On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:49:41 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >>Maximization processes must take into account ALL peripheral constraints >>and parameters pertinent to the problem. And this may NOT *necessarily* >>mean that 'free markets' are THE answer even!!! One can argue that a >>*combination* of some state-controled constraints with 'free market' >>forces could be THE combination that would ultimately '*maximize* >>individual freedom(s)' indeed! > >You have just admitted that no one can possibly optimize the "process" of >metrication, since it is IMPOSSIBLE to "take into account ALL peripheral >constraints and parameters pertinent to the problem."... > ? Please forgive me for my not seeing how you could have possibly made that "jump" from my sentences above. I never said it would be 'IMPOSSIBLE' to consider 'ALL peripheral constraints', what I said was that we 'MUST take into account ALL peripheral constraints (or do his/her best to do so!)' (literal quote). If one did so I said I was convinced that 'complete free markets' would not 'necessarily' be 'THE (best) answer'. ... >Dr. W. Edwards Deming, one of the giants of the quality manufacturing >movement, and one of the most important figures in rise of Japan from the >ashes of WWII, has a list of "Seven Deadly Diseases" relating to >manufacturing. Number 5: > >"5. Running a company on visible figures alone. The most important figures >are unknown and unknowable -- the multiplier effect of a happy customer, >for example." > >So, Marcus, if optimization requires taking into account ALL constraints >and parameters, and some of those constraints and parameters are UNKNOWN >and UNKNOWABLE, then clearly one cannot in any conscious way "optimize" the >process of metrication. > ? I think, first of all, that we were talking about 'maximizing freedom', were we not?... It's evidently true though, granted, that there are things that are very difficult to factor in our optimization models. However, we DO have means to consider as many as humanly possible and derive valid conclusions from such models. No model is perfect, evidently.
>Which leaves us back to the free market as the only reasonable mechanism >for allowing the many parties involved to have input into the metrication >process. > Unfortunately the *weight of the evidence* is not on your side, my dear friend. We are *yet* to see truly successful metrication *without any sort of government mandate/regulatory interference*! The US example is *at best*, *still* a "work in progress"! And the failures of this "hands-off" approach abound, like the DOT case. >Perhaps I should make clear that I don't claim the free market is a PERFECT >system for handling metrication. > >However, I still claim, and believe Vernon Smith would agree, that it is >the BEST system we have available. >... But there is *already* unmistakable proof that it isn't, Jim, like Australia! They metricated their country in *record* time without much trauma and with very low costs! The US is *still* struggling with the issue *200 years* after the first signs it would "want" to go in that direction. So, *clearly* Jim, we DO have ***far superior*** examples of other metrication approaches that succeeded. And the common aspect in practically ALL of them is that governments were decisively behind them! You can't possibly deny that, Jim! In the meantime our bet is still on and the clock is ticking (~8.5 more years to go now...). ;-) Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
