As Adrian did, here is a compilation of replies to numerous emails (mostly
his long one).
First, Adrian is correct that what I desire is similar to what Milton
Friedman has preached. This "hands-off" economic approach has a much, much
deeper and well-developed history than just Milton Friedman (not that he is
any lightweight). It's 20th century genesis started with Ludwig von Mises
("Austrian" economics) and Freiderick Hayek, and is still strongly pushed
by the highly-influential Chicago School of Economics. This includes
numerous Nobel-prize winning economists: Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase,
George Stigler come immediately to mind, and I know there are others.
In other words, this is not Jim Elwell's fantasy. This is a very broad and
very deep economic school of thought, and I am merely repeating what some
mighty influential economists have been studying for decades.
I partially disagree with Adrian's comment that this Chicago School allows
state regulation of loan interest rates. Some followers agree with this,
but many do not. And, in spite of his early involvement with Ayn Rand, many
who adherents consider Alan Greenspan more of a traitor than an ally.
I entirely disagree with Adrian's characterization of my "non-intervention
in metrication" as democratic. It is NOT democratic, it is capitalist. If
it were democratic we would take a poll and America would convert when 51%
of Americans wanted to. An absolutely horrendous approach -- if that were
the case then my company could not have legally metricated when it did.
Adrian writes:
>What I think misses from this picture is the fact that the industry will
>metricate because of their need to export .... If this factor was missing
>I doubt that there would be any need for the industry to metricate because
>every company functions by the principle of "minimal effort". ..
Actually, I agree with this entirely. Metric is not some holy grail. It is
a way of measuring. If I have a company that has millions of dollars of
assets and huge amounts of institutional knowledge and capabilities that
are tied to colloquial measurements, I would be nuts to switch to metric
without some monetary justification, such as increased exports or better
efficiency.
>In other words your theory works only in the presence of markets like
>Europe, Japan, China etc. which are requiring SI because they are already
>SI. Hey, but these countries never adopted SI in the first place by applying
>the non-interventionist model! They ALL adopted it by the regulatory model.
This means nothing whatsoever. They all adopted SI in spite of the world's
largest economy being colloquial. Clearly the circumstances with the US
adopting are quite different -- there IS the presence of all these
countries that have already converted.
>It will most likely create a huge confusion instead. Why? Because in the
>absence of regulated standards the industry will come up with "industry
>standards" and ... so you will then find such a pallet of units that no
>one would
>speak the same language anymore.
This is nothing but an historical straw man. No one is out there generating
new units for properties for which we already have them (which covers just
about everything). An absolutely free market in measurements today will NOT
generate some hodge-podge of new units of measure. Anyone who even tried to
invent new units for things already within the colloquial or metric system
would find no acceptance of their units.
>I was puzzled to find out from my brother-in-law that the AC
>are rated in BTU in Romania. Attention, not even BTU/h! ... When I told
>him that
>they should be rated in kW instead he looked at me in disbelief saying that
>the consumption of the AC is already in W but the cooling capacity is
>something else....So, my friend, this is what non-interventionism gives you.
No, this is what historical development gives you. Again, you are trying to
extrapolate occurrences from one set of circumstances to an entirely
different one. BTUs were "invented'" long before metric was universally
accepted. No one is going to go out today and create a new unit of measure
for power or energy, even if they can legally do so.
For that matter, there is NO law in the USA regulating units of measure on
most non-consumer products. Other than the plethora of historical units,
are companies out there generating new and non-standard units of measure?
No. Why would they? Where would the economic incentive be?
>Bottom line, if all the countries in the world would be ifp do you think
>they would ever change to SI just by the drive of the economy? If this was
>the case not even Star Trek would be metric!
Ah, here is the crux: if all countries were IFP, it would be incredibly
foolish for anyone to switch to metric!! Like it or not, IFP is a perfectly
workable measurement system, just like our base-60 time and our base-360
angular measurement, and probably lots of others.
SI is certainly more logical and consistent than IFP (although none of you
can deny that it is not entirely logical or consistent), and most countries
use it. Therefore, there is long-term economic incentive to metricate the
USA, and that is exactly why it is happening, and why it will continue.
Finally, regarding car companies, my company recently sold some products to
Ford Motor Company, using their logo. Their Logo Police sent us logo
specifications. They were entirely in hard metric -- no colloquial units
anywhere.
Jim Elwell
