Mr. Deckers Y2K Post

The Y2K problem has been exaggerated by people who don't understand computers, and by computer experts who don't understand how the free market works.  Harry Browne

The issue of Y2K boils down to a simple issuerisk. What is the extent and nature of the risk posed by Y2K-related computer problems?

On this issue there is no shortage of opinions. One must note, however, almost all of this writing is speculative. What may happen in the year 2000 is guesswork, some more educated than others.

The burden of proof rests with those who assert Y2K problems will dramatically alter the social, political or economic structure of the world. Often, Y2K doomsayers try to force Pollyannas to prove the world will not end. This is a spurious tactic. Under the rules of logic, those who assert Y2K will end the world as we know it must provide conclusive proof.

Returning to risk, those who advocate intensive Y2K preparations perceive a high level of Y2K-related risk. Of course, one might suggest mundane activities like driving an automobile create a higher risk than social collapse due to Y2K. NHTSA statistics clearly document the risk. I venture to say that most people who are actively preparing for a worst-case Y2K scenario do not wear a helmet when they drive. While safety belts and airbags provide some level of protection, most critical crash injuries involve the head. Professional race car drivers routinely wear a helmet. If you are acting in a rational manner, you will take necessary steps to protect yourself. This includes wearing a helmet, obeying all traffic laws (no speeding) and choosing a vehicle based on safety criteria and not on clever television ads.

The logic (and humor) of this argument may escape some. It is simple. We all engage in activities with some level of risk. The act of driving to work, for example, is a calculated gamble. Each person must decide what precautions are logical and reasonable. For the "Y2K nonbeliever," the odds of critical disruptions of basic infrastructure due to Y2K are remote. Ergo, they consider the Red Cross preparations (the safety belt) more appropriate than Ed Yourdon's ten-year strategy (wear full body armor while driving a main battle tank).

It is ironic, though, that high probability routine risks are somehow less ominous than low probability meta risks. Of course, we live in a society that loves the lottery. I cannot let a lottery reference pass without a favorite quote, The lottery is a tax on people who cant do math.

But I digress, if one accepts the idea of Y2K as a risk issue, the next task is risk assessment. Why might one think Y2K will NOT end the world as we know it?

1. The Free Market

We live in a capitalistic society. The marketplace responds equally to rational problems (Y2K coding) and irrational problems (Y2K panic). Some entrepreneurs are capitalizing on the fears surrounding the coming millennium and profiting. Some are busy making money actually fixing the problem. More importantly, when left unfettered, the free market can produce the seemingly impossible like cheaper, more powerful computers year after year. Or it can get you a package across the globe overnight.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems. Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."

A recession or even a depression due to cumulative Y2K computer problems is possible though highly unlikely. Of our tremendous productive capacity, only a fraction is dedicated to "can't-live-without-it" activities. If necessary, the market could move away from "entertainment" and other non-critical functions into critical areas. Not efficiently, perhaps, but demand creates supply. Imagine passing a flat tax and enabling all of those IRS workers, tax lawyers and accountants to engage in more productive work. Perhaps professional athletes and entertainers can find can find positions in transportation or food production.

2. The Grid

The interaction of supply and demand occurs in all sectors including the oft mentioned by Y2K doomsayerspower supply. Let me make a few points. First, we are not consuming power at 100 percent of productive capacity. Second, our current level of consumption does not reflect any meaningful conservation efforts. I drive everywhere, leave my computer on 24 hours a day and basically wallow in cheap power. I imagine many readers do the same. Under different circumstances (higher energy prices) my behavior would change.

As Americans, we consume about 40 percent of the world's power. We have about 5 percent of the world's population. If we needed to shave back our use of power, I imagine we could. Witness the oil shortages of the early 70s and the subsequent effects (e.g., small cars). Given an understanding of market economics, it is difficult to imagine how a shortage of power will have terminal results (no pun intended).

If allowed, energy prices will increase to a new equilibrium. If some power producing entities fail, others will reap the profits of greater market share. This same supply/demand equilibrium will occur in every sector of the economy, unless the government intervenes. As long as theres profit in power, there will be power. In fact, as long as theres profit in any good or service it will exist. Look at our failed War on Drugs or Prohibition.

3. The Knowledge Base

Y2K will not destroy physical infrastructure nor will it destroy the sum of human knowledge. We do not lose our knowledge base with Y2K, just (possibly) some of our technological infrastructure. A mysterious destruction of railroads in 1875 would have greatly accelerated the development of alternative forms of transportation. Barge and ship traffic would have boomed. There would have been economic difficulties, but the market will find a way. Right now, we possess the knowledge to recreate every existing human artifact including silly putty.

4. The False Positive Y2K Statistical Analysis

"Go, No-Go" analysis leads to false statistical results when applied to macroeconomic phenomena. Social and economic activity is not a coin toss. Computer or embedded chip failures reduce efficiency. In extreme cases, efficiency can be reduced to zero, but this is an exception rather than a rule. Some level of activity will continue in all economic sectors, at least with some level of reduced efficiency.

Bad things can happen. There is a reasonably high probability the earth will be struck by an interstellar object. Of course, it may take another billion years. I am not losing sleep over this, even though it is a "non-zero probability."

Much of the Y2K writing on the Internet has been dedicated to the proposition that one failure will domino into a systemic failure. The rate of failure argument is logically flawed. Take a complex set of devices like those in the Apollo space program (1960s technology). Based on the incredible number of components and the mean time between failure, on paper the Apollo missions never make it off the pad. This is the danger of misapplied statistical analysis. While Y2K will cause some failures, very few are mission critical for the survival of civilization. (Do you think wed even notice if some Federal departments did not operate?) Some problems will be fixed ahead of time, some will be fixed on failure and some will just not make much difference. No one can produce an accurate simulation to determine the number of computer failures that result in people looting the local thrifty mart.

5. History

History demonstrates that we can survive panics, speculative bubbles, civil war, government unrest, bank failures, depression, recession, terrorism, natural disasters and even politicians. America recovered from a brutal civil war. Europe recovered from two world wars. In both instances, the physical infrastructure was badly damaged.

The few living Americans who were adults during the Great Depression can tell you it was not prettybut it was not a return to the 1830s. Believe it or not, we do understand more about macroeconomics than 60 years ago. We have the ability to mitigate some economic damage. Witness the absorption of the failed Savings & Loans. A failure to resolve Y2K problems may result in a recession, but it will not turn the clock back 100 years.

6. Internet Experts & Data Distribution

Society does not operate like a computer program... period. I am much more interested in the comments of economists, historians or other social scientists with regard to Y2K. In fact, our current situation has interesting parallels to the year 1000. See Charles Van Doren, "The History of Knowledge."

Some of the information promulgated on the Internet is from sources with a vested interest in Y2K preparation. Others, like Gary North, have a religious agenda. As such, it is reasonable and scientific to verify claims through an independent source. All unverified data must be treated as subjective opinion rather than fact. It is also important to note that there are groups of individuals with ongoing apocalyptic fantasies. Claims made by these individuals or groups must be subjected to intense scrutiny.

