On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:40:40 Jim Elwell wrote: >Marcus writes: >...That you read my comments this way means I was not clear. I... knew it. Thanks for your confirming my suspicions! :-) Also, you provide >in quotes later the phrase "all powerful / proud"; I did not write those >words -- please do not attribute them to me. > My apologies if I misused those words. Perhaps I just wanted to place them in context with what I perceived to have been your... 'intention'. No problem. >As to my phrase that "the USA has developed an economy which is, hands down, >the biggest, most stable and most vibrant in the world," is that incorrect? >It certainly is the largest -- you cannot argue with that. Calling it the >most stable and most vibrant is perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but certainly >defensible, if not outright provable. > Understood. >Please note, however, that I am simply referring to our economy. I don't >believe that individual American citizens are any smarter, better, quicker, >etc. than any other people on the earth -- in that I am an absolute >egalitarian. > Ditto. >I do think the US economy is the least fettered by government regulation in >the world (at least amongst the larger countries), and this is directly >related to the US having an economy which is the largest. In other words, I >very much believe that unfettered capitalism is the best system for economic >growth. > >What you will NOT hear from me is anything like "Geez, Marcus, if Canada >would just do A, B and C then I would consider you up to American >standards!" Each country is sovereign and should run itself as it sees fit. >For that matter, I disapprove of many of the things the US government does >to other countries, some of those related to the metric system. > >The intended point of my post, however, was to say something like: The real >key to economic success is the free market, not the metric system. If being >metric were so critical to success, then China or the old Soviet Union would >be more prosperous than the USA. > A much more balanced and thoughtful clarification overall. Thanks, Jim. >... >I would be delighted if all other countries unilaterally started embargoing >non-metric US products -- it would sure accelerate metrication in this >country. However, the people who would be hurt the most would be the >citizens of the those other countries, who would find their product >selection reduced and product prices going up. > Not necessarily though. Consumers shouldn't suffer one bit, theoretically, if non-SI products came from only one source: your country! ;-) >Marcus, I refuse to accept "shame" because the USA hasn't metricated, which >is the post I was responding to. That is a long ways from wanting to tell >other countries how to run themselves, or considering myself personally >superior in any way. >... On the other hand, it's hard to shun from the concept of shame inasmuch as the US continues to claim to be the most technologically advanced nation on earth - while still clinging to Fred Flintstone units - wouldn't you say? (Please remember that as far as we (metricationists) are concerned, the ifp is an obsolete - and absolute! - trash!) Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
