Please, John and Jim, allow me to add a new... perspective into this interesting debate, albeit their being sort of already discussed before...
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 08:37:40 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >>UK traders have the option of pricing and weighing goods in pounds. If >>they wish to do this, then they must have dual pricing and dual scales. >>It is not permitted for the trader to price and weigh in imperial-only >>because of the possibility of error when converting to kilograms.... > >As I pointed out in an earlier email, this is just a backhanded way of >forcing metrication on those who do not want it. You can stand there all >day and claim he was not punished for selling in pounds, but, in effect, >that is EXACTLY what he was prosecuted for. The government refuses to >certify his pound-only scale, then punishes him for using an uncertified scale. > Sorry to disappoint you, Jim, but 'in effect' or not is besides the point. Why? Very simple. The government has the *constitutional right* to define and establish the issue of weights and measurements. If they decided *they* would ONLY operate in SI units they'd have *every* right to do so AND require that society abide by their terms. In addition, their guarantee of fairness and protection of consumers would hinge on their ability to *test and verify* business stakeholders operations in accordance with such rules and regulations. Nothing would prevent stubborn merchants from dealing in monkey units (for all they care!) with customers. If customers acquiesce to this practice they'd do at their own peril. However, do not complain to the government if they may get duped in the process and end up paying more or getting less for what they paid. So, in essence, if governments decide that they would ONLY certify metric capable scales, NO LAW ANYWHERE could force them to do it otherwise! >>Thus it remains perfectly legal to sell goods by the pound in the UK and >>many shops and supermarkets still do. The traders were convicted because >>they refused to support metric custom. > >This certainly says it correctly, as in "If you wish to engage in commerce, >you will do so in metric (albeit with an ifp facade) or we will destroy you." > NO, that's not what I think John meant. As I mentioned above governments can only protect consumers if merchants abide by governments rules and regulations. This has nothing to do with interfering with how merchants and consumers choose to *communicate* with each other!!! Evidently, the burden of doing stupid, useless conversions would fall squarely on these players. But at least govs did their part in assuring fair practice and order in the marketplace. >>Now, one of the tricky issues is how do you transition a nation from >>imperial to metric. > >There is nothing at all tricky about it. Let the free market decide and it >will happen, just as it IS happening in the USA. A *v-e-h-e-m-e-n-t and r-e-s-o-u-n-d-i-n-g* **NO** to both your assumptions, Jim (I'm sorry, my friend...). First, 'free markets' are utopia! Everyone knows that a few powerful players command everything and if they decide to gang together they're simply unstoppable! (Want undisputed proof? Just look at speculators in financial markets!!! Or look at the aviation industry, etc). And as for 'it IS happening in the USA' well... we still have our bet, Jim, and time is ticking!... ;-) ) > It won't be fast enough to >satisfy most on this list, but it certainly is not "tricky" and does not >require any self-anointed "experts" to tell us how to do it. > But, oh, but it does, Jim! Again, I must volunteer the overwhelming weight of evidence. Which country on earth has successfully *completely* metricated without 'experts' and significant unswerving governments' commitment??? The US' piecemeal approach to it has obviously NOT proven to have worked so far! This, despite your "success" stories in industries like medicine, health, automotive, heavy duty industries, etc. Each one of these 'stories' could be easily explained away. Just one small hint on one interesting aspect, Jim and others. The fact that the successful stories are invariably connected to industries where scientists and high tech are closely involved and *hold the power*. (Unfortunately the computer industry is not entirely subject to this argumentation because its sphere of operation involve a significant amount of very different and diversified stakeholders they'd have to satisfy, like builders, publishing, media, etc. Besides coordination for change in such industries would be too big of a challenge for this industry to face it alone!). >>If you want to have an extended period of dual working then you have a >>conflict of freedoms between retailers and customers. If you give >>retailers freedom of choice, then customers are forced to be truly >>bilingual. > >I totally disagree with this. There is no "conflict of freedom": customers >spend their money where they