On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:56:33 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >>Indeed.... 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. > >I think that what is missing is education. There are very few businesses >who, if they saw a financial benefit in a reasonable time, would not start >switching. However, the financial benefits to metrication, although real, >are not all that obvious to many people. > Excellent point! Agreed! Perhaps we could do more to *show* these businesses what they can actually do with SI! ... >What I am saying is this: even if you believe that other countries could >ONLY have metricated via interventionist methods, that does not mean the >same applies to the USA, because the economic environment the USA faces at >this point in time is substantially different than faced by these other >countries. > Hmm... Perhaps, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but... what could be so different 'economic-environmentwise' about the USA that would cause the standard approach to metrication to fail? (Please remember that it may be fair to say that metrication failed in the US because the original plan introduced by US administration was not given a chance to come to a full completion!) Could you please elaborate? ... >If you disagree with my conclusion to that premise, Marcus, then are you >saying that some country (or industry) in the world should switch to some >more rational time measurement system, the rest of the world be damned? > Perhaps, why not? However, action in this regard would have to be carefully planned though. I do not advocate a blind transition without looking at all the issues involved. On the other hand, sometimes one must exercise that "leap of faith" if you're a man of vision despite potential odds against you! This is the usual challenge with human kind, for people to take that step for change and abide by it. If you're absolutely convinced of the merits of your position and you have somehow been able to amass enough tangible proof in its favor, I'd say you should "go for it", albeit responsibly!!!
>I stand by my statement: switching to a different measurement system >contrary to everyone else in the world is foolish. If you disagree, do you >have some kind of metric clock in your house? > He, he... The only reason I don't have a 'metric clock' here is because I'm still coming to grips with what clock system would be THE best! I remember I started this kind of debate with a fellow member here (Duncan, perhaps...), but have not come to a definitive conclusion as to the model of metric clock I should adopt! One thing I know though, *for sure*. Any 'metric clock' would have an obvious advantage *technically* speaking compared to our current system. The question though is, if we're going through the hassle of change, what model should we adopt? I'd say, the model that would be reasonably... "definitive". And since I can't honestly claim I found such a model, I continue to debate about it. Fair? >>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. > >I think this is a mighty narrow view. If you are using a system that is so >out of step with the rest of the world, then you will be dealing with >substantial *increases* in costs, as well as the benefits derived from your >"better" system. A blanket statement that the benefits are so wonderful >ignores a big part of the cost equation. > I'm evidently aware of this factor, Jim. But, if the benefits of the SI system were not that significant it would not have had the chance to overcome all the others, including the ifp system, in many industries. Agreed? Therefore, I'm evidently surmising that one would come ahead by making the transition, regardless of the industry in question! True, each industry would have to undergo a more thorough analysis of the benefits of change. But I continue to be absolutely convinced that the ONLY difference would be on *when* one will end up recovering its initial investment! ;-) For your info, Jim, I did a similar study of this type of issue concerning the change of grading systems in North America from the near unanimous hideous 4.0-alfa grade scale to a decimal one, and I discovered based on my assumptions that regardless of how heavy the initial costs were, **provided** savings were made year after year operationally (as you conceded it could be the case!), corrected for the discount rates, evidently. This can even be shown mathematically to be true *regardless*! It's this simple: Imagine the following series: year 0: -X year 1: +x year 2: +x, etc. ... year n: +x (X being as humongous as you want it to be! And x as small as you want it to be, too! Both values 'constant' dollars, and x corrected for real rate of interest, evidently, i.e. x is keeping up with both inflation and real rate of interest) NPV=-X+n*x>0, for a given n, regardless of the discount (interest) rate assumed! Note: If you don't like x following the real rate of interest (i'), fine. It would suffice for x to be > i'*X for NPV to be positive! (true, timewise, n-> infinity is not something that would thrill management... ;-) ) ... >>Yes and no, actually. Technically speaking obviously, but practically >>speaking? Forget it! > >I think the economic success of the USA proves you wrong on this point, Marcus. >... I don't think so! All it proves is that you're still being able to turn up a profit using ifp, but at what cost??? Now, imagine a fictitious competitor being able to capitalize fully on the benefits of the SI. He'll certainly kick your butt, sooner or later (just a matter of time - and this is happening BTW in the aerospace industry, Boeing vs. Airbus! Again, evidently there are other factors to take into account in such analysis, but I'm convinced that the SI has been one tremendously positive factor here, certainly vis-a-vis Bombardier vs. Embraer!...)! Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
