Bill Potts wrote:
>
> Jim:
>
> Here are some embryonic ramblings on a couple of your points. I don't
> pretend, of course, that they can be discussed exhaustively in a short time.
>
> > I would have filed a lawsuit based
> > on the "takings" clause (5th amendment), because it would have
> > destroyed the
> > value of several injection molds worth over $200,000. If such a law passed
> > today, my company won't suffer, but you can bet that a
> > significant number of
> > the 15 million or so businesses in the country will, and they
> > will file such lawsuits.
>
> I think your example assumes a worst-case scenario with respect to directed
> metrication. I don't think any of us would want laws so draconian that they
> would require replacement of expensive equipment that was not yet fully
> depreciated.
I agree with that. Only in cases involving human health and safety does
the government tend to disregard these things. Even in the case of the
Clean Air Act and its kin, plants had something like 5 y to modify
equipments. During that time I would imagine they took accelerated
depreciations on their old equipments. The Underground Storage Tank
issue is another that comes to mind. The government provided advanced
warning and many companies availed themselves of that opportunity to
make obsolete underground tanks at a time favorable to them. The
replacement costs (writeoffs) probably helped defray modernization
costs. The ones who did themselves in were the ones who disregarded the
deadline dates and ended up paying something like $10 000 per day per
gasoline dispenser.
....
> Remember, though, that the issue is not one of private sale, but of the sale
> of goods in the public marketplace. I see nothing wrong with compelling
> large corporations (e.g., Gillette) to package and label in SI units
> (particularly as they have already shown they are capable of doing so in
> other markets) The other end of the scale (flea markets, garage sales, etc.)
> is obvious. Only a zealot would require them to conform. Mom and Pop
> operations are less clear and would, I think, require a fairly tolerant
> approach. However, as much of what such operations sell is produced by large
> companies, the onus would be on the large companies to conform. I would hope
> that older, non-perishable items, still in inventory, would be exempt.
Many, many times the government has grandfathered inventories and has
also exempted, or delayed compliance requirements for, business under a
certain size. Certainly care would have to be taken to ensure the same
thing happens here.
....
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
