I have noticed that at Morrisons, they have upsized their Bettabuy Coleslaw from 227g (exactly 8oz) to 250g AND, the price has stayed at 22p! In other words, you get 23g more for no extra cost permanantly.
The price has gone from 97p a kg to 88p a kg.

Doesn't this rubbish the argument of the great metric ripoff?

Well, it proves that at least Morrison's is not trying to sneak in a price hike in the hope that most people won't notice.

re (Richard): "Doesn't this rubbish the argument of the great metric ripoff?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: Er, no, actually. Because it is the exception that proves the rule

Good to see appropriate rationalisation.

227g is more appropriately changed to 250g than 200g.

Why? Because it is a quarter of a kilogram? That's not very decimal.

What's wrong with a quarter kilogram, then ?

Nobody has ever said that you can't use fractions with metric. Call it 25% if it makes you feel happier.

250g is a nice round metric number precisely because it's 1/4kg and because it's a multiple of 50.

Once you accept that a quarter is more efficient than a fifth, then you accept the inefficiency of the metric system.

There is no real reason why grams need to be the next unit down from the kilogram; it could be hectograms (tenth of kilo) or decagrams (hundredth). The reason is that if you try and make successive quarterings of the kilo, you end up with decimal points (eg quarter once and you get 2.5 hg, or twice and you get 1.25 hg or 12.5 dg).

The need for grams is that, with decimals, you have to have an abnormally large number to start with (ie a thousand) just to absorb simple divisions. With imperial, there are 16oz in a pound, precisely because quartering is needed. lb/oz involved out the need for a rational weighing system. Metric was designed by scientists and politicians.

1/4 kg is entirely acceptable; calling it 250g or 25dag rather than 2, 4 or 8 whatever retains the useful multiplicatory properties of a decimal system.

When referring to the preference of 250g to 200g, I was meaning that 227g is closer to 250g, and this is therefore the more appropriate rationalisation.

"Metric was designed by scientists"

And there in lies it's advantage over imperial !

"And there in lies it's advantage over imperial !"

Correct, so long as you add the the clause: "For certain purposes."

I notice that everyone accepts the notion that metric is the result of design.

Yes it is and it is a proper system. The thinking behind it is mathematical not political. It draws upon the fact (like it or not) that we count in decimal.

We may well engage in other numeric groups like 12 in some instances but the symbols '1' '2' mean ten plus two.

So don't kid yourselves.

So the metric system was created according to what the designers thought was best. The imperial system evolved over time, naturally, according to what people wanted and needed. Something that is created naturally and evolves according to wishes of the people will always be better than something that was artificially created, no matter how good the intentions of the creators.

As a parallel example, take prices. The price decided by the demand and supply equilibrium of the market will almost always be better for both buyer and seller than a price set by the government, even if the government is doing it in good faith.

Bud wrote

<<
As a parallel example, take prices. The price decided by the demand and supply equilibrium of the market will almost always be better for both buyer and seller than a price set by the government, even if the government is doing it in good faith.
>>

While Governments shoud not set prices (except in extreme circumstances), they should still regulate the markets. For example, there should be laws that prevent people from harming themselves (eg children working long hours) merely to keep up with the market. Other ways in which Governments regulate markets is to dictate what units may be used and to ensure that they are used properly.

Governments also have a duty (as market regulators) to ensure that weighing machines are properly calibrated. As an aside, there was a Continental Market in the High Street of the town where I live during the weekend. Most of the traders wer French. I noticed that their scalpans had not been checked by British Trading Standards Officers, but all had a sticker that had been affixed by the French counterparts to the TSO's showing that the French authorities had chaecked the weighing devices. Unlike any British certificates, these stickers were visible to the buyer. This ia a good example of Government regulation.

<<
Other ways in which Governments regulate markets is to dictate what units may be used and to ensure that they are used properly.
>>

"Dictating" doesn't sound like "regulating."
The government may have the right to prescribe certain units, but this would be overusing their power. The wisest government will not place any restrictions on what units are used. The market will then standardize to one set of units to the extent necessary. Banning units that people would be happy using and that would not potentially cause any confusion would be foolish of the government because it would discourage economic activity.

Bud wrote

<<
The wisest government will not place any restrictions on what units are used
>>

On the contrary, the wisest governments dictate exactly what units shall be used. If this were not the case, then unscrupulous merchants would start fiddling the units in order to make their prices appear to be cheaper than they really were.


BTW, Bud, I have never been to the US. Are open air markets at all common there. (The type of market where the trader would arrive in a lorry, set up a stall and display his products, then at the end of the day, pack his stall back into his lorry and return home). THey are common place in Europe

Bud: "The wisest government will not place any restrictions on what units are used. The market will then standardize to one set of units to the extent necessary. Banning units that people would be happy using and that would not potentially cause any confusion would be foolish of the government because it would discourage economic activity."

Precisely. I've become more and more aware of the truth in the statement that "The best government is the least government."

Consider for a moment a state of completely unregulated weights and measures where *everyone* uses the imperial system and is content to do so.