choose, companies make the products they >choose. There is *tremendous* pressure on companies to make what customers >want to buy, which clearly says that, in America at least, MOST PEOPLE >DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT METRICATION!!! > You have a point, which coupled with the fact that consumers elsewhere are powerless to *demand* otherwise!... ;-) Nonetheless, I guess what John argues ALSO may also have some merit. I see this with me in my dealings with the construction industry where I see *tremendous* pressure for me to yield and operate in a "language" I simply refuse to use. Unfortunately though most people would not bother and would yield to becoming bilingual (those who preferred metric end up using ifp). As for me, I stand firm and will have nothing of it! If all metric consumers were like me, we'd kick SERIOUS butts, and probably we'd be able to bankrupt US ifp industries altogether, unless, of course, they switched!... ;-) But, please understand, this is a lot more complex than you think. EVEN if metric consumers (or 'free market' as you like to put it, Jim) were absolutely adamant about wanting metric and nothing else, it could still NOT BE that simple, especially if NO metric alternatives were out there, or if the competitive advantages of ifp industries were still formidable! >If every second or third customer at grocery store complained about not >being able to buy meat in kilograms, how long before the manager would >start selling it in kilograms (probably along with pounds)? > Please see above, Jim. This is somewhat naive. You know fully well that the chances of that happening are close to nill... >If Pepsi eliminated the 12 oz. can in favor of a 300 mL can, would their >sales increase or decrease? If the former, how long before Coke would >follow? If the latter, then clearly Pepsi is doing the OPPOSITE of what its >customers want it to do. > Debatable, one must cross the data with the weight of evidence, i.e. one must investigate first if there is correlation between demand and metric containers. This assertion would and could probably take months (or even years) to establish. The fact of the matter is, as far as US consumers are concerned let's face it, we're in a position of significant *disadvantage*. Therefore, given also the natural historical anti-metric bias of these consumers, what you're proposing is simply suicidal for our cause. It will NEVER EVER happen. Therefore, our only recourse is the usual tried-tested-and-true approach to metrication, like it or not (in spite of your very worthy proposals at the end of this message)! >>...The metric martyrs got themselves into trouble because they refused to >>support metric custom. However, it is difficult to make a headline out >>of the more accurate statement 'trader is incapable of selling a kilo >>of bananas'. > >I think the headline is easy, but the pro-force metricationists won't like >it: "Trader Punished for Not Supporting Metric." > Not exactly, Jim, it's actually more like: "Trader Punished for Using Non-Certified Scales"! THAT is the real truth, like it or not! (It's in the legal paper work, Jim, so, I'm sorry, but it can't be denied or "massaged" the way these goons want others to believe! That's why I still hold that *legally* there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD the 'metric martyrs' will win this, not in a million years! Their only chance is to make such a political fuss that judges may be pressured into turning a blind eye to the law and doing an about-face) ... >I think this is a fascinating aspect of the whole case: Many of the same >people who support forced metrication think a "one-world government" >approach to globalization is a wonderful thing. Yet, they scream bloody >murder when one precursor to this, the European Court, is called upon to >stop their own form of tyranny. > He, he... There IS NO 'tyranny' but *law and order* at stake here! If I don't like the law I lobby my representatives to change it, and NOT break it and worse, lie about it to the whole world like these metric-martyr idiots are doing. Hopefully common sense will eventually prevail and the law will be upheld, we'll see. > >For numerous reasons, there is NOT going to be any forced metrication in >the USA, at least until the country has already become 95% metric. If we >want to speed up metrication in this country, we need to use our efforts to: > >(a) continue to educate the public-at-large as to its benefits, so they ask >for metric >(b) continue to apply what pressure we can on companies to metricate >(c) do our best to get the government to metricate -- a step that will >*tremendously* accelerate metrication in the USA. >... Finally, no argument here, as you well know. :-) Nice to end such a debate on a positive note and in nearly full agreement, Jim. (Not that I believe that there is no chance for enforced metrication in the US though... :-) ) Cheers, Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
