Some good points. My response: On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:36:08 -0500 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Bernard, > > I don't agree on some of your speculations. See below. > > Gene Mechtly. > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:34:42 -0700 > >From: "Bernard Rachtmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: [USMA:37370] Re: Interesting document on the NIST metric page > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >... > >I suspect a compromise will ultimately be struck. > Perhaps. > > >... , its clear both sides would lose if neither yielded. > Agreed. > > >Also if only one were to yield there would still be trade > >dilemas. > How so? If all international trade were in SI only there would be > complete harmony of measured values of products and their specifications. That is a long-term goal, something the US is far from. Clearly all US trade will not become purely SI in 3 yrs. That is far too optimistic. Certain US consumer products are recognized in rounded inch/pound form. It would cause disruption if none of these could be sold in Europe (being the only exception to everywhere else). This means totally separate product lines for most manuals, brochures and websites that are to be marketed to EU/US audiences. I'm not trying to throw a wrench in the metrication wheels, but an absolute adoption of purely SI and no supplemental (period) in 3 yrs time is impractical.
> > >My guess is that this particular EU directive will be > >suspended indefinitely,... > The provisions of the Directive are already written into the laws of the > Member States of the EU. I doubt that the States will repeal those laws > after ten more years of grace. Theres already problems arising in countries like the UK which still use pints and mile signage. There would be considerable economic advantage to lifting this stipulation and absolutely no benefit to retaining it. A few products occasionally making market with supplemental inch/pound won't hurt their economy or their metric understanding. > > >...while FPLA will be amended. > Let's hope that is done before 2010! > > >Lets be honest here, many American consumers are familiar >with > >certaininch-pound sizes (I can't see milk exclusively >marked "3.79 L." ...) > Of course not. Milk is already sold in 1 liter, 2 liter, 3 liter, and > even 4 liter containers. Milk was a bad example as thats generally not exported; however- I've never seen these rounded metric milk bottles you describe. Point being, not all products could immediately become entirely SI in marking (no 1lb chocolate bars, no pound of flour/sugar etc, butter sectioned in 1/4lb, most US recipes ). I don't think US markets are in any hurry to unit price in metric. A process like this takes time and consumers are generally resistant to major changes. I suspect even with a repeal of FPLA there will still be many products with supplemental units retained...who knows how long. Heck, the gov't organizations haven't completed metrication yet. Check around the USDA, Interior, etc. I fear the cart may have passed the horse on this one. For a successful conversion first we have to get exclusively metric on all the lawbooks and have all formal-regulated proceedings occur in metric, this compels industry/commerce, then it becomes like second nature to the public. > >Besides, doesn't this directive also ban inch/pound from >advertisements, > >brochures and even websites? This >realistically would cause too much > >commotion in commerce. > International traders have already had much more than ten years to adopt > the SI. That is more than sufficient! Actually the original deadline was 1990. This has been postponed twice. No other economic group has proposed such a radical forced-metrication idea. Correct me if I'm wrong but this includes webpages and brochures, not just contents and advertisments. Is there a free press violation here? At least it doesn't sound very capitalistic to me. For example will Sony have to have a separate non-euro site to advertise a "52 inch tv"? > > >Perhaps they haven't amended it yet so it could be used as >a potential > >bargaining chip. > Preoccupation with other matters and opposition from some lobbies (e.g. > the Food Marketing Institute) is the reason the FPLA has not yet been > amended to *permit* metric-only labeling. Well thats the main reason sited. I wouldn't be surprised though if the FPLA issue rises coincidentally sometime the spring of '09. It would seem reasonable, we amend FPLA so their products can directly market here, they lift the directive, and our occasional supplemental wouldn't meet an outright ban. Question; where do guns, planes and tools come into play? Are they only to be proscribed in SI? >From an economic point of view stubborness on either side makes little sense. -- Bernard Rachtmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
