Tesla Motors, the Big Three and Subsidiarity

New Jersey recently denied Tesla Motors the ability to sell its cars directly to its residents. Tim Worstall at Pando Daily quotes the NYT:

But most states have some limits on direct sales by auto manufacturers, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. These rules are generally meant to ensure competition, so that buyers can shop around for discounts from independent dealers, and to protect car dealers and franchises from being undercut by the automakers.

Worstall comments:

[T]hese regulations are simply the exertion of political power in order to gain cash (aka, screw the consumer) for those wielding the political power. There is no other justification or cause here. 

For those who might wonder about the future of the car dealers if the manufacturers are allowed to bypass them, the correct answer is “so fucking what?”

The manufacturer-to-dealer model is an old one. When the Big Three became behemoths, it wasn't cost effective to manage thousands of salesmen and local inventories. Better to franchise it out and let the local guys handle it.

It's a better model, generally speaking. Centralization is to human organization like entropy is to energy--the natural tendency. And, just as heat death is not a happy conclusion, a completely centralized organization is ultimately a mistake.

I might as well continue the metaphor. Mankind--and the proverbial Life, Itself--is an anti-entropic force. Humans, trees, microbes don't let things fall apart; they put things together. If anyone is wondering what position to take on the forces of universe, let me say this:  Our team opposes the forces of the universe.

This is the principle to take when looking at human organizations (speaking secularly):  What forces occur naturally should be generally opposed. On the right, bureaucracy is a known evil. Bureaucracy grows without legislation or dictate--the default position should always be against growth of bureaucracy. We should be thinking of it like ornamental shrubbery; without constant pruning it will grow beyond its intended use.

Likewise, we should always resist centralization. The weaknesses of centralization is a subject for another time. If power tends towards the center on its own, then our efforts should be toward dispelling it.

So, am I saying that the Big Three's manufacturer-to-dealership model is right and Tesla is wrong? Not the way things are set up today. Clearly, the laws are in place to protect the status quo, the status quo being that only the Big Three can sell cars nationwide.

The laws force upstart manufacturers to either partner with the Big Three for distribution or invest capital in developing a dealership system of their own. They've created a barrier against going to market, a barrier only the largest companies can overcome. That's oligopoly.

When No One Can Be Believed

Outside In quotes Jim:

The climategate files not only give us reason to disbelieve “Climate Science”, but discredit all peer reviewed science. Peer review means you don’t get the actual evidence, but rather the consensus about what the evidence should show if it was not so wickedly prone to evil heresy. Peer review means that a consensus is quietly established behind closed doors, and then the evidence is corrected to agree with the consensus. This maximizes the authority and prestige of official science, at the expense of disconnecting it from reality.

This principle has been on my mind lately. At my day job, our industry has just gone through another federally-mandated materials change. Without getting too specific, one of the materials has had a tiny amount of a toxic substance. The "safe" level of this substance was set most recently about twenty years ago. This year, the manufacturers were forced to include an even smaller amount of that substance.

I won't go into the hours of conversation I've heard about how the old level is no more dangerous than the new level. What has happened is that, due to the law's specificity, parts with the old level are still available for sale. They can't be used in all applications, but they are still out there.

Naturally, the change in materials required a lot of research and development, followed by retooling. The new parts are more expensive than the old. I'm sure that there are a large number of end-users who continue to use the old products in now-prohibited applications--it's just cheaper.

Here's the thing:  Now we have a product that the government has labeled "Unsafe." A year ago, it was "Safe." Scientifically, there's no real difference in the dangers between the two levels. Those in the know have no problem using the products labeled "Unsafe."

The sign saying, in effect, "Danger! Danger!" is now meaningless. The line between "safe" and "dangerous" is so far within the safety zone that no one is paying attention to it. Which means that the real danger is unmarked. If people have no hesitation using "unsafe" products that are actually safe, how will they know when they come across something that really is dangerous?

Jim's quote points to this from a different direction. If scientific consensus is so easily manipulated, then what scientific information can we believe?

I've been trying to project what this phenomenon becomes. I think that America's most prominent example is vaccine truthism.

This brand of skepticism comes from progressives. Hippie values say that the medical industry's goal is to pump us full of chemicals, driven by profit and unconcerned with the long-term consequences. Some parents still believe there's a link between vaccinations and autism. Others are concerned with the particular chemicals used to preserve the vaccines.

If a significant portion of the population rejects vaccination, then the public becomes a breeding ground for vaccine-proof diseases. The disease always has a safe zone from which it can mutate and re-attack the general public--and re-attack as many times as it takes to be successful. The danger is increased for all.

But we should be distrustful of the medical industry and the government that regulates it. The days of WASP paternalism are over; persuasion is no longer accomplished by cautious logic but by hysteria and/or money.

This is end-stage democracy--no authority can be trusted. Not just because they are dishonest but also because they don't know what they're talking about. The warning signs are meaningless--the whole terrain is wilderness.

The Gap's Wage Hike and Managing Low-Skill Employees

Business Insider tells us that Gap's Minimum Wage Hike Is Brilliant:

While the move could reduce profits in the short term, it's actually a brilliant business move, according to a note by retail analyst Dorothy Lakner at Topeka Capital Markets...Gap's higher wages will result in better customer service—and a happy clientele. 

I don't know about "brilliant." I suspect that The Gap is just trying to gain a little publicity by accepting the inevitable earlier than everybody else. It definitely makes them look good.

Higher wages for low-skill work isn't a bad idea, though. The problem with minimum-wage jobs is that no one involved places any value on the position, employer or employee. A couple of extra dollars on the paycheck--as long as it's more than other jobs in the area--gives employers leverage and employees incentive to fulfill expectations. I imagine there are a lot of PacSun employees talking about putting in applications at The Gap right now.

In my former restaurant life, the opposite attitude used to drive me crazy. When management doesn't take care that their servers are making money, good servers go elsewhere. Bad service drives down business permanently--with so many other options, customers are less willing to give second chances.

Above-average wages is a good management technique and tool, but "brilliant?" Well, that's just biz-news hyperbole.