the wholesale/ retail relationship in order to maximize their profits per unit.

mattm, I agree that they are trying to provide a "modern" purchasing experience (including doubling their markup). But crying about New Jersey's position (when they KNEW it would happen) is nothing more than working the media.

And a LOT of people are falling for it (in this thread).

Tesla is a boutique product. It will NEVER be sold in a "normal" way. If they think it will sell better without dealers, they will do it. If they think it will sell better with leggy girls serving champagne and caviar, they will do it.

NOTHING they are doing or advocating will effect the average car buyer, or change the average car buying experience. So, the "modern buying experience" they are offering is fine if you want to park your Tesla on the dock next to your yacht, but it offers nothing to the rest of us.

One more attempt guys.

This really has nothing to do with the buying experience, the price, or the scams.

Why should any law mandate that any consumer cannot buy any product from the manufacturer?

tuna55 wrote: One more attempt guys. This really has nothing to do with the buying experience, the price, or the scams. Why should any law mandate that any consumer cannot buy any product from the manufacturer?

It shouldn't.

I thought we were past that part?

z31maniac wrote:

tuna55 wrote: One more attempt guys. This really has nothing to do with the buying experience, the price, or the scams. Why should any law mandate that any consumer cannot buy any product from the manufacturer?

It shouldn't. I thought we were past that part?

So if we all agree that there should be no law, then why are you all still bickering about how good or bad dealers are?

tuna55 wrote: One more attempt guys. This really has nothing to do with the buying experience, the price, or the scams. Why should any law mandate that any consumer cannot buy any product from the manufacturer?

I was going to write a whole ton of stuff but Tuna just arrowed right on target with this.

If you advocate for a free market/smaller LESS INTRUSIVE government, how can you be for this law mandating government influence into a transaction between a citizen and a private company? This goes even further against conservative principles if you look a bit deeper.

So, guys arguing for this law, explain how you rationalize this contradiction.

In reply to Xceler8x:

Who argued in support of the law? The only thing I've seen that made any sense was there was a law on the books long ago(like several other states) that probably should have died. The rest of the posts in this thread seem to be bitching/pissing/moaning about dealer, manufaturor, etc markups or about how dealerships suck.

FWIW, several of our suppliers will tell an end consumer to berkeley off if they contacted them directly.