On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 12:08:10PM -0700, Jan Steinman wrote:
> When is the US going to get with the metric system?...
We'll convert when the cost of converting becomes less than the cost of not
converting, and not before. It ain't there yeet.
Ah yes. Adam Smith's "invisible hand."
There's two problems with such arguments:
1) they assume all the costs and benefits can be accurately measured, and
2) they assume a truly free market.
Start with #2: any number of economists will tell you that free
market pricing doesn't work in monopolistic or subsidized situations.
I'd argue that the US monopoly of numerous markets is what is keeping
the metric system at bay, NOT costs vs. benefits.
As for #1, I suppose the priceless opportunity to successfully land
on Mars doesn't enter into cost-benefit arguments beyond the mere $5
billion wasted? If I were NASA, I'd say the cost of not converting
their contractors has already passed the break-even point! :-)
And I don't think anyone has consulted me on the cost-benefit value
of my frustration in not being able to use the focusing rail the way
Frank can in Europe, where they don't use 100-year-old economic
theories to justify the status-quo.
(PS: note change of subject. Please try to do the same when you
change subjects.)
--
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|