Tesla Motors, Texas both acted against free market

News broke last week that Tesla, a California-based electric car company, had been banned from selling cars in several states due to lobbying pressure from existing car dealers. Though both sides in the debate are quick to claim they are fighting for a “free market,” there’s hypocrisy on both sides.

First, the governors. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is famous for saying Texas is “open for business.” He routinely cites the large numbers of people moving from California to Texas for better job opportunities. Yet Perry’s state was one of the most recent to block Tesla out.

If Perry is going to talk about the free market and open competition so often, he should make sure he practices those same values.

Letting Tesla in could drive all car prices down, reinventing the car sales model so it better benefits consumers.

Yet Tesla’s business practices are so controversial because the company sells directly to consumers, without utilizing franchised dealerships.

“The reason that we did not choose to do this is that the auto dealers have a fundamental conflict of interest between promoting gasoline cars, which constitute virtually all of their revenue, and electric cars, which constitute virtually none,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote in a blog post.

This of course does not sit well with car salesmen. “[Tesla] wanted to go direct, which means no sales force. That’s cutting out a lot of people. No way that’s gonna fly,” Tim Dougherty, a veteran car salesman, told The Verge.

Musk’s viewpoint relies on the economic theory of creative destruction, first developed by economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. Creative destruction discusses how we are initially resistant to new technologies or ways of doing things because of their perceived job-killing effects, only to find that the new development invents a whole new market we never dreamed of. For example, with the invention of mobile phones, many switchboard operators lost their jobs. But the net effect on the economy was positive, as an entire new industry was created.

Perry isn’t the only one with the mark of hypocrisy here. Musk, Tesla’s CEO, claims New Jersey’s ban on direct sales is “an affront to the very concept of a free market.”

However, looking at Tesla’s financials reveals the company has hardly been operating in a free market. Tesla received a $465 million loan at incredibly low rates from the government to help with startup costs.

To make matters worse, the federal government also offers a $7,500 tax credit to anyone who buys a Tesla. Some states match this credit from their own coffers, meaning some Tesla cars are government-subsidized by up to $15,000 dollars. This gives Perry and other governors some ground to stand on. If Musk really wants to preach about the virtues of the free market and unbridled competition, he should not be relying on the government to provide his company with special treatment.

In this case, the free market argument simply serves as a political tool on both sides. Let’s stop using it as that. Free of government subsidies and full of open, fair competition, the free market will provide the best value for consumers and states.

Danny Huizinga is a junior Business Fellow from Chicago. He is a guest columnist for The Lariat. Follow him @HuizingaDanny on Twitter.