2003-03-15 I understand what you are saying. But, many of these industries went metric in the 1970s and there has been no further progress by others since. The electronic and to some extent the computer industry is "governed" by international standards that more or less require the use of SI.
If the industries referenced had not gone metric in the '70s, would they be impelled to do so now? I doubt it. The attitude today seems to be to push FFU as far and wide and only give in to metric when the resistance is too overwhelming. In order to break the impasse, there has to be a great force applied. And as far as I see it, the destruction of dollar hegemony, brought on by euroisation is the only force that can do it. I STRONGLY feel that euroisation will force the US out of its unilateralistic tendencies and adopt policies and plans that show a spirit of co-operation with established international methods and standards. If I am not mistaken, there was a discussion on this very list right after the 2001-09-11 attack, concerning this very subject. At the time it was thought that the US would have to have a more multilateral outlook when dealing with the world in order to gain co-operation on issues such as security and fighting terrorism. But, what a difference a year makes. If anything, the US has become increasingly unilateristic. Who knows, the future battle cry may be that the US stood alone against Saddam, and they can stand alone against metric. Metrication must be more then converting a few industries. Its goal must be to convert the population as well. What good is metrication if the population of 2003 still thinks that US made autos are made in FFU and not metric, or that alcoholic beverages are still sold in fifths, pints, half and full gallons? If we have to metricate in secret, what have we really gained? Metrication will occur in the US only after the US is deposed from its high throne and has to live like everyone else in the world. Where the US is a player in events, and not a dictator will metrication occur because if it doesn't, the US will be shut out. Other countries in the world that easily metricated in the '70s did so because if they didn't, they would be cut off from most of their trading partners who were metric. They could not afford to "go it alone" like the US did. Because of dollar hegemony, the US could be the sole user of FFU and even use its influence to assure FFU a place at the table. Ending dollar hegemony is a sure way and a quick way to end the hegemonic practices of the US, especially the practice of using FFU. If, however, someone can give me sound logical reasons for why dollar hegemony and/or increased euroisation will have absolutely no effect on metrication, I would like to hear about it. But, until that time, I will continue to believe euroisation and the end of dollar hegemony will be the key factor in future US metrication. Can someone help me verify something? If my memory serves me correctly, the two major times the US made efforts to metricate, in the mid 70s and the period around 1990, the US dollar was in a crisis state. That is, extremely weak compared to other currencies. It was during these times the US felt impelled to metricate in order to sell more goods to the world and earn more hard currency. Then once the currency crisis eased, the interest in metrication subsided, then disappeared and in some cases reverted back to FFU. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2003-03-15 15:41 Subject: [USMA:25158] Re: Canada > In USMA 25157 Kilopacal wrote: > > > >"euroisation = metrication" MUST be our battle cry. In order to be a metric > >supporter, you must also be a supporter of a more balanced use of the dollar > >and the euro in world trade and policies. In the future more regional > >currencies having equal weight to the dollar and euro will create an even > >more balance of resources and power and assure that the standard units used > >in trade, education, speech, etc., world-wide is SI and only SI. > > > >John > > > > I think John is wrong in linking the influence of the dollar with the > defence of the inch-pound system. American companies that do a > world-wide trade are already metric. The American automobile > industry, the agricultural machinery industry and the photographic > and optical industries are already metric, The electronic indutry is > converting. Most Americans do not realize this because American > manufacturers do not see any sales advantage in advertising the > metric system. > -- > Joseph B. Reid > 17 Glebe Road West > Toronto M5P 1C8 Telephone 416-486-6071 >