Are you seriously suggesting that there should be no legal definition of the units of measurement used? If not then what one person regards as 'a pound' may be quite different from what another person regards as 'a pound', often through honest mistake rather than unscrupulous trading. We would in effect be at the mercy of the scale and weight manufacturers.

I said that the wise government will not place any restrictions on what measurements are used. Let me clarify.

The wise government will not make it illegal to use any unit, as long as it is used correctly and accurately. A kilogram is defined a certain way, so anyone who sells a kilogram of something must sell an amount that is widely accepted and/or legally defined as a kilogram. Calling another amount of mass a kilogram is not acceptable.

A regulation allowing people to use any unit they please, so long as it is used accurately, would be more than enough to ensure fairness.

Ross: "Are you seriously suggesting that there should be no legal definition of the units of measurement used? If not then what one person regards as 'a pound' may be quite different from what another person regards as 'a pound',"

But that is precisely the situation that many on the pro-metric side are advocating, by saying that the pound is no longer legally defined and can therefore be used by a trader to represent whatever weght he chooses.

Martin, in response to your question, no, open air markets are not very common. They have been put out of business by the big department stores. Sometimes there are "swap meets", usually held by a college on a big field as a fundraiser, where traders can rent stalls to sell their products. These are like big rummage sales. But the formal open air markets disappeared several years ago.

"A regulation allowing people to use any unit they please, so long as it is used accurately, would be more than enough to ensure fairness."

As you will appreciate, it is impossible to ensure the accuracy of *any* possible unit as there cannot be an infinite number of definitions.

"But that is precisely the situation that many on the pro-metric side are advocating, by saying that the pound is no longer legally defined and can therefore be used by a trader to represent whatever weght he chooses."

You will notice that my hypothetical depended on everyone using the imperial system, and only that system being used.

So the metric system was created according to what the designers thought was best. The imperial system evolved over time, naturally, according to what people wanted and needed.

>> Absolute horse pucky! FFU was devised by what a "few" merchants, kings or other despots of the era thought best and slammed it don't the throats of their subjects. What you really mean by ..."evolved over time", is that each new king or whoever was in charge, decided to change the value of the units to fit his wants. The public had no choice but to accept the changes. Evolution means improvement over time. FFU has never improved upon itself. If you are going to associate evolution with measurements, then always remember that the fit survive and grow and the weak and unstable die off. Metric is strong and growing and FFU is dying. Seems to me like evolution favours metric and not FFU.

Metric is flawless because the units have not been subject to the whims of rulers and merchants and the values today are the same as they were 200 plus years ago.



Something that is created naturally and evolves according to wishes of the people will always be better than something that was artificially created, no matter how good the intentions of the creators.

>>> FFU is just as artificial as metric. In fact even more so. FFU is based on variable standards and metric is based on fixed constants. FFU changes with the wind, metric is constant and stable.



As a parallel example, take prices. The price decided by the demand and supply equilibrium of the market will almost always be better for both buyer and seller than a price set by the government, even if the government is doing it in good faith.


>>> Weights and measures have always been decided by the government, whether they are FFU or metric. Metric standards are independant of governments and reside with the scientists of the world through the BIPM to decide what a unit means and what it measures. Governments can not change the value of metric units. But governments can and do change the values of FFU. Constantly throughout history, and even today.

Get your facts straight.

<<
Seems to me like evolution favours metric and not FFU.
>>

In that case, imperial should die out on its own without any government intervention. So why is it necessary for the government to intervene?


<<
Metric is flawless because the units have not been subject to the whims of rulers and merchants and the values today are the same as they were 200 plus years ago.
>>

When I buy food from a store, I don't care about 200 years ago. And nothing can be flawless.

<<FFU is based on variable standards and metric is based on fixed constants. FFU changes with the wind, metric is constant and stable.
>>

Imperial units are now defined in terms of metric.

Euric: "FFU was devised by what a "few" merchants, kings or other despots of the era thought best and slammed it don't the throats of their subjects."

And now we have the metric system being slammed down our throats by the Brussels, Whitehall bureaucrats, Trading Standards Officers and other agents of the state dictatorship. How is that any different?

Euric: "FFU has never improved upon itself. If you are going to associate evolution with measurements, then always remember that the fit survive and grow and the weak and unstable die off. Metric is strong and growing and FFU is dying. Seems to me like evolution favours metric and not FFU. "

First, Imperial units have been improved and refined in accuracy over the years.

Second, if you're so convinced of the superiority of metric, why have people not adopted it already of their own free will? And if you remain conviced that it will be the natural winner due to evolution, why does it need a raft of oppressive government legislation to help it?

<<
Euric: "FFU was devised by what a "few" merchants, kings or other despots of the era thought best and slammed it don't the throats of their subjects."

And now we have the metric system being slammed down our throats by the Brussels, Whitehall bureaucrats, Trading Standards Officers and other agents of the state dictatorship. How is that any different?
>>

The diffrerence is that the "few" merchants, kings or other despots did not talk to each other and each came up with a slightly different foot, pound etc.

On the other hand "Brussels, Whitehall bureaucrats, Trading Standards Officers and other agents of the state dictatorship" have gone to great lenghts to ensure that when they talk about a metre, they all mean exactly the same thing, likewise with the kilogramme the ampere and so on.

