My thoughts on a BEST Case Scenario : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Here is my take on the best case scenario......... Okay, the lights stay on, food remains accesable, no riots, but.... a panic is sure to ensue regarding peoples savings, so consequently people take their money out of banks for fear of losing it. The government resupplies the lost money from the "new" money they have printed. However this actually increases the money in circulation because people will still be spending the money they took out, so the currency is actually worth less because there is more of it. Thus creating a hyperinflation state. Less buying power equals less goods purchased which equals loss of jobs, which equals depression. In will step the government with a solution! Give them 10 of your hyperinflated worthless dollars, and in return you'll get 1 fresh new magnetic striped NWO dollar. Someone once wrote that the best way to control the masses is to create a terror, allow it to happen, and provide the solution. Call it armageddon, NWO, Majestic 12, end of the world, whatever! In any case we're screwed.

-- Loco (, February 11, 1999


When thinking about scenarios like this, it's also useful to ask WHAT things people are spending their money on. If it's necessities like milk, cereal, and rent, chances are the average consumer will continue buying it as long as humanly possible. But if it's gold-plated Nike shoes, a new Lexxus, a trip to Disney World, or a zillion other thoroughly unnecessary, frivolous consumer items, then a lack of confidence caused by Y2K or any other worrisome event will lead to a lack of consumer spending. That's one of the big reasons for the long- term depression in Japan: despite the low interest rates, the average Japanese consumer is worried about the state of the economy, so he/she holds back on spending.


-- Ed Yourdon (, February 11, 1999.

I heard on the radio two days ago, the rate is 2% of total deposits available in cash. They couldn't print enough! When the reserve gets low, they'll simply limit the amount you can withdraw. This also leads to less buying power, so... The real problem isn't a shortage of cash, it's the ability to process paper. If checks can no longer be pocessed, we're really screwed. <:)=

-- Sysman (, February 11, 1999.

Loco, I think you've hit the nail on the head - this is a plausible best case scenario - followed by the agenda being played out. The person you are referring to sounds like David Icke - take a read of the following from David Icke:- "I have written and spoken many times about the technique I call problem - reaction - solution. You secretly create a problem and ensure that someone else is blamed for it; you manipulate public opinion to demand that "something must be done" about that problem; then you openly offer the solution to the "problem" you have created - the very "solution" you planned from the start. Here I look at two topical events, the war in Bosnia and the bombing in Oklahoma, from the perspective of problem - reaction - solution." Link at

The Oklahoma Bomb and Bosnia


-- Andy (, February 11, 1999.


Problem - Reaction - Solution

-- Andy (, February 11, 1999.

Now wait a minute. The last two posts I read had a response from Ed Yourdon. I've been here the last nine months and I've seen what I consider one legitimate Yourdon post or reponse. I'm just a tad suspicious.

-- Vic (, February 11, 1999.

Vic, eMail him to find out.
Sometimes he answers, and he's very polite.
He *has* been on the road for a while.
My last eMail brought an auto responder ;(
He is very busy, but does read the threads, and does post!
Trolls are usually not so well-written and well-informed.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (, February 11, 1999.

Clinton's Better:

1. Identify a problem, blame you opposition 2. Create a problem, blame you opposition 3. Make up a problem, that has not happened, blame your opposition 4. Undermine the Constitution, the law, ect, blame your opposition

Vilify, smear, and use surrogates to destroy your opponent.

BUT, keep the sheep happy-for a while

-- Archemedes (, February 11, 1999.

Hello?!? When you write a check for $100. you have created "money". Someone takes your check, gives you $100. worth of goods and deposits your "money" in their account. This money creation is done millions of times each day. My checks are backed by my bank account (which is in much better shape than the bankrupt US government) and they are accepted by most merchants. Cash "money" is accepted everywhere (they even have VISA beat), therefore, is a great means of exchange. The govt. can print more cash to replace your checking account balances, but the ammount of "money" in circulation is unchanged (as long as the new cash does not exceed total deposits). Cash is just more liquid than your check and is more likely to be accepted in a post y2k world. I still think 24 rolls of Charmin, will be worth more than a $5. bill. I am long on toilet paper futures.

-- Bill (, February 11, 1999.

I agree with you Bill. Besides, if your money isn't worth anything, why would it be worth anything to a merchant who has to sell his goods to someone with worthless money then buy more goods with worthless money, so he can sell you more goods with your worthless money? (okay, you'll have to read that sentence a couple of times.) I believe durable goods will be in big demand. Only GIs are prepared and there are more DGI than GI's. I'll trade one of my many campstoves and a gallon of fuel for your car battery...any takers?

-- bardou (, February 12, 1999.

Hi Bill,

I understand what you're saying about checks, but that's based more a a misconception that's developed concerning what a check *is*. All a paper check is, really, is a formalized IOU that is backed by your bank. It isn't currency, it isn't money, all it does is guarantee the person you to whom you write it that the bank will give them money in exchange for the IOU of your check. A check is only a promise, and it's only as good as the person writing it.

I think part of the problem here comes from the fact that American currency is really only promissary notes as well *sigh* which as with a check are only as reliable as the organization which issued them.


-- Arlin H. Adams (, February 12, 1999.

I believe that Ed's post is genuine. His line of reasoning in his post is almost word for word the argument he presented in his recent presentation at the Seattle y2k expo.


-- Tom Sawyer (, February 12, 1999.

Vic -

Ed just got through chatting with 300+ folks at and he invited them over to Being a good host, he's back here to make sure there's enough coffee and cake. 8-}]

-- Mac (, February 12, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