If I may summarize the Y2Knewswire post... no matter what anyone says about Y2K compliance, they are lying. And where, one might ask, is the empirical foundation for this conclusion? The logic (or lack thereof) underpinning the Y2Knewswire is shared by conspiracy theorists everywhere. Y2K doomsayers have long ago concluded that Y2K is "unfixable." Any reports of mitigation, therefore, must be lies, half-truths or exaggeration. Another variation on this theme, large firms or public agencies cannot fix Y2K, but have a vested financial interest in not reporting the true situation. (I believe this was the theme of an episode of "Millennium" entitled "TEOTWAKI.") Because of secret government mandates to conceal the problem or corporate/government conspiracies, false, positive Y2K stories are provided to the media. It is impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists. The most compelling counter-argument: How can we assume the government is coldly efficient at anything let alone activities as complex as conspiracy.

7. Gary North

Based on a survey of his previous writings, it is clear Mr. North has taken a "Chicken Little" view for over two decades. He has predicted the end of the world due to nuclear war, banking collapse and AIDS. Y2K is simply the latest scare. Mr. North has a clearly documented agendaChristian Reconstructionism (CR). CR advocates an overthrow of our constitutional republic and a new theocratic regime of Old Testament law. Lest you doubt, heres a direct quote of Mr. North with regard to citizenship:

The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.

In my humble opinion, for Mr. North Y2K is simply an agent of change. In essence, Mr. North would have America attempt what failed in middle ages Europe... theocracy. A government of "God" is always a government of men. A religious state inevitably creates intolerance for "nonbelievers." In extremis, we have the Inquisition. Divine authority (as interpreted by a despot) is dangerous. While America has many flaws, life in Mr. North's neighborhood is frightening indeed. With the Internet, he has found a medium and an audience. The nonrational anticipation of the millennium combined with an increasingly uneducated public has made the message resonate. (Although many educated people seem drawn to the Y2K siren song). In short, I question both Mr. Norths motives and his qualifications to comment on Y2K.

Faith versus Reason

From the mostly Internet-based Y2K musings of a few has arisen a "faith." Y2K has become a belief system rather than a technical or public policy issue. Many of the individuals who post on this and other boards "believe" Y2K will result in "the end of the world as we know it." They cannot prove this... nor can anyone. They hold Y2K as an article of faith. This is the reason debate tends towards acrimony. The same bitterness would result if you tried to convince a Southern Baptist the benefits of witchcraft. Many economic or social movements transition into belief systems. For example, some environmentalists hold beliefs which may not be justified by empirical inquiry... they often refuse to consider even debating some issues because to do so seems a betrayal of their faith. The starting point of any scientific inquiry is objectivity. The scientific method is not about finding a metaphysical truth... it is about proving or disproving a hypothesis. If we are to discuss Y2K, we must first discard our preconceived notions. Each fact must be tested and as to its validity. Anecdotes must give way to empirical data. Unfortunately, the flow of data will be slow. Each success or failure of an infrastructure component will be interpreted differently depending on one's perspective.

This modest article will be lost on the true believers. Without doubt, I will be labeled a troll. If you believe Y2K will be a significant problem, make a concise, logical case. Argue it on any grounds... economic, technical, anthropological, theological... just make your assumptions clear. I am open to the possibility the world will end are you to the possibility it will not?

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 26, 1999

Answers

Mr. Decker, et al...

Some interesting thoughts this thread -- but it's hard to digest it all, since it seems to be taking the form of what we used to call an "N-way shoutdown" in my old computer consulting firm.

One aspect of the debate seems to have been overlooked: the time-frame for recovery from the "optimistic" scenario that you propose. For example, you suggest that

"The few living Americans who were adults during the Great Depression can tell you it was not prettybut it was not a return to the 1830s.... Witness the absorption of the failed Savings & Loans. A failure to resolve Y2K problems may result in a recession, but it will not turn the clock back 100 years. "

Granted, the Great Depression did not result in a return to the 1830s, but it was a reasonably unpleasant period of ten years, and one could argue that it was a significant factor leading to the Second World War. If you knew that there was a significant likelihood of another "Great Crash" (as Bernard Baruch apparently did in 1928), wouldn't it make sense to make some sensible risk-management decisions in anticipation of such an event? I think you'll find the majority of the people on this forum are not predicting a return to vintage-1830 society, but rather a disruption that's serious enough, and long-lasting enough, that some modest-to-moderate preparations are warranted.

Similarly, the absorption of the failed Savings and Loans did not happen instantaneously. Part of the phenomenon included the collapse of the S&L's of the entire state of Ohio in 1985; and while every depositor eventually got every penny back, it took a year -- during which time, depositors were only allowed to withdraw $1,000 per month. Most of us have been raised with an almost theological faith that banks were 100% safe; the Ohio incident either proves or disproves that faith, depending on whether it matters to you that you can't get your hands on all of your money for a full year. If I thought that that was a reasonable possibility with my bank, a reasonable risk-reward strategy would suggest keeping at least some of my money outside that bank (especially in an era where interest rates are only 3%)

There also seems to be an implicit assumption that the free market works in a "perfectly efficient" fashion. But clearly that's not the case, or the free market would have figured out several years ago that it was cheaper to fix the Y2K problem then, rather than now. And since the major free-market decisions are apparently made by politicians, economists, and business executives who wouldn't understand a computer if they fell over one, it's not clear to me that the decisions they're making now are as well-informed as they could be.... If the free market was so efficient, why is it that the Federal Government's Y2K budget has tripled (from approx $2.3 billion to $6.8 billion) in the past two years? Why have the majority of Y2K disclosures in recent SEC 10-Q reports indicated that Fortune-500 companies are (a) running late on their Y2K schedules, and (b) consistently underestimating their Y2K expenditures?

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), March 28, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

1. Re mixing apples and oranges: I suspect that most of the folks in Ohio, back in 1985, were using their local S&L's as "banks." They deposited money, assumed it was safe, and withdraw money when they needed it. Indeed, they were insured, by the FSLIC, which is (or was) the S&L parallel of the FDIC. They did get all their money back -- it just took a while.

2. Re the 20,000 SAP installations ... yes, obviously it makes more economic sense in many cases to replace a proprietary, non-compliant system with a package. But I don't think that addresses my point: two years ago, the Federal government estimated that it would require $2.3 to "fix" their Y2K problems; now their estimate is $6.8 billion. I don't think the tripling of the budget has anything to do with their decision to remediate versus replace. And as I said in my earlier note, you'll find a consistent pattern of underestimation of Y2K costs in almost all of the Fortune-500 SEC reports. The "free market" doesn't do a very good job of estimating appropriate economic tradeoffs for Y2k decisions, for the simple reason that the software project managers (upon whom the free-market decision-makers must depend for their data) have a lousy track record, during the relatively short history of our industry, of estimating their costs.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), March 28, 1999.

This is a clear and well-written piece.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 26, 1999.

Give me a break.

-- Twaddle (anddrivel@anotherbiasisviewpoint.com), March 26, 1999.

What nonsense, especially in regard to the burden of proof. In the criminal justice system, as an example, we place the burden of proof -- and beyond a resonable doubt at that -- entirely on the prosecution, as we recognize that someone may be incarcerated or even put to death if a mistake is made. There is certainly enough "sufficient" evidence that Y2K may pose grave, life threatening consequences to our society. It is, after all, acknowledged to be a built-in flaw that potentially affects power generation, clean water, food supply, banking, etc., etc.

Given what is at stake, the burden of proof clearly is to show that Y2K will not cause the power to cease, the water to be contaminated, etc., etc. This is common sense; in fact, think of Y2K if you wish as a sort of "bomb threat". If someone phones in a bomb threat to a public building, do we demand that the caller prove that the bomb exists, or do we go ahead and essentially prove that either no bomb exists or, if one does, de-fuse it?

