On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:32:41 Jim Elwell wrote: >... >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)... 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. > 'Course. However, please don't forget that there is also 'another school of economics thought' that thinks otherwise. They, too, have merits of similar caliber! ... >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. > Indeed. However, since there is plenty in favor of SI on that score, nobody should be considered 'nuts' if they promoted such switch over. Actually that is precisely what happened to many industries that in the past were solidly behind 'colloquial measurements'. What's missing then from some sectors of the economy is a little bit of goodwill and courage to do the same in their respective areas.
>>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. > ?? I honestly couldn't follow your rationale, Jim, sorry... Adrian's point was that they all succeeded in adopting the SI *thanks to regulatory models*, and NOT thanks to 'market forces'! Now, the presence of strong metric strongholds DOES serve as a deterrent to the proliferation of ifp, but ONLY as long as they'd be willing to put up the same kind of resistance you guys of the ifp camp have been doing to keep certain industries solidly in the darkness, like aviation, TV sets, construction, etc!... ;-) >>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... > Now, here Jim has a point. I also don't believe that this would happen. There are enough units out there already, unless some brand new technology comes up that would behoove the creation of some new sets of units (very unlikely). I guess Adrian's point should have been that without such 'regulated standards' there would be chaos with regards to the utilization of units of measurements, as many could argue in favor of unit x versus unit y or versus unit z, etc. Just like one sees with the yard crap, that is apparently much more favored by the British while Americans would prefer the foot. ... >>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!! But here I must vehemently disagree! Jim seems to be forgetting that if entire industries today ended up adopting the SI as their *new* 'standard' they did so because of SI's merits (largely)! I don't think Jim would call these industries 'fools' because they did it in spite of the overwhelming presence of ifp, would you, Jim?... ;-) In other words, I honestly cannot find ONE reason that would be enough to call someone's plans to switch to metric 'foolish', even if the *entire planet* used ifp!!! Why? Because of the fundamental advantages that the SI system provides its users! Soon enough those that switched would start kicking competitors' butts by being able to cost produce products in much more economically-advantageous ways. (Evidently other factors must also be taken into consideration, like how sensitive such products could be to consumers' resistance to change, support of suppliers and other chains involved in vertical integration, etc) > 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. > Yes and no, actually. Technically speaking obviously, but practically speaking? Forget it! It's not because something 'works' due to its framework being well-defined and what not that it *should* be used. Sooner or later the tremendous logistic problems emerging from their usage would end up catching up with them. True, use technology to overcome such shortcomings, but again, one must not forget that the bottleneck is **humans**!!! I'm not saying that we couldn't go on with idiocies like our current time construct, but simply that the opportunity costs would still be there. Or can anyone deny that we have been missing quite a bit by keeping these archaic things??? >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. >... At first the above sounds logical and reasonable. However, Jim is missing the 'power' factor, i.e. that it's the powerful who ultimately calls the shots! And if he continues to be adamantly opposed to change, guess what's going to happen?... Aviation has been a clear example of that, even though SI is slowly showing its teeth in this market. Hopefully sooner or later the likes of Boeing, Goodrich, Bombardier, etc will realize why they have been losing and losing market share... ;-) (one of the reasons, obviously...) Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
