At 9 November 2002, 09:39 PM, Ma Be wrote:
>
>With all due respect, Marcus, you continue in what the great Austrian
>economist Ludwig von Mises terms "arrogance of knowledge."
>
?  He, he...  That's a new one...
I misquoted -- the term comes from Frederick Hayek, Nobel laureate, another of the Austrian economists, and author of The Road to Serfdom.

Interesting paragraph in a bio, relating to this issue, from http://www.mises.org/hayekbio.asp:

<<snip>>
Much of the knowledge necessary for running the economic system, Hayek contended, is in the form not of "scientific" or technical knowledge--the conscious awareness of the rules governing natural and social phenomena--but of [tacit] knowledge, the idiosyncratic, dispersed bits of understanding of "circumstances of time and place." This tacit knowledge is often not consciously known even to those who possess it and can never be communicated to a central authority. The market tends to use this tacit knowledge through a type of "discovery procedure" (Hayek, 1968a), by which this information is unknowingly transmitted throughout the economy as an unintended consequence of individuals' pursuing their own ends.(17)
<<snip>>

> Should the
>government force manufacturers to use them? No doubt you would say "yes,"
>and I would say "no."
>
? IF metrication is to be followed using "metric only" labeling as a positive step towards that, then my point is that it would greatly help the process if *simultaneously* industries agreed to *rationalize* their processes in order to reap the *full benefits* of the SI decimal system.
I was not arguing that rational sizes should NOT be used -- I agree entirely that they are usually preferable. I don't necessarily agree that they would have a significant effect in speeding up metrication, since so few people pay much attention to labels anyway.

As always, our argument comes down to one of force: you think government force should be used to require such labeling, I think it should not.

My position: The market will "rationalize" package sizes as appropriate, in due course. There is simply no need for or benefit from government mandates for "rational" package sizes.

And, as always, you out-type me Marcus, so I'll have to let the rest of your email get the last word in.

Regards,
Jim



Reply via email to