TED Conversations

Drew Bixby

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Tesla was blocked from selling cars in Texas. Is this a bad sign?

In the book Why Nations Fail, (http://whynationsfail.com/) the authors argue that inclusiveness is what made the US great and extractive-ness is what makes nations like Venezuela fail. Very generally, inclusiveness means everyone has an equal opportunity to compete and the laws support such an environment. In contrast, extractive-ness is an environment where rules, over-regulation, political favors, and financial weight give preference to certain groups over others.

This case with Tesla seems very "extractive"/non-iinclusive by their definition. Is this just isolated or is this a bad sign for the state of things in the US?

In case you are not aware, here is a brief synopsis of the Tesla case:
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130604/green/130609929

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 17 2013: This is a molehill. You can't sell cars in Texas any other way than from a showroom. That's the way the ball bounces in the Lone Star State. Legislate to change it if you want, in fact, is that what this post is about? Are you starting a campaign to change the law? If not, I can only assume your point is to ask the rather strange question if it is a bad sign when the law is adhered to.
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2013: The post is not about changing this legislation. The post is whether this type of situation is a "canary in the coal mine" for a bigger issue about a non-inclusive environment as I mention above.

      And the question is not whether or not the law is being adhered to, but whether the laws in place are supportive of an inclusive environment. I appreciate your response, but from your tone I take it that you just accept whatever laws get passed and assume they are the best and final. Is that true?
      • thumb
        Jun 18 2013: I do not think you are warranted to accuse me of accepting all laws as eternal and unchangeable. I am absolutely not opposed to utilizing proper legislative channels to change existing laws. Every law is non-inclusive in some way. The purpose of any law is to disallow doing, or not doing, something. To break the law means to do something which is not allowed, or to not do something which is required. I still see only two possible purposes for your question: to illustrate the need to change a law; or to get people's opinions about if obeying the law is bad sign. Since the latter is obviously scant basis for a post, I assumed the former to be your motive. In a civilized free society obeying the law is never a bad thing. Not all laws are good, but all laws are binding upon the citizenry. Isn't your question asking if Texas should change the law to allow selling new cars without having a dealership showroom in the state?
        • thumb
          Jun 18 2013: Thank you for your perspective. I am sorry for my implied accusation. I apparently read too much into "that is the way the ball bounces."

          Regarding the purpose for the question, I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer than in my previous response.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.