And, par chance, are you the same Mr. Decker that so generously wished to make a contribution to a Y2K aware community that was mentioned in another thread? Personally, I'm a beer drinker, hope you will bring some....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 26, 1999.

I recognized at once that you are not a troll. Instead, Decker, you are an unmitigated idiot.

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), March 26, 1999.

While Y2K will cause some failures, very few are mission critical for the survival of civilization.

Interesting, Mr. Decker. What are the very few that are mission critical for the survival of civilization ?

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), March 26, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Thank you for that thoughtful essay. Let me address what I consider to be the key point of what you said...

The issue of Y2K boils down to a simple issue--risk. What is the extent and nature of the risk posed by Y2K-related computer problems?

Nobody knows the answer to that question. I will say that the military, FEMA and many U.S. companies have decided that the extent and nature of the risk is great enough that they are working on contingency plans. My opinion is the families should also be making contingency plans.

You also said...

For the "Y2K nonbeliever," the odds of critical disruptions of basic infrastructure due to Y2K are remote. Ergo, they consider the Red Cross preparations (the safety belt) more appropriate than Ed Yourdon's ten-year strategy (wear full body armor while driving a main battle tank).

You seem to be implying here that Ed Yourdon is suggesting that critical disruptions of basic infrastructure will last for 10 years. Ed's 10-year figure, I believe, is economic--a reference to what Y2K will do to our "bubble" economy and to large parts of the world that are already in a recession.

A few days ago I saw a transcript of an on-line chat Ed Yourdon had with the public at ABCNews.com. From what I saw, Ed is not expecting lengthy disruptions with utilities. However, a lack of heat or water or electricity in the month of January is a serious issue.

After January, there could still be a major problem with shortages of various items...for example, gasoline. Economic ramifications of Y2K could easily last more than a year, especially since American consumers are so much in debt at the moment.

My suggestion about Y2K to anyone is to start preparing for Y2K now, if they haven't already. As we getter a better idea of the extent of the problem this summer, we can either back off or increase our personal contingency planning. I don't have a large income to go out and buy a lot of things at one time, so it's crucial for me to be buying now.

Mr. Decker, again, thanks for your reasoned analysis.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 26, 1999.

Chiming in on this soon-to-be-very-active thread.

One of my problems with your thesis is this:

You say: "Some problems will be fixed ahead of time, some will be fixed on failure and some will just not make much difference"

This implies a "Bell curve" of remediation success. Like any bell curve, there will be a few early birds, a few late comers and a vast majority in the peak area of the curve.

The main two questions are the "slope" of the curve, and when does the "peak" occur (The peak indicating the vast majority of completed remediation). Is it a very steep curve? Meaning that there will be virtually NOONE early, and everybody will be done at the same time? That's what we're looking at now in your thesis.

If we're in the midst of a bell curve, then we should be hearing reports of successful remediation. That is, unequivicated, undeniable remediation. By now, we should have several dozen major banks claiming compliance, NOT "somepliance" (new term I just coined).

We should be entering the curve with ALL industries, and government agencies. Meaning we should be hearing true success stories from dozens or even hundreds of companies.

The ONLY agency I've heard of that even claims compliance is Social Security - and they're suspect, in my opinion.

I've heard Melon Bank claiming compliance, but I'm awaiting independent verification before I believe.

Some Canadian Bank in Ontario claims to be done, too.

I haven't heard ANY power companies, or Nuclear Plants claim compliance.

So what we have here, is a bell curve with a very late start. In order for everybody else to become compliant and jump on the curve, requires a very steep curve to be executed in less than 9 months.

The various government agencies have even less time.

I do not hold much hope that everybody can cram compliance in a super short amount of time. In my opinion, the bell curve is going to look normal, but the "peak" will fall well after 01/01/00. Probably after 01/01/01. There simply isn't enough resources or time.

So, if most people aren't done before 01/01/00, we have efficiency problems. Efficiency = Productivity. If Productivity goes down, we have a recession.

At that point, the question is one of degree. How bad, how long, and what will be the social impact?

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), March 26, 1999.

Jolly, y2k is a tag for a cluster of subtle issues. What company with access to a lawyer has ever claimed, or would ever claim, to be fully bug proof on any dimension at any time past, present, or future ?

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 26, 1999.

Y2K is a tag for a cluster of subtle issues?

HA!

Sounds like a desperate attempt at redemption from a cult. Hey look everyone! The Y2K comet is coming by our planet, we'd better get our Nike's on and prepare for salvation.

-- (Go to Hell Ed @ Yourdon . Com), March 26, 1999.

Go to hell... is not a happy camper on the forum is he/she?

-- Ohdeary! (anothernerve@struck.com), March 26, 1999.

Earlier I mentioned Ed Yourdon's on-line chat with the public at ABCNews.com. You can see it at this link...

http://204.202.137.113/sections/tech/DailyNews/chat_990212yourdon.html

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 26, 1999.

[my comments in brackets]

This modest article will be lost on the true believers. Without doubt, I will be labeled a troll.

[Nice try. "Have we stopped beating our wives." You are a troll, that's not anyone's fault but yours (you do seem to know the definition)]

If you believe Y2K will be a significant problem, make a concise, logical case. Argue it on any grounds... economic, technical, anthropological, theological... just make your assumptions clear.

[This forum has been doing just that on thousands of threads for many months. Your implication that this thread opens up the opportunity to do that is too absurd to even be considered arrogant.]

I am open to the possibility the world will end are you to the possibility it will not?

[Duh. Anyone home, Mr. Decker? Why should anyone bother responding to the pretended substance of your post, which is actually a tissue of irrelevancies. The world isn't going to end, you moron, and no one says it will (The End of the World As We Know It, even should it happen, means little in the broad scope of ongoing history). Yes, you ARE a troll. Why don't you deal with it by at least posting again under a different pseudonym?]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 26, 1999.

Well, I must depart for the weekend, but shall return to read responses. First, thank you to those generous souls who complimented my modest post. Second, I was not surprised to find respondents whose economy of prose is superceded only by their economy of thought. Finally, I honestly invite thoughtful responses. My post was not intended to be arrogant or baiting... as a rational and open- minded person I will gladly consider other positions. I must confess that my perusal of other "threads" did not reveal a succinct (or compelling) argument supporting the "total social collapse" theory of Y2K. If you care to write such a argument, or provide directions, please do so.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 26, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

One question...just how much preparation is acceptable to you and at what point does it become too much according to your standards?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 26, 1999.

HELP I'm suffering from y2k schizophrenia. I'm up and then I'm down. I just started reading your posts yesterday. I must admit there is much to read and very informative. I gave the administrator of the home for the aged where I work a copy of Michael Hyatt's book to read so that he could start some preparations. There are over 100 residents in this home I worry about. My boss wasn't even aware what y2k was. Today he admitted he hadn't read the book and threw down a Detroit News article titled Y2K FEARS EXAGGERATED, MOST EXPERTS NOW AGREE. Based on this one article, he's assured that this is going to pretty much be a non-event. He did mention that the computers we use in the office are not year 2000 compliant. He's going to take the WAIT AND SEE route that many people seem to be taking. I wrote the Detroit News on their opinion page that I don't think they should write such reassuring articles without 100% facts that they know to be true. After much research I don't think anyone knows whats going to happen until it happens. I want everyone to be prepared though. Oh, if only I still had that crystal ball.

-- Brenda Looney (blooney@aol.com), March 26, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I hadn't seen your reply when I posted my last message. I think you're making a major assumption about this forum that's not true... I don't believe most people here expect a total social collapse (a 10.0).