<<
The diffrerence is that the "few" merchants, kings or other despots did not talk to each other and each came up with a slightly different foot, pound etc.
On the other hand "Brussels, Whitehall bureaucrats, Trading Standards Officers and other agents of the state dictatorship" have gone to great lenghts to ensure that when they talk about a metre, they all mean exactly the same thing, likewise with the kilogramme the ampere and so on.
>>

Well, as of the present day, there is only one definition of the pound that is almost universally used in all countries that use the pound. Same with the foot (with the exception of US surveying work). As you are surely aware, all imperial units are now defined in terms of metric units, and thus, scientifically speaking, they have the same precision.

The pound and the foot are used principally in two countries only - the US and the UK. I agree that they are the same in both countries, as it the ounce, inch, yard and mile.

However the hundredweight, ton, gallon, quart, pint, fluid ounce are different depending on which side of the pond you are. In addition, the stone is only ever used in the UK and I don't know about the furlong. Bud would you please enlghten me?

The SI units (which are more numberous than those listed above) are the same the world over

"The pound and the foot are used principally in two countries only - the US and the UK"

Did you not read my Caribean post?

Or does the subtle word "principally" enter into this as a key word?

BWMA says:
Once you accept that a quarter is more efficient than a fifth, then you accept the inefficiency of the metric system.

There is no real reason why grams need to be the next unit down from the kilogram; it could be hectograms (tenth of kilo) or decagrams (hundredth). The reason is that if you try and make successive quarterings of the kilo, you end up with decimal points (eg quarter once and you get 2.5 hg, or twice and you get 1.25 hg or 12.5 dg).

The need for grams is that, with decimals, you have to have an abnormally large number to start with (ie a thousand) just to absorb simple divisions. With imperial, there are 16oz in a pound, precisely because quartering is needed. lb/oz involved out the need for a rational weighing system. Metric was designed by scientists and politicians.


What utter drivel! You obviously do not much shopping. There is a very valid reason why quantities should be in proper metric numbers. Send your wife to buy some salmon or whatever in tins. In your world she would be confronted (and nowadays actually is) with an mindboggling and useless array of grams. Tins with 90,227,280,329,604grams and so on. How the hell does she find out which of that lot is the best buy if she hasn't got an electronic calculator and can use it?
Now if governments have the customers welfare in mind tins will be in 50,75,100grams and so on. She knows instantly which is a favourable buy. How easy to compare 100g with the cost of all proper metric quantities of any size. You can forget about quarters and certainly fifths in a metric world when you go shopping.

fractions are far better when working with stuff you are about to eat.

even metre (eric) has admitted to this!

Metre
You are not addressing the point. Why use a number as large as 75 when the item will never be divided into 75 parts?

Why not? If we all know what 75 means then there's no problem.

The benefit of metric is that we can use the same basic units for all purposes. You may say this is an unnecessary aim, but having to learn more than one concept of measurement is at least as difficult as having to count to 75.

Re: Morrisons Bettabuy Coleslaw December 21 2003, 6:16 PM

Metre
You are not addressing the point. Why use a number as large as 75 when the item will never be divided into 75 parts?

It is not easy to follow the mental processes of an imperial soul.
Where does the notion of dividing that number into 75 parts come from? When would you ever need to do that?

Are you telling me that you have never had a seven foot pizza?




(hmmmm, 7ft eh?)

I do not recall having ever seen a 2.1m (7 ft) pizza, but I definitely saw pizzas that were 150cm by 50cm in a pizza bar in a [non-tourist] village outside Rome. Customers bought slices of pizza which were priced by the kg.

"Sense of humour bypass operation" immediately springs to mind!

Bud wrote
<<Martin, in response to your question, no, open air markets are not very common. They have been put out of business by the big department stores. Sometimes there are "swap meets", usually held by a college on a big field as a fundraiser, where traders can rent stalls to sell their products. These are like big rummage sales. But the formal open air markets disappeared several years ago.>>

Allow me to take issue with Bud's answer. The US is large, so things may be different in different parts of the country.

Many of our local towns have a seasonal "farmers' market" which operates certain days of the week (the one nearest me is Tu, Th, Sat.). The "traders" in this case are farmers who grow their own produce and sell it directly to the consumer at market. It is rarely weighed, but sold in (dry) pints, quarts, pecks. But the customer chooses which (of several) containers he wants. Any that look or feel short get left. In fact they are usually packed somewhat heaped. Many farmers have a stand on their property at the roadside from which they sell the same way -- but even in the suburbs, if there are enough people to provide a customer base, there usually aren't many farmers left. However, some people drive another 10-20 miles further out from the city to go to a favorite stand. The produce is seasonal, and only what grows in the area (no oranges, for example)

A few cities (Boston is an example) have an open air market, where it is traders selling, not the farmers themselves. That is becoming rare, but not unkknown. Those markets typically do import items out of season or that can't be grown locally (like oranges). In the Detroit area. we have one market that caters to both types of sellers, but the true farmers' market is much more common.