I am making an effort to answer each Polyannish, it'll-all-be-okay article that I can find with a reasoned, non-confrontational e-mail explaining why these folks are wrong. I believe this is necessary in order to encourage such writers to reconsider their assessments and, perhaps, write follow-ups. (I think this is appropriate for writers who spread irresponsible doomsday rumors like plummetting planes, too.) You can see an example of this in the Motley Fool thread. I stress non-confrontational; this isn't a urinating contest about who is right and who is wrong. This is a deadly serious issue that threatens everyone.

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), September 24, 1998

Answers

Scott, just a little advice, which you probably already know: The Pollyanna may or may not be "innocent" in terms of Y2K denial. At Gary North's web site (http://www.garynorth.com) under "Banking" he notes that a high ranking member of the Federal Reserve Board gave a big speech on the challenges to our economy. Y2K was never even MENTIONED, in spite of all the money being spent, supposed high level attention being given, etc. It is very hard to conceive that such an omission was due to Pollyanna type ignorance.

-- Joe (shar@pei.com), September 25, 1998.

Shying away from simplistic, misleading and insulting labels like "Pollyanna" might help your case a little.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 25, 1998.

I think some of these people will be called worse when they're being dug out of the basements of their fortified summer homes and dragged to the gallows...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), September 25, 1998.

Paul, I have read some of the other posts saying we need to drop certain terms out of the discussion because of their perjorative nature, and to some extent I agree. But one look at the Motley Fool article will convince you that Polyanna is probably too generous a term. I think even you would agree with that, despite your relatively optimistic (for this forum, anyway!) outlook. Also, you'll note that I also said that people spreading irresponsible Chicken Little rumors should be held to the same standard.

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), September 29, 1998.

Scott,

I think you had the right idea with your original post here. Challenge their assumptions. If you can do it without resorting to insults then you will find you are more persuasive.

"Reasonable men can disagree reasonably"

Anybody know who said that?

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 29, 1998.

Polyanna is bad term, period. "Y2K survivalist" is a bad term, period. (Sorry Ed, but it is.) Why? Simple labels are generally only good for explaining simple situations to simpletons.

Certainly, this is not a simple situation. If you are going to have any hope of persuading others to share your point of view, you will need to start from the presumtion that they are not simpletons. If you go in spouting tripe like "Pollyanna" and trying to "explain why these folks are wrong" I fear you will generally not be taken seriously and will be dismissed out of hand.

I gather from your messages that you are, in fact, staying away from doing either of these things. If so, good. I would suggest, however, that it might be a good thing to also shy away from those actions in this forum. That does two things for you. One, it makes for good practice. Second, it lets us know you do think us to be simpletons.

BTW, I do think the Motley Fool article is too dismissive of the potential impact of Y2K problems. However, I do not see them as "Pollyannas" simply because they expect the stock market to continue to be a source of good long-term investments. Heck, people made money in the stock market during the Great Depression, so there is no reason for me to believe that it can't be done again.

Were I to have oodles of free time I might also compose a letter to them in an attempt to get them to re-examine the situation. However, I'm planning to focus my attention on a local news radio station, so I'll leave that windmill for you to tilt at. Please let us know how it turns out.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 29, 1998.

okay, I give. No more use of the P-word. I agree that it's better to be calm, reasoned, and non-confrontational (as I believe I said in my original post). But sometimes I get so #$%^&ing frustrated. Then again, I'm not fixing code, so I suppose I don't really know what frustration is about...

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), September 30, 1998.

Paul

Anyone who made money in the stock market in the 1930s only did so because they were out by the summer of 1929, and then went back in after the crash. Even then, it took a while.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 30, 1998.

Hmmm. Not only is Y2k a bump in the road, the Great Depression of the 1930s was really a money-making opportunity in disguise. No one's to blame, God's in his heaven and all's right with the world. Bad things don't happen to good people. All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Don't worry, be happy. Look on the bright side of life. Be optimistic. Walk on the sunny side of the street. God is on our side. All will be well. Every day in every way...

Hey, did you call me "Pollyanna?" You're making bad things happen by thinking negative thoughts! Go away!!!

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), October 01, 1998.

Uncle,

<< Anyone who made money in the stock market in the 1930s only did so because they were out by the summer of 1929, and then went back in after the crash. Even then, it took a while. >>

Not true, except for the "it took awhile" part. There were stocks that appreciated during that time, and people who held greater stakes more in those stocks than in those that depreciated made money. In general, people with the long term view, who do not invest large portions of their portfolios in high-risk ventures, and who do not panic and alter their basic investment strategy during downturns make money over any given 10 year period in this country's history. If you want to remove the restriction on high-risk investments you can make the same statement except you need to substitute the number "30" for the number "10".

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 01, 1998.

E.,

<< Hmmm. Not only is Y2k a bump in the road, the Great Depression of the 1930s was really a money-making opportunity in disguise. >>

In chaos, there is always opportunity. It just takes the willingness to find it and grasp it.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 01, 1998.

Paul

Theoretical gains? No? How about some names and numbers? I dig enlightenment.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 01, 1998.

There is some truth to what Paul says. 1 share of Coca-Cola purchased when it was first offered, before the depression, is now worth over $4 million taking into account stock splits.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), October 01, 1998.