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 26, 1999.

The "bell curve" argument sounds good superficially, but under any examination it begins to break down for several reasons:

1) It assumes compliance can be reached. This is highly unlikely. Date bugs might be reduced to an easily manageable minimum, but will surely continue to crop up for years. And this doesn't count problems with windowing, or problems with non-date intruduced bugs, or problems with rushed upgrades.

2) It assumes that organizations can know that they are compliant. They might accurately state that they have discontinued their remediation efforts, though it would be foolish to do that. Instead, they can only continue to test. Testing is forever (although after rollover, these will be live tests).

3) It assumes that organizations who believe themselves compliant will announce it. This is proving widely false, for a variety of reasons, which can be summarized briefly as, when you're heading into the unknown in an interdependent economy, you're wise to be cautious.

4) It assumes we'll accept compliance announcements at face value. True, there haven't been many, and most of those have been hedged a little bit. But if we demand proof of compliance and reject all forms of proof (and some do), then there cannot be any credible claims.

I think it's more useful to look at remediation graphically as forming an impact curve which approaches zero but never reaches zero. The level of this curve over the next year will determine net impact.

Some of this also touches on the "burden of proof" canard. There really isn't any "burden" here. There will be residual bugs, and we're always trying to figure out where they'll be and what they'll do. Proof of anything in the future is impossible, and even proof of being as compliant as you think you can get can only be subject to limited verification.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 26, 1999.

Decker -- If you can't find them on the other threads (I'll bet you've looked REALLLY hard), you're not going to find what you're looking for here. But you already know that. You do have a nice condescending "rational" tone about you, though. That'll pass for a little while until it's obvious you are not the open-minded person you claim to be.

There is barely a useful thought in your entire post. Taking a snippet at random:

"Some problems will be fixed ahead of time, some will be fixed on failure and some will just not make much difference. No one can produce an accurate simulation to determine the number of computer failures that result in people looting the local thrifty mart."

Duh again, Decker. And the people on this forum who have argued that are .....? Those who want to "dialogue" with this buffoon feel free (though I fail to see how you will be able to provide a dictionary content to the word "dialogue).

Deconstructing this post is like shooting fish in a barrel. Very, very stale and boring.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 26, 1999.

I applaud you Mr. Decker. Your clear and concise thinking is most appreciated. In your first (?) post here you tried to give these boneheads a bit of advice about what they might really be facing if this thing does turn out to be a "10". I was apalled at some of the replys. Some of these guys don't have a clue! If you haven't been there guys, believe me, you don't wanta go.

Hot human blood stinks, whether it's your friend or "them". The emotional impact does last a long time after your nostrils have cleared. As your're looking down at "him" your're thinking "he's dead, I killed him. He's probably about 19-20 years old. He has a mother and father and possibly a wife or girlfriend and maybe, children". Under combat conditions, you don't have a lot of time to stand there looking at him but believe me, the memories never die.

Every person that reads this forum should concentrate on doing their part to ensure that we don't face a "10". From my own experience, we are the most "can do" nation on this earth. We can do this one too guys.

Keep posting here Mr. Decker

-- JRS (Still@trying.com), March 26, 1999.

I was wondering how long it would take for Lapdog or one of the other thought police to leave a steaming pile to divert attention...after all, you wouldn't want the meme's to 'UN-get it', would you?

--got independant thought? didn't think so...

-- Mutha Nachu (---@gotasbestosundies.com?), March 26, 1999.

What does it matter what a lone Mr. Decker thinks about how long anyone should prep for?

His post demonstrates that he no more has the answers than does anyone else.

-- The (freedomofchoice@y2k.com), March 26, 1999.

Yes, Your Mutha, when Flint wanted to pin the thought police label on me, I took it as a compliment. Still do, given the sources. Attacks from you are sweet. Captain Big the Dog always at your service.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 26, 1999.

OOhhhhhhhhhh.... BigDogTerd is really honked off now! Quick, go get help from p-brainer or one of the other 'meme cowboys'.... "round em up boys, before they get loose!"

Fish in a barrel.... that has been my thought about this forum for quite some time.... heh heh heh...

"y2K...it's still stupid"

-- Mutha Nachu (---@hail,hailthe gangsallhere.com), March 26, 1999.

I just don't get it. Since this forum is, as advertised, for those concerned with the potential impacts of Y2K on themselves and their families, and for assistance in 2K personal preparedness issues, why on earth would folks such as Mr. Decker and "Go To Hell" even want to log onto such as forum?Why, if they so clearly know this is all such a bunch of bull, are they spending their valuable time and energy posting on this forum? What's in it for them? Since they already know it's a non-event, why waste their time here? Why is it any skin off their back if others want to talk about Y2K stuff here? Maybe, they're in need of a life?? Or do they just need someone to talk to(at)??

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), March 26, 1999.

This is most extraordinary and fascinating. I've been waiting for a debate such as this.

As an alleged pollyanna I say please don't let this develop into a troll war.

Thanks

Buddy in DC

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 26, 1999.

Look, Buddy, all flaming aside, anyone can post and dialogue with anybody. The thought police attack is just silly. Best of luck to anyone who wants to dialogue with you and Decker. But, IMHO, Anita has it exactly right about a lot of the recent posts along this line in the past month and I wouldn't add one word to her post.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 26, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

As you clearly stated, your analysis and arguments were a risk assessment. As such, they were well reasoned and convincing.

However, as I'm sure you are aware since it would seem that you have engaged in mortal combat, there are two ways to gamble. You may gamble based on the odds as you see them or you may gamble on the basis of the stakes involved. As we both know, sometimes in combat you have no choice and must gamble with your own and with others' lives. When that is the circumstance, you figure the odds as well as you are able, and proceed. Examination of the odds may well allow you to alter them in your favor, but such analysis will seldom if ever allow you to opt out of the wager or to alter the stakes. If the stakes are your own life versus another's or many others, many in the service of our country have chosen to gamble with life. Some won and some lost. Only the foolish or the suicidal or the very callous or the very idealistic or the heroic however, gamble with human life when they have a choice.

With some considerable specific knowledge of the construction of the technological marvel that we call Western Civilization and a considerably lesser understanding of the workings of human societies, I have reached the conclusion that the circumstances collectively known as "Y2K" have the distinct potential for anything and everything from the end of that civilization to almost nothing at all. "Bump in the Road" to TEOTWAWKI is the range of possibilities. I have also concluded that everyone will bet.

Now since you brought up the subject of lotteries, let me ask you, did you every know anyone who expected to win when they bought their ticket? I have never met such a person. Even the mentally slowest human that I have known that bought lottery tickets, knew that the odds were greatly against his winning. He buys tickets regularly. The simple reason that he does is that he is captivated by the stakes. Each and every person that I've ever discussed the matter with has voiced in one way or another the sentiment, "I know I'm not going to win, I know the odds are millions to one against me but what if I do?

It is my conclusion that the human mind works this way by design. Some call it the ability to hope. Hope's antithesis is fear. I don't mean fear as in the immediate, genuine "know that it's gonna hurt ya" fear, but simply that which must exist in the realization that what we hope for will not often happen. Like winning the lottery.

It seems reasonable to expect then, that someone who perceives the stakes to be his own life or the lives of his family will take the position, "I don't care what the odds are, if I'm betting our lives, I'm going to do everything that I can to improve our chances! I know that TEOTWAWKI is not likely to happen, I know the odds are millions to one against it but what if it does?"

Personally, I'm a stakes gambler and I'll bet that you are too (although I won't bet my life on that!).

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 26, 1999.

Good. I love posts like these. I really dont care whether this is a troll or not, because it provides a forum for laying out a case for preparation. Ill start with your last paragraph, since this is the defining statement of your entire post.

This modest article will be lost on the true believers. Without doubt, I will be labeled a troll. If you believe Y2K will be a significant problem, make a concise, logical case. Argue it on any grounds... economic, technical, anthropological, theological... just make your assumptions clear. I am open to the possibility the world will end are you to the possibility it will not?

First, I doubt that very few of the persons posting on this forum have any thought that the world will end as a result of Y2K. This is what makes your post so ludicrous. Most of it is devoted to attempting to prove that Y2K will not result in the End of the World. As a result, factors that most likely will result in significant discomfort, in loss of jobs, and yes, loss of life, are brushed aside. By focusing on the end of the world you trivialize the real problems, with the result that the remainder of the article is tainted and discredited.

The grounds for significant Y2K problems have been stated and restated, clearly and concisely, on this forum. You have simply ignored them in an effort to publish a post that has little grounding in reality.

Now, for further dissection ----

issue of Y2K boils down to a simple issuerisk. What is the extent and nature of the risk posed by Y2K-related computer problems?

This is exactly right.

burden of proof rests with those who assert Y2K problems will dramatically alter the social, political or economic structure of the world. Often, Y2K doomsayers try to force Pollyannas to prove the world will not end. This is a spurious tactic. Under the rules of logic, those who assert Y2K will end the world as we know it must provide conclusive proof.

The burden of proof? Clearly the author has been watching too much afternoon CNN. There is no burden of proof because this is not a debate, nor a court room trial.....it is a life and death matter. Rules of logic? That statement alone is illogical.

[snip section on helmet versus seat belt]

But I digress, if one accepts the idea of Y2K as a risk issue, the next task is risk assessment. Why might one think Y2K will NOT end the world as we know it?

No, a risk assessment will focus on the existence and the degree of any risk.

You have chosen to focus only on one defined risk that clearly is outside the thinking of most people on this forum. This is bogus, and to call it a risk assessment is unworthy. We live in a capitalistic society.

Wrong. We live in one capitalistic country in a world that is a mixture of all sorts of society. The world is interrelated.

The marketplace responds equally to rational problems (Y2K coding) and irrational problems (Y2K panic).

Does it? How do you know this? This is simply a statement in which you assign equal weighting to computer problems and panic. By the way, if youre interested in doing a realistic risk assessment, how about considering whether we would be better off in December if the public does decide to panic after being told for two years that all the problems would be fixed, vice having been told a year ago that certain very specific steps to increase individual and community preparedness should be taken.

[snip more verbiage]

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems.

Ah, but now we begin to come to the crux of the problem, dont we? What makes you believe that most will be good enough. Even the most pessimistic (Infomagic, for example) feel that most problems will be solved. They realize that all problems wont be solved, and that its the ones that arent that will get us.

Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention.

Those are two dangers. A third -- and the most dangerous -- is that enough of those problems we discussed above wont be solved that companies will go out of business, people will lost jobs, the market will lose considerable value, some items we deem desirable for day to day living (food, water, electricity, gasoline, medical supplies) will become scarce.

As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."

This is exactly the best argument for individual and community preparation. Those who are prepared are calm and rational. The ones who dont prepare are the ones who will require government solutions.

A recession or even a depression due to cumulative Y2K computer problems is possible though highly unlikely.

I can as easily make the statement, A depression due to cumulative Y2K computer problems is inevitable. Lets see, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the world is suffering from a depression now, many economists feel that its only a matter of time until it hits us -- not even considering Y2K -- and you deem it unlikely. When the world is teetering on the brink, Y2K can easily be the force that sends it over. Where is it unlikely? Ask the Japanese how unlikely a depression is, or the Malaysians, or so many others. Ask the Europeans who are estimated to be in the midst of about a 4% reduction in GNP this year.

Of our tremendous productive capacity, only a fraction is dedicated to "can't-live-without-it" activities. If necessary, the market could move away from "entertainment" and other non-critical functions into critical areas.

That tremendous productive capacity is a worldwide capacity, with bits and pieces being made in the most unlikely places, and assembled somewhere else. Most of that capacity is not concentrated in the United States -- or even in any capitalistic system? Indeed, it is the failure of that capacity outside our own country that concerns many of us. This is enhanced by the potential for problems in transportation.

The market? In how much time. There is a standard rule of thumb among economists that it takes 10 years to work through a depression.

Not efficiently, perhaps, but demand creates supply.

Ah yes, but in a depression we run into the situation in which the demand decreases. And, its that loss of efficiency that becomes the force that pushes us into full scale depression. And, its the lag between the demand and the supply that is painful.

[snip]

The interaction of supply and demand occurs in all sectors including the oft mentioned by Y2K doomsayerspower supply. Let me make a few points. First, we are not consuming power at 100 percent of productive capacity. Second, our current level of consumption does not reflect any meaningful conservation efforts. I drive everywhere, leave my computer on 24 hours a day and basically wallow in cheap power. I imagine many readers do the same. Under different circumstances (higher energy prices) my behavior would change.

Youll soon get the chance to change.

As Americans, we consume about 40 percent of the world's power. We have about 5 percent of the world's population. If we needed to shave back our use of power, I imagine we could.

Do you understand that TEOTWAWKI means as we know it. Yes, many will adapt to horse drawn buggies, and we can give a new meaning to the phrase burning the midnight oil.

Witness the oil shortages of the early 70s and the subsequent effects (e.g., small cars). Given an understanding of market economics, it is difficult to imagine how a shortage of power will have terminal results (no pun intended).

If allowed, energy prices will increase to a new equilibrium. If some power producing entities fail, others will reap the profits of greater market share. This same supply/demand equilibrium will occur in every sector of the economy, unless the government intervenes. As long as theres profit in power, there will be power. In fact, as long as theres profit in any good or service it will exist. Look at our failed War on Drugs or Prohibition.

This rather specious non-factual statement denies certain laws of physics. Our economy is in motion, based on specific conditions. If the conditions change, it takes time for the economy to adjust to new conditions. Thats why it generally takes 10 years to work off a depression.

Y2K will not destroy physical infrastructure nor will it destroy the sum of human knowledge. We do not lose our knowledge base with Y2K, just (possibly) some of our technological infrastructure. A mysterious destruction of railroads in 1875 would have greatly accelerated the development of alternative forms of transportation. Barge and ship traffic would have boomed. There would have been economic difficulties, but the market will find a way. Right now, we possess the knowledge to recreate every existing human artifact including silly putty.

At this point in time, Mr. Decker has gotten carried away, and instead of advancing sound arguments hes resorting to hyperbole. Yes, Im certain that recreating silly putty in 10 years will be beneficial. In the meantime, would you make rational suggestions concerning food, water, shelter, and so forth?

BTW, a mysterious destruction of railroads in 1875 would have been disastrous since barges and ships were totally incapable of crossing the Sierra mountains and linking the west coast with the rest of the nation, let alone forming a viable east-west pathway.

How nice that major economic difficulties are simply shrugged off. No doubt Decker would also shrug off the loss of life suffered by plains dwellers who were unable to obtain supplies.

