> Jim Elwell wrote> (1) EU cannot force metrication on the US, it can only refuse to accept
> non-metric products. That it has failed to do so is due to lack of
> political will and/or popular demand, and is not necessarily related to
> whether the Euro is strong or weak vis-a-vis the dollar.
A strong Euro, an expanded EU, and political Union will give the EU the motivation and power to make the directive stick this time.
The "motivation" part is pure conjecture. Many members of this forum see metric as a MAJOR issue in commerce and trade, when in reality it plays a very MINOR role for the vast majority of business negotiations and decisions.
I'm not saying a metric directive will not be made to stick, but it will surprise me if it becomes a major issue just because of the Euro.
> Does this mean that a strong Euro will slow down metrication? NotThis is no longer true in a global economy.
> necessarily -- the whole point of my post was that the issue is vastly more
> complex than that, and no one can conceivable *know* the effect of exch]
What I said is absolutely true, and it isn't going to change. In the world there are billions of consumers, hundreds of millions of companies, hundreds of millions of products, millions of standards, uncountable and unmeasurable customs and traditions, uncountable and unmeasurable number of business arrangements, distribution channels, political constraints and mandates, and on and on.
To believe that this mind-boggling diversity and complexity lends itself to something as simple as "a strong Euro means faster USA metrication" is unsupportable.
It is one thing to accept FFU labels in the EU, but the EU has the right to regulate goods and services that are controlled by standards and laws. A US company selling electrical equipment in the EU has no choice but to follow the standards. If the laws require power cords to have a certain type wire, measured in square millimetres, with a specific colour scheme, the US manufacturer must comply. There are compnanies in the US who make and sell products that meet EU industrial requirements. So, in a way, it an American company does get an order for a product to be sold in the EU, and has to follow the EU specifications, it will be a good way for the American firm to be exposed to metric parts and practices.
I agree with all of this, except the "no choice but to follow the standards." Only when standards are turned into legal requirements do they have to be followed. The vast majority of standards in the world are "recommended practices" rather than legal requirements. There may be market pressure to comply with these, but companies are not required to do so.
Unless a company stands to sell a lot in the EU or over the long haul, then they will try to ignore metric unless they are forced to use it by wish of the customer and/or standards or laws. The American company will see metric as a nuisance, unless there are significant orders and profits made from it.
This ignores the many other reasons why American companies metricate (which many have). Selling into Europe is hardly the sole motivation for metricating.
American companies will go out of their way, no matter what the reason not to use metric and not to metricate. They would rather see the world just accept and use American units. When times are good, we don't need the change because we are making money despite not being metric and when times are bad we can't afford the cost of a change over. So, when is the right time?
Another broad-brush stereotype, which clearly ignores the many American companies that have already metricated.
As to "when is the right time": it varies depending on each company's circumstances and beliefs. Some American companies have already metricated, some are in the process of doing so as they introduce new products and designs. And, yes, a few will do so only when they see that they will go out of business if they don't.
> (5) John's "analysis" also totally ignores the effects of various trade and
> tariff agreements, various countries' providing different subsidies to
> different industries, trade barriers, embedded constituencies, historical
> practices, backwards compatibilities, and a plethora of other facets of the
> economic, trade and metrication picture.
All a bunch of nonsense excuses that have been used for generations as a good reason not to convert. If we allow these "reasons" to get in our way, then the US will retain FFU into eternity, if they are around that long. If these are barriers, then we need to tear them down and if some business suffers, then we have to put the blame on business. The cost can be attributed to resistance.
To call such things as backwards-compatibility, government subsidies and legal trade restraints "nonsense" is, well, nonsense.
> The fact is that the USA will remain the most economically powerful nation
> in the world as long as we remain the one with the most economic freedom.
> It is economic freedom, exercised by individual human beings, and not the
> unit of currency or unit of measurement, that builds prosperity and
> economic strength.
Rome fell, the British Empire dwindled away. The US will pass too. And even if it doesn't happen for a long time, a strong EU will at least be a source of resistance to US efforts, especially efforts to spread the Gospel of FFU to the world.
I did not say or imply that the USA will be around forever. It will not, nor will the EU, nor any nation in the world.
As always, you combine 275 million people into one stereotype. There are no "US efforts" to spread the "Gospel of FFU" to the world. There are a few Neanderthal companies and/or individuals who might try to do so, and a lot of companies who are mindlessly continuing to use colloquial units, and a growing number of metricated American companies, but there is no "US effort" to spread IFP units.
As to other "US efforts" that "a strong EU will ... be a source of resistance to", the same thing applies. Except that in *some* cases it is the EU who would benefit from paying attention to the US way of doing things.
> For a view of the Euro a bit more realistic than the "European good,
> American bad" view of John, read the editorial published today at:
>
> http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jan/01062003/commenta/commenta.asp
I'm not trying to categorise the situation into US bad- EU good. But, to push for a greater balance among powers. And a situation where US is forced to be a team player, not the school bully. Where the US is a part of developing international standards that all use together, not developing standards independant of everyone else and whining when the world doesn't follow their lead.
I believe you ARE trying to categorize the situation into a "US bad -- EU good" one. Your posts are unrelentingly anti-USA and pro-EU. You consistently describe the USA using broad stereotypes derived from its worst elements, while ignoring the diversity of this country and its many admirable elements. And while you also stereotype Europeans, you derive your models from the best elements that you can think of, and ignore the worst.
What would the point of this continual, biased stereotyping be if not to create such a categorization?
Electrical Engineer
Industrial manufacturing manager
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
www.qsicorp.com
