- Obama not worried about Ebola at upcoming African summit in D.C.
- Obama: ‘We tortured some folks’ after 9/11
- Obama administration asked whole D.C. Circuit to take on major Obamacare case
- Mark Levin: Topple GOP leadership or country will ‘unravel’
- Massachusetts to let police chief deny gun buys to those deemed unfit
- John Kerry condemns attack on Israeli soldiers, kidnapping
- U.S. starts to evacuate American Ebola patients from West Africa: Report
- Geraldo slammed as ‘dummy’ for backing Clinton’s bin Laden claim
- Israeli spokesman: No need to debate who broke the cease-fire
- 35 Palestinians killed; Israeli officer missing
POWELL: Affording Tesla the freedom to fail
Consumers pay more when government restricts markets
Question of the Day
New Jersey recently joined Texas, Arizona, Maryland and Virginia in banning direct auto sales to consumers. That touched off an uproar on the left and right, and many consumers remain confused. They can be grateful for one clear statement of what the ban is really about.
“If you allow someone to come into the market with no overhead, that’s an unfair advantage,” says Deborah Dorman, president of the Eastern New York Coalition of Auto Dealers. She represents traditional automakers who use a dealer network to distribute their cars.
They don’t like competition and want the government to forcibly prevent companies from selling directly to consumers in order to protect old and potentially inefficient distribution networks from being displaced. Such bans impede consumers from finding the best deal through the market’s discovery process.
The company received a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy to support the development of its Model S, which retails for more than $70,000. The Japanese government subsidized Panasonic to develop the lithium-ion batteries that power Tesla cars. Tesla sells California zero-emissions credits to other companies for revenue.
Of course, there is also the $7,500 federal tax break for each purchase of a Tesla electric car. That wasn’t enough for Tesla, though, and the company is now seeking subsidies from the Chinese government.
Some might claim that these loans, policies and tax incentives aren’t subsidies at all. Rather, they are payments for reducing global warming. Consumers should remain cool to such nonsense.
Anything short of a worldwide policy addressing global warming will accomplish relatively little in changing carbon-dioxide emissions. To the extent that more widespread use of electric cars in the United States lessens our demand for oil, it depresses the price of oil compared to what it would have been, and simply leads to greater oil consumption in other parts of the world.
In the United States, the quest for green energy has become a racket. It’s a classic case in which bootleggers join with the Baptists and hijack public policy. Ultimately, well-meaning bootleggers join environmentalists and end up enriching crony capitalists.
Tesla and other electric-car manufacturers are not the only crony capitalists in the auto industry. A few years back, the federal government bailed out General Motors, also known as Government Motors, to the tune of more than $50 billion. The real problem here is government intervention in the auto industry.
New York and Ohio are in the process of following New Jersey and others states in implementing restrictions on direct auto sales. They should hold off on such bans. Tesla and all other companies should be free to distribute their automobiles however they see fit.
In a free market, consumers would ultimately pass judgment on which methods are best through buying and abstaining from buying. The real lesson is that government should neither arbitrarily penalize nor subsidize either “green” or traditional auto companies.
If the government left the auto industry alone, market prices would dictate which technologies should go into the production of automobiles and how those cars should be delivered to consumers. Inefficient technologies and distribution systems would eventually get weeded out. Some companies would win and some would lose, but all consumers would be better off.
Benjamin Powell is the director of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, visiting professor in the Rawls College of Business and a senior fellow with the Independent Institute (independent.org).
TWT Video Picks
By Orrin G. Hatch
Procedural changes impede the chamber's traditional deliberative function
Get Breaking Alerts
- House GOP resurrects border bill, predicts successful Friday vote
- Border agents cleared of civil rights complaints from illegal immigrant children
- Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
- U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with Hamas
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Porn-surfing feds blame boredom, lack of work for misbehavior
- Feds raid S.C. home to seize Land Rover in EPA emission-control crackdown
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Ted Nugent slams 'lying freaks' at liberal media: I'm 'doing God's work'
- ON THE RUN: Competition for Redskins backup running back is heating up