This is by far and away the best rebuttal to the recent GartnerGroup report (i.e. the 'personal preparedness report') that I have read. If you read only one article today, this should be it:

http://www.y2knewswire.com/gartner.htm

-Arnie

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), November 19, 1998

Answers

Amen. I just saw it about 10 minutes ago at Gary North. Excellent!

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 19, 1998.

As a followup to my original post above, here are some comments on this issue that I've received from others on my own personal 'Y2K mailing list' (it didn't start out that way be these things have a way of evolving).

I felt they were quite useful in adding a couple of extra viewpoints to this. The names have been removed for reasons of privacy. These were sent with the authors' permission.

-----------------------------------------------------------
(referring to the rebuttal)



Couple of quick comments on that article:  the Gartner Group 
suggestion not to store fuel in containers is probably less 
dangerous than the alternative.  Perhaps not for you, or for 
folks who might have an inkling of common sense, but for 
*most* people storing a significant amount of fuel that way 
(afterall, we're not talking a gas can for the lawn mower)
is damned dangerous.  Imagine every apartment in NYC with 
ten jerry cans of gasoline inside...  All it takes is *one* 
small apartment fire...



Second, that bit with the air traffic control system is a bit 
overblown. The system can handle a complete failure.  It's not 
pretty, it's not nice, and no one (especially controllers) wants 
to see it happen.  But the procedures are in place and have 
been for decades;  the planes in the air will make it down OK.  
That's not wishful thinking, it is done several times each year.  
If the system fails, planes will not be allowed to depart, or 
will be allowed to depart in reduced numbers and frequency.
Major travel disruptions?  Yes.  Major delays. Yes.  But the 
advice to "monitor travel" is not the kiss of death the rebuttal 
makes it out to be.



Third,  the stock market...  Trading might stop for a few days, 
but the money doesn't just disappear.  Holding stock in a company 
is owning part of that company.  Sure, if the company fails then 
the stock becomes worthless, but that happens often enough anyway, 
even without the Y2K issue.  The stock market isn't going to 
disappear in a puff of smoke on 1/1/00, and if there are *any* 
sorts of serious problems, trading will be suspended.  Same thing 
with banks.  Look for temporary bank closures instead of bank 
failures.  The money isn't going away.  It might not be accessible 
for awhile, but it isn't going away.  Sure, withdraw some
living money, but to actually *advocate* everyone withdraw all their
money from the banks because the banks will fail if everyone pulls all
their money out is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. 



   ....



I've read lots that proclaim problems because of the low cash
reserves, but depositors' money is invested in other areas (car loans,
mortgages, etc) and no one has commented on what happens to that 
when/if a bank fails.   "Want to withdraw all your cash?  Fine, 
we'll call your neighbor's mortgage."



Follow the money, and remember, it just doesn't disappear.



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



One should have money and food and supplies for ANY emergency.  
Especially in winter.  Most folks don't.  We got stranded at 
home more than once for several days with no power during winter 
when I was growing up.  Once was during family xmas party and an
ice storm hit.  17 people plus us for 4 days.  Good thing it was
at our house with freezers, dairy farmers for neighbors (they had
to dump their milk) and a wood stove.  My mother fretted about 
running out of toilet paper.



....



The amusing part about the family thing was that she'd adopted
an orphaned lamb with pneumonia the previous winter and bottle-fed
it back to health.  Had the d*** thing following her around the house
in diapers.  We used the rest of that package of diapers on my 
cousin's youngest that week when they ran out.  BTW, this was 
late 70's/early 80's.  I was in high school.



Dairy farmers get hit hard in this kind of weather if the milk 
truck can't make it through every two days or so...they've 
still gotta milk the cows but don't usually have excess bulk 
tank capacity for more than an additional day.  If they dump it, 
there goes their income literally down the drain.



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



The ATC system exists to allow aircraft to fly *closer* 
together than they would normally be allowed to fly.  There 
is a whole body of rules and regulations governing uncontrolled 
flight, known as VFR (Visual Flight Rules).  *Most* general 
aviation flights are VFR flights.  Flights above 10,000 ft, or 
those flights below 10K that want to use the ATC system, or 
those flights which encounter poor visibility (known as 
Instrument Meteorlogical Conditions) are required to fly 
under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).  IFR requires separate 
training, certification, and instrumentation.  All airline 
flights are IFR.  



There is no reason, however, that flights above 10K couldn't 
be operated under VFR rules.  In fact, that's the first thing 
that happens during an ATC radar failure: the pilots are 
notified of "loss of positive control" and the separation 
between aircraft (both vertical and horizontal) is increased 
to VFR standards.



