Can I just intersperse some comments in these statements? Some are based on my
own experience, but some are also based on outside observation during the time
I lived in Canada. If anything I say is incorrect, corrections welcome! I
confess that some Google research would have been advisable, but I am away this
weekend, so am getting this off before we leave.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:55 AM
Subject: [USMA:44139] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
I believe that the UK got as far as it did for reasons that don't apply to
the US.
1.) They are close to Europe and do a lot of business with Europe and needed
to be on the same page. It would not be feasible for the UK to have a
different measurement system then their trading partners nor for the population
not to be able to function on the job that produces the goods that will be
exported.
Basically true, but I seem to remember that, in 1965 when the decision was
officially made to go metric, there was a general consensus that metrication
was the way the world was going (or was already there), and that this was not
just a Europe thing. Britain has always been a world-wide trading nation, and
in the 1950s and '60s, coined the slogan "Export or die". Going metric was
part of the awareness that the country depended on world-wide trade in order to
pay off its war debts.
2.) The British Commonwealth is practically fully metric and that too would
have an effect on what measurements the UK uses.
Australia was probably the first Commonwealth country to go metric, but the
UK's decision in 1965 preceded many other Commonwealth countries, including
Canada, South Africa (which was part of the Commonwealth), other African
nations (e.g. Kenya), the whole of the Caribbean, what is now Malaysia, and
many other places too numerous to mention.
3.) The UK is small in comparison to its trading partners compared to the US.
True, although this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in 1965, the UK
had quite a prominent position in terms of world trade.
4.) The US is mostly isolated from the rest of the world.
Yes, very true unfortunately! Something that President Obama is aware of?
("The world has changed, and we must change with it.")
5.) US trade is virtually one way. The US imports produced goods, but does
not export. As long as the US can survive being the "ultimate consumer" and
can continue to run high trade deficits then there is no reason for the US to
metricate.
I once read that 90 to 95% of all US-based economic activity (i.e. production
of goods and services, but excluding imports and other off-shore activities)
remains inside its borders, which is far higher than anywhere else on earth.
That was some years ago, and I would imagine that it is no better today.
But, this system is highly strained. In the news recently, China has openly
defied the US by questioning the role of the dollar in international trade and
calling for a basket of currencies for the world to use instead of the dollar.
Sooner then Washington and Wall Street realize, China will get its wish.
The outcome will mean the US can no longer operate as the ultimate consumer
and will be forced to run a more balanced economy. To do so, it will have to
produce in order to trade for what others produce and in order for its goods to
be accepted, it will have to show a willingness to cooperate and adopt the
metric system.
If memory serves correctly (and increasingly it doesn't as I get older!), the
US was once quite open to producing for the world, and improving its world
image. In 1971, I lived in Boston, MA, working alongside a local architecture
practice on a major project (Tufts New England Medical Center), and remember
all the roadsigns in the city, which were of European style (e.g. No Entry
signs as a red disc with a horizontal white stripe, then unknown in the US;
speed limit signs consisting of a white circle with a red band around the edge;
etc). In talking to my architect colleague, he explained that America was
very concerned with its image in the world, and this was part of that process
(and being trialled in Boston). Also to be part of that process was conversion
to the metric system (he was one of its promoters), and I guess what he said
was borne out when the Metrication Board was established in 1975.
It will be a very simple choice. Either adopt the metric system or be shut
out. What choice will America make?
The key is to get the American in the street to realise that such a choice
has to be made. I would wager that most Americans still believe that the US
doen't need to metricate, and that the rest of the world will just have to
adapt to America's use of customary units. At what point will the (rude)
awakening occur? - John F-L
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "br...@bjwhite.net" <br...@bjwhite.net>
To: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Cc: U.S.. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:24:17 PM
Subject: RE: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
All that being said, I'd be THRILLED if we in the US were as far along as the
UK regarding metrication.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 8:20 pm
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Martin,
Even though you are not American, there should be no reason you shouldn't
contribute. We can learn a lot from you. We can learn from the British
experience as to what does not work and to the Australian experience as to what
works. I'm sure you have been a valuable asset in providing ideas for
metrication in the US.
However, there are those from the outside that do not belong. This forum
does not need to hear the tired opinions of those who will use this forum
against those who believe in metrication. Those opposed will come here
appearing as angels of light but are in reality demons of darkness.
This is a forum that promotes metrication and I'm sure you agree that to
give voice to those that do is counter productive and in no way promotes
metrication. I hope though that when you say you won't hold back, that you
mean it enough to strike hard at those who will use this forum to spread their
anti-metricisms even in a subtle form.
Jerry