"Go, No-Go" analysis leads to false statistical results when applied to macroeconomic phenomena. Social and economic activity is not a coin toss. Computer or embedded chip failures reduce efficiency. In extreme cases, efficiency can be reduced to zero, but this is an exception rather than a rule. Some level of activity will continue in all economic sectors, at least with some level of reduced efficiency.

This is verbosity that means that all failures arent catastrophic. (See how much easier you can make it if you try?)

That is not, nor ever has been, an argument. Go back above. Everyone believes most problems will be fixed. The question is, will it be enough? If you reduce efficiency of the economy enough, we call it a depression.

Bad things can happen.

Sure can.

There is a reasonably high probability the earth will be struck by an interstellar object. Of course, it may take another billion years. I am not losing sleep over this, even though it is a "non-zero probability."

Getting hit by an asteroid is not the area of concern here. Why did you bring it up? By doing so you weaken any case you might have been able to advance and demonstrate yourself as a flake.

Much of the Y2K writing on the Internet has been dedicated to the proposition that one failure will domino into a systemic failure.

Dont think so. The systematic argument is that some failures will produce a domino effect. Can you deny, for example, that should coal mines be unable to produce coal then coal fired trains would run out of fuel? The failure of all coal mines is not one failure, but the failure of many mines.

Under some circumstances, the loss of a single critical supplier can shut down major manufacturers. Now, most manufacturers are taking steps to see that this doesnt happen to them. This is your free market. In this free market environment, they will do so by firing non-compliant suppliers. This transfers the problem from the big company to the little company. It simply reduces the negative effect on the economy, it does nothing to totally mitigate the loss of jobs and income. Depression is not averted.

The rate of failure argument is logically flawed. Take a complex set of devices like those in the Apollo space program (1960s technology). Based on the incredible number of components and the mean time between failure, on paper the Apollo missions never make it off the pad.

Wrong. The MTBF as calculated on the overall system was actually quite high. Why? Redundancy my man, redundancy. If one gidget failed, the backup gidget was switched on-line.

This is the danger of misapplied statistical analysis. While Y2K will cause some failures, very few are mission critical for the survival of civilization. (Do you think wed even notice if some Federal departments did not operate?)

Ah, here we come back to the major problem with Deckers entire argument. He is assuming that TEOTWAWKI means the end of civilization. It doesnt. It never did. It means that we have problems, major problems, some of them potentially life threatening.

Some problems will be fixed ahead of time, some will be fixed on failure and some will just not make much difference.

And some will not be fixed ahead of time, some will require a long time to fix after failure, with disastrous results, and some will make a big difference. These are the ones that will be a problem.

History demonstrates that we can survive panics, speculative bubbles, civil war, government unrest, bank failures, depression, recession, terrorism, natural disasters and even politicians.

Meaningless and trivial. The corporate we, (meaning humankind) will most probably survive Y2K. My job is to insure that my family and I survive.

By the way, at this point in Deckers post I feel that I am arguing with Peter de Jager.....we can survive!!! Of course we -- the human race -- can survive, silly. That (except for Infomagic) isnt the point.

America recovered from a brutal civil war. Europe recovered from two world wars. In both instances, the physical infrastructure was badly damaged.

The few living Americans who were adults during the Great Depression can tell you it was not prettybut it was not a return to the 1830s. Believe it or not, we do understand more about macroeconomics than 60 years ago. We have the ability to mitigate some economic damage. Witness the absorption of the failed Savings & Loans. A failure to resolve Y2K problems may result in a recession, [can you say depression?]but it will not turn the clock back 100 years.

This is priceless. Decker starts out talking about a free market, and ends up talking about a controlled economy in which the federal government absorbed the failed Savings and Loans.

Society does not operate like a computer program... period. I am much more interested in the comments of economists, historians or other social scientists with regard to Y2K.

Oh, so thats why you wasted an entire section trashing Gary North, who is a historian and economist

[snip rants]

From the mostly Internet-based Y2K musings of a few has arisen a "faith." Y2K has become a belief system rather than a technical or public policy issue. Many of the individuals who post on this and other boards "believe" Y2K will result in "the end of the world as we know it." They cannot prove this... nor can anyone. They hold Y2K as an article of faith. This is the reason debate tends towards acrimony. The same bitterness would result if you tried to convince a Southern Baptist the benefits of witchcraft. Many economic or social movements transition into belief systems.

But a Harry Browne-like belief that a free market system will compensate for Y2K problems isnt a faith based system? Please, spare me. At this point in the post the author has resorted to extremes of hyperbole, trashing people on a theological basis, and contradicting himself.

-- De (delewis@inetone.net), March 26, 1999.

I agree that it's possible to make persuasive arguments as to the amount of risk. But plenty of people have done that very cogently (assessments of selected 'experts' at http://www.russkelly.com/ experts.html to refer to just a few), and they still don't agree with each other. It could probably be argued once again by someone here. But what would be the point? Then there would be disagreements as to how persuasive it was... etc., etc.. etc.

Consider that a year after Y2k, whatever happens, there will still be disagreements.... then it will be about why what happened happened, just like there is about the rest of the events of history.

If I'm to satisfy your request, I would only have one course and that is to say, "I'm sorry, I don't have enough data, I can't make a good enough argument, nor am I enough of an expert in any field, and furthermore, many people can run circles around me with their logic and arguments." While these things are true, yet, as a responsible individual, I refuse to relinquish my power to decide for myself in this matter. As a person who daily makes decisions on my own and others' behalf at home and on the job and elsewhere, I consider myself capable of thinking and acting prudently even with "incomplete data." Obligated to, in fact. This is the nature of responsibility and of being human.

It does not follow that because I can't present a perfect argument, that I'm "infected" with a "meme". If you accept that reasoning, then you also have to challenge every pollyanna for the perfect argument, too, and if it's not forthcoming, accept that there's such thing as a "no problem" meme, too. I tend to trust that both sides have reasoned well enough for themselves, but came to different conclusions.

No one can present the perfect argument, especially when it comes to predictions. Those who try it with respect to Y2k, are doing so in order to arrive at a course of action in the face of risk, not as an academic exercise. It's an important distinction.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 26, 1999.

Found at the "About" link on the main page of this forum:

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. . ."

Those words are Ed Yourdon's; this site is Ed Yourdon's. The people who post here, by and large, are as described in the above statement. Could we please get back to concerns about the impact of Y2K on our personal lives and discussing various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people, and stop wasting time in pseudo-debate with those who have their minds firmly made up?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 26, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Thank you for the post. It is very well though out and definately something to consider. I do believe that you are missing the point though.

"On this issue there is no shortage of opinions. One must note, however, almost all of this writing is speculative. What may happen in the year 2000 is guesswork, some more educated than others."

Exactly!

You compare Y2K to driving. Well, I wear my seat belt. I always have. I was in an accident and that habit, most likely, saved my life.

I always keep a spare tire in the trunk. I've only had one blowout in the past three years, but I was sure happy that I had that spare.

I always keep provisions in my car in case of emergencies. I live in the North central part of the U.S. and it simply makes sense to do so, especially during winter. Well, I've only needed them once, during a blizard. If I'd driven 50 miles further and didn't have them, I could have died.

I would wager that most of the "true believers" that you speak of have always taken the same kind of precautions. You have stated that neither you or anyone else knows for sure what will happen due to Y2K. That is more than enough of a reason to prepare.

Most people here simply advise that people pick up a few extra items at the grocery store every week. We advise people to think about protecting themselves against the possibility of future problems. There is nothing wrong with this. If a person evaluates the risks and believes that moving away from large cities is wise, there is nothing wrong with that either.