The ATC system is there to provide navigation aids and 
maintain flight separation through "positive control".  The 
public has the misconception that the ATC system actually flies 
the plane, and if radar fails the plane doesn't know where to go.  
That's bulls***.  The pilot is in ultimate control of the 
aircraft, and can disregard ATC instructions when those 
instructions would place his aircraft in danger.  All pilots 
know how to navigate, and while some might be a bit rusty in 
their dead reckoning skills, finding St. Louis from 30,000ft 
is probably easier than finding Greencastle Aviation's gravel 
strip from 3000ft.



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



(end of attached comments)

-Arnie

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), November 19, 1998.

Arnie, a couple of comments on the comments [which are generally good.]

Couple of quick comments on that article:  the Gartner Group 
suggestion not to store fuel in containers is probably less 
dangerous than the alternative.  Perhaps not for you, or for 
folks who might have an inkling of common sense, but for 
*most* people storing a significant amount of fuel that way 
(afterall, we're not talking a gas can for the lawn mower)
is damned dangerous.  Imagine every apartment in NYC with 
ten jerry cans of gasoline inside...  All it takes is *one* 
small apartment fire...

The report was simply not well thought out, and this by a group that is paid to think. The point is that rather than say, "Don't store fuel," the report could have provided strong warnings and advice about safety. This isn't an 'either/or' situation.

Second, that bit with the air traffic control system is a bit 
overblown. The system can handle a complete failure.  It's not 
pretty, it's not nice, and no one (especially controllers) wants 
to see it happen.  But the procedures are in place and have 
been for decades;  the planes in the air will make it down OK.  
That's not wishful thinking, it is done several times each year.  
If the system fails, planes will not be allowed to depart, or 
will be allowed to depart in reduced numbers and frequency.
Major travel disruptions?  Yes.  Major delays. Yes.  But the 
advice to "monitor travel" is not the kiss of death the rebuttal 
makes it out to be.

Agreed. First, expect few aircraft to be flying on 10/01/2000, especially over the rollover period. This is a normal lull in air traffic, anyway, except for West to East redeye flights. If problems pop up (when?) expect planes to be grounded. This is sort of like the nuke power plant situation: shut down plants don't melt down, and grounded aircraft don't fall out of the sky.

Third,  the stock market...  Trading might stop for a few days, 
but the money doesn't just disappear.  Holding stock in a company 
is owning part of that company.  Sure, if the company fails then 
the stock becomes worthless, but that happens often enough anyway, 
even without the Y2K issue.  The stock market isn't going to 
disappear in a puff of smoke on 1/1/00, and if there are *any* 
sorts of serious problems, trading will be suspended.
  

The comment that the market isn't going to disapear in a puff of smoke on 01/01/2000 is quite correct: it's closed I think the major problem will be a market crash, partially y2k related and partially related to what's gong on in the rest of the world. The Gartner report didn't attempt to address this issue (outside their box)

Same thing with banks.  Look for temporary bank closures instead of 
bank failures.  The money isn't going away.  It might not be 
accessible for awhile, but it isn't going away.  Sure, withdraw some
living money, but to actually *advocate* everyone withdraw all their
money from the banks because the banks will fail if everyone pulls all
their money out is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Now I have a few problems. First, if I have my money in a bank, and I can't get to it when I need to do so, then I am in trouble. If I need it to buy something, I must do without. I can't even use it as collateral for a loan elsewhere. If I own a business and the bank can't meet accounts receivable and payroll, I may have to shut down. For all intents and purposes, the moneyhas gone away. So, bank 'holidays' aren't to be shrugged off. Let's go back to the 1930s. How many people then had money that 'went away?' Lots. Now, supposedly the FDIC guarantees that this won't happen by insuring deposits (within limits). But, actually the FDIC can only cover about 1.5% of all the money on deposit. I can't be sanguine about the banking situation, especially as I see bank expenditures and estimates for remediation climbing.

Follow the money, and remember, it just doesn't disappear.

Wrong. If I buy a stock that's valued at $101 and the next day it plunges to $1, $100 has disappeared. Poof. It's gone. If I have my money in a bank and the bank closes, that money has effectively disappeared since I no longer have the use of it. If the bank goes belly up, then a certain amount will have permanently disappeared. How much depends on the fraction of all banking losses that can be covered by the FDIC. The money can disappear.

-- rocky (rknolls@hotmail.com), November 20, 1998.