On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 21:40:03 Carl Sorenson wrote: >To all those interested in a mature discussion: >Marcus, I didn't mean to imply that Americans should be able to push other >people around because we are big.
I know, Carl. I guess I did understand what you meant, that basically it would be natural for ANY country in such a position to "have its way". My point though was (and always will be!) that such privileged position should NEVER be used to do that! Again, it goes to attitude/mentality. > I don't think that we are an example of >the "powerful conquering the weak". You may not feel this way, but unfortunately most of US trade and political practices do seem to show that. Mergers, acquisitions, financial speculations (especially against poorer countries), protectionist laws, subsidies, embargoes (especially to Cuba), walking out of international protocols (like Kyoto), plots to support dictatorships and/or coups in foreign countries (like in Venezuela recently, and Iraq, possibly in near future!), use of political influence to advance its own causes, selling of "global" (SIC) products with exclusive ifp content (as if they were "the norm" (S-I-C!!!)), TABD lobbying, help to poor countries slashed or virtually eliminated, significant increases in military expenditures (all in the name of combating terrorism - yeah, right!... :-( )... Do I need mention more, my friend?... (Food for thought) > It is just natural that trade >organizations lobby to get products in units that customers are most >familiar with. While it doesn't please the rest of the world, it probably >pleases the some stockholders and some customers. You can call both groups >shortsighted and I wouldn't disagree, but it is a far cry from "forcing >one's way onto other people". I'd have no problem with that. However, when it comes to **international trade practices** the US is VERY AWARE of the reality of metric in other countries. Yet, they still think they should sell treadmills in mph (SIC) in Brazil, aircraft with stupid knots, feet, psi, lb all over the world (right after WWII), computer gadgetry stated in inches (S-I-C), perfumes, cosmetics with ifp content in Europe, exporting of sports, like CART, football, golf, in ifp, and the list could go on and on and on. If this is not 'forcing one's way onto other people' I honestly don't know what is (sorry...). > We aren't about to start any wars over this! > I sincerely hope not, but I won't hold my breath if or when push came to shove... >The reason I mentioned a tax write-off is that there are initial costs to >metricating. If a builder wanted to make a house using metric measures and >materials, it would be a major challenge finding the tools and supplies if >the builder is used to simply going to the local hardware store. Once >vendors are located, though, and product lines are established, it would >become easier and cheaper. If corporations metricated 1% of their >operations to get a write-off, that 1% would open up the infrastructure to >let the rest of us metricate a lot easier. I guess we have no disagreement on this, Carl. But, please, let me emphasize again to you that such 'initial costs' have been blown out of proportion and are only but ONE "piece of the overall puzzle". Blaming lack of metrication plans on such initial parameter is shortsightedness to say the least. > Even if they write-off costs >that are exaggerated, it would still be encouraging voluntary metrication >and it would be more of a subsidy, in that case. Without a specific >financial carrot, most decision-makers probably just don't think about >metrication much, or couldn't convince their boss if they did. Again, no argument here. That's why this carrot approach has been in my strategic plan for metrication of the US from the start. > This idea >would require a major political commitment, though, so it probably is not >our immediate next step. >... That's precisely why I think we should strive to achieve. Metrication without the support and/or strong government action is ludicrous (at least timewise). Noone here knows of ANY successful metrication attempt by ANY country on earth that did NOT involve *strong* governmental commitment to it, that's an undisputed fact! However, since you're new to the group, I'm sure you'll hear differing opinions from mine on this from some here (like the ones who believe that "drops in the ocean" bring about any real major progress to the picture). But, again I insist, facts speak for themselves and "drops in the ocean" do not hold up upon closer scrutiny after all. And on this even those who defend it end up having to acknowledge it. So, so far, as far as the US is concerned, it's all been wishful thinking yet, that the US IS metricating, and that's why we're still here debating it and why USMA STILL exists... Sigh... Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