The argument to not prepare is illogical despite your best attempt to make it seem so. There is an unknown risk. I, as well as every other "true believer" on this forum have read volumes of data. I have concluded that I should wear my Y2K seatbelt.

-- d (d@dgi.old), March 26, 1999.

Uh, Mr. Decker, Have you heard the word "Reconstruction" used before? Sure you have. The Feds used it on the southern States after Lincoln's war to destroy States Rights. If you've studied that war you already know that the slavery issue didn't really pick up steam until "honest Abe" needed more citizens to back up his blood loans from the european loan sharks. Before that war our Laws were based on the Customs and Usages of the Founders of the original States, and according to the Supreme Court, our Republic was founded on Christian Law (specifically the 1611 version of the King James Bible). Look at what passes for legal process today and you'll see improper English, misspellings, unsigned documents,all caps, stamped signatures,abbreviations, etc., all of which is unlawful process and all of which is necessary for a Govt.(UNITED STATES,INC.) acting under Martial rule. That's what has given us the actions of the "Commander in Chief" up through Roosevelt and up to the present un- Godly mess. So, Mr. Decker, the tables are going to have to be turned once again to enjoy "Lawful" government in this Republic. Michael Jon

-- Michael Jon (workshy@eagledesign.com), March 27, 1999.

Well, with what seems like clockwork, we have our weekly "Pollyanna vs. Y2k end-of-worlders" offering, posted late on Friday afternoon for maximum impact and perusal over the weekend. It's the author (the unknown "Decker"), versus the Y2k wackos (this thread, apparently, in toto), with no distinction to the variety of opinion and depth of analysis inhabiting this particular forum.

"De" did a nice job rebutting most of the gaping holes here. Just a few additional comments concerning Decker's "major punts":

But first:

Again with driving a car? Because we elect to drive our cars without full body armor, we are informed that making even moderate Y2k preps is the action of a lunatic. This lame analogy would only hold up if only we had a body of statistics in which millions of Y2ks occurred every day under various sets of circumstances over, say, the past 70 years or so.

The body of data available to assess the risk of experiencing a traumatic head injury via an auto accident is immense. Call up any insurance statistician, and they can likely tell you, to the third decimal, what the odds are that a person of your age, gender, and driving record will suffer such an injury while driving your year and model car at any given time of day on any given day of the week, including all major holidays, in each major metropolitan area of the country. Well, perhaps an exaggeration, but you get the point.

In contrast, the body of data available to assess the risk of Y2k effects does not exist. There is no data available that provides for even the most guarded assumptions vis-`-vis Y2k, short of a rigorous application of software metrics, which, incidentally, because of their implications, have been more or less ignored to date. We're rolling dice here and we don't even know how many dice there are or how many sides each die has.

1. The Free Market

Yes, one could easily believe that the "free market" will provide a timely and comprehensive solution. As the current and most popular belief system in America, its holy presence knows no limitations. Interestingly, the free market has delivered us unto Y2k, so it should be expected to pull us out of this mess. Right? The free market hath taketh away and now the free market will giveth? Our god has made the flood, and now he will toss us a cruise ship (or is it a branch?) and we will ride it out.

2. The "Grid"

Decker claims recession is unlikely, depression less than unlikely. Here he indicates America can go on short rations if necessary and we'll get by. He says prices will rise, consumption will decrease, and over time new technologies will be introduced to get us back to some semblance of our previous power habit. How in the world does one reconcile this with "unlikely recession". Decker's thesis just rolls off a cliff.

3. The Knowledge Base

Who is talking about losing any significant part of the knowledge base? Decker now has now confused this forum with the "Lucifer's Hammer" page. This forum is about the Y2k computer problem. Decker argues against a very extreme outcome that few here, if any, are predicting.

4. The "False Positive" Y2k Statistical Analysis

Another argument painted in black and white. There is a vast canvas of shades of gray in terms of Y2k systemic risk. And systemic risk is a real possibility, as even Alan Greenspan recognizes, and for solely technical reasons. The Achilles heel of Y2k may be housed in binary computers, but I assure you the range of potential outcomes is anything but binary. It's equally foolish to draw the "False Negative" as Decker has done.

5. History

The historical record has no analogue for Y2k. None. However, within about a year there is a high probability most of us will have at least one Y2k-like example we can look back upon.

And it is good thing that we have past (and present) experience in panics, wars, speculative bubbles, terrorism, bank failures, and recession, for a not negligent probability exists that we will need to draw on the experiences of these potential after-effects of Y2k, and perhaps more or less simultaneously.

6. Internet "Experts" & Data Distribution

Oddly, Decker, himself, is posing as an Internet "expert", thereby, with his own words, shooting his own credibility in the foot.

Society may not "operate as a computer" but it sure operates autonomically and at the levels it has achieved precisely through the use of computers.

Decker may choose to ignore the assorted geeks, systems analysts, and tech generalists, but does so at his own peril. Sure, let's toss the metrics, system dependencies, and critical paths. The soft science guys will have all the answers we really need in this domain. Their words are so nice and fuzzy, and warm, and general... Economists? No experience with anything comparable to Y2k. Historians, same deal. Social scientists, ditto. They will all have their opinions at the ready, of course, some quite valuable, some much less so. But they're in their own little boxes, just as the rest of us are. Just as Decker is.

7. Gary North

GN has his opinions. Some of them revolve around gathering and analyzing Y2k articles and assorted pronouncements. I can't and won't defend his entire body of work, but will I defend his right to express himself as guaranteed in our Constitution, right up to the point just prior to where he directly violates the Constitution, if he so chooses.

Our government has its opinions too, and we see and hear them expressed in both word and deed every day, and some of these opinions involve Y2k. However, unlike Gary North, a day doesn't go by where our government doesn't directly and continuously violate the document upon which this country was founded. In fact, our government is blatantly violating our Constitution right now by its actions in Eastern Europe. Decker wishes to raise doubts about North's motives and veracity, as is his right. I would submit that there are interested parties pertaining to the Y2k issue that may well be far less credible than North and with motives at least as suspect.

Faith versus Reason

Up to this point, Decker had been proselytizing for his "faith", the church of the "any serious negative outcome is not possible for the many general opinions I have previously listed, none of which are based on measurable, independently verifiable facts". But here he now wishes to trade his faith for reason. OK, great, but he can't have it both ways.

By all means, let's abandon personal opinion and collect, examine, and organize every bit of evidence, clearly, thoroughly, and without bias. I can assure Decker that this forum would like nothing better. Unfortunately, we've been at a constant struggle to glean facts from articles and reports that are themselves heavily biased, speaking in feel-good or feel-bad generalities, and more often than not coming from the extremes of the Y2k spectrum. I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't prefer to conduct their actions regarding Y2k under the intense light of fact and reason. Sadly, like numerous others before him, Decker scarcely manages to provide the illumination of dusty 5W bulb.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), March 27, 1999.

Mutha's my name, causing trouble's my game!

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnett.att.net), March 27, 1999.

Love is the answer!

-- Mind Game (absolute@elsewhere.now), March 27, 1999.

I doubt either Decker or Mutha had anything at all to do with the above 2 posts.

-- lurch (observing@watching.com), March 27, 1999.

Lurch,

You're right.

Pssst...Mr. Decker,

Take a bow!

-- PMc (middle@road.bfi), March 27, 1999.

I returned early to find this "thread" full of interesting responses. Let me take a moment to discuss one of the most long- winded. ("De")

First, let me state that I am a trained as an economist, although I am managing a large nonprofit entity at the present time. As such, much of De's response dealing with economics is nonsensical.

1. When I referred to the United States as a capitalistic society, I was correct. While a purist might decry the government's involvement in economic matters, for the most part, we have relatively free marketplace. This applies to the global marketplace. China may be a communist country, but selling into the U.S. market (largest in the world), they are playing by free market rules. If Chinese goods become too expensive, we buy goods produced in other countries.

2. The power of the free market is vast and greatly misunderstood. The United States was largely a wilderness in the previous century. In the past 100 years, we have made incredible technological strides, largely due to a free market economy. The private sector activity in fixing Y2K bugs is a wonderful example. Without government mandate, many firms are taking action on addressing the problem. Other firms are providing software solutions. Some are even providing the personal preparation equipment many readers desire. Personally, I find this reassuring.

3. I have not tried to convince people that personal Y2K preparations are a waste of time. Please exercise your personal economic freedom and spend your money however you wish. Buy soybeans, IBM stock or pink flamingo lawn ornaments... I really don't mind. Just do so as an informed consumer.

4. "Many economists" do not predict economic depression in immediate future. The consensus forecast is a loss of one half of one percent GDP due to Y2K issues. I invite you to submit the names of those reputable economists actually predicting a U.S. depression in 2000 due to Y2K failures.

5. Gary North is not an economist, (although I think he has a PhD in history). Nor is Ed Yourdon or Jennifer Yourdon. I took the time to explain a bit of Gary North's history and his theology. Many individuals are not aware that Mr. North advocates the overthrow of our consitutional republic and a new Old Testament theocracy. As readers, they have a right to know the fact that Mr. North has predicted the "end of the world" for two decades.

6. While the U.S. government did "bail out" the Savings and Loans, the private sector allowed the country to continue moving forward despite the "systemic" problems. In short, our economy "absorbed" the loss and pressed on.

7. Capitalism is redundant... far more than the triple redundancy of NASA. A manufacturer is foolish to allow a sole supplier situation... (in economic terms a monopsony). Once one is dependent on a sole source supplier, the supplier can dictate contract terms. A manufacturer who leaves himself at the mercy of a supplier deserves to fail.

8. The laws of physics are not the laws of economics (despite the fervent wishes of econometricians).

9. I have yet to see an argument that conclusively proves the threshold of failures required to cause a systemic collapse. I'll even settle for a well-written speculation.

10. Economists rarely agree on any rule of thumb, let alone "ten years" to overcome a depression. The NIRU (non-inflationary rate of unemployment) used to be 5% as a rule of thumb... until the past few years. A wise economist (if not an oxymoron) realizes that there are too many variables in complex economies to have "rules of thumb." Newtonian physics do not explain complex systems, ergo the interest in chaos math. (Ever wonder why we can't predict the weather a month in advance? Ta da!)

The world is in a constant state of change. Our free market and constitutional republic allow individuals "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Personally, I like the arrangement. A requirement of both a republic and a free market is the exchange of information. You may accept or reject my information, but I choose to exercise my right to express the facts... at least as I see them.

Y2K may cause some firms or public agencies to fail. Under capitalism, failure is to be expected. Strong firms should prevail, and weaker firms should perish. This is why most sensible economists are against government "bail outs" like Chrysler, price supports, subsidies and other "market distorting" actions.

Let me end with this. A concerned woman asked for my personal advice about Y2K preparations. I told her this. Invest in yourself. Stay healthy--physically, mentally, spirituality. Do something every day to increase your skills. Turn off the television and read... especially to your children. Get out of debt and stay out of debt. Understand how the artifacts in your own life work... like your house or car. Think clearly and make your own decisions. Intelligent, literate, hard-working people have generally done better throughout the course of history. Oh, and don't forget to laugh.

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 28, 1999.

DECkeR!!!!! FOrgIVe diETER hIS FOoLisH BELieF!!!!! CaN YoU, in YouR FOoLisH WIsdOM, NoT SEE The MOrE thAt FOlkS PREpaRE fOR A tEN, tHE lESS chANcE A TeN Has FOR occURInG????? HuH????? WhY Do jaCKaLS FEaR PREpaRAtiONS For tHE WOrsT?????? Is iT NoT a wISEr idEa tO HAvE aND nOT NeeD thAN TO neED And nOT HaVE?????? huH????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 28, 1999.

Well, Mr. Decker, you certainly write well, as compared to Muthah, Y2KPro, Cherri, CPR and the other BFI's. You understand that's damning with faint praise. Tell me, sir, aren't you at least mildly embarrassed to be associated with that motley mob of contumelious cretins?

I'm sure you must know that most of the points you made have been presented here before, more than once in fact, during the last several months. Rather pointless, wouldn't you say? But then, as Oblio would put it, "You don't have to have a point to have a point."

Throughout my reading of your article, I could not wrest from my mind this observation by Benjamin Franklin, "The learned Fool writes his Nonsense in better language than the Unlearned, but 'tis still Nonsense."

As we here at TB2000 are quite accustommed to well-written polemic and reasoned disquisition, I hope you will continue to post here---as well, your Biffy consort, if they would at least employ spell/grammar-checkers and occasionally bathe.

Hallyx

"Invest yourself in the quality of the discourse, but not the outcome."---Richard Reese

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), March 28, 1999.

WOW! I'm impressed. I'm a teacher, but I had to look up contumelious! I love increasing my vocabulary. Thanks! :-)

PS- it means insolently abusive and humiliating.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), March 28, 1999.

Well, Hallyx, would that you turn that mirror on yourself.

Your prose was outstanding, yet in the full post, you did not address even one of the points Mr. Decker has made.

Par for the course.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 28, 1999.

But why, Meester Decker, turn off your television? Is it not the very apotheosis of your precious capitalism? Is this not the high altar on which the masses brought up under a system of benevolent aggregate capital worship? Or have you discerned that capitalistic television does a tremendous disservice to the populace it supposedly serves? How can this be? I would suggest there is a distinction to be made between a system that efficiently plops donuts in your bucket, and one that offers an enobling vision of man in all his dignity. You have placed your 'faith' in post-Enlightenment capitalism and its attendant technological marvels. I see all around me a decaying 'civilization:' kids who put pins through their tongues in self-abasing hatred, women forced by economic necessity in this capitalist wonderland to murder their unborn children, 1.7 million Americans imprisoned, half of all children fatherless, and a deracinated population that, increasingly, is functionally illiterate and cut off from the taproots of land and heritage. I know nothing of Gary North's religious beliefs, but am chary of those who would argue that 'believers need not apply.' The real reason you dislike television is it is pagan: violent, lascivious, scatalogical, and increasingly occultic. T.S. Eliot once commented that 'culture is that which makes life worth living.' Television offers, in its capitalist, monopolistic wisdom, the antithesis of culture: an anti-civilization perfectly suited to the Culture of Death that late Materialism has left us with. You're a rationalist, Decker: you reject the superstitions of Christendom: embrace the paganism you've helped to spawn.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 28, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I think your faith in the free market economy is a bit naive.

Now don't get me wrong...even though the free market system is flawed, it is the best one available. It has the best chance of allocating resources properly, and it means we only have to deal with stupidity from time to time in one area (the business world), and not two (the business world and a government planning agency).

Here's just one paragraph from the essay you kicked this thread off with:

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems. Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."

There are good reasons for thinking that the free market won't be able to solve enough Y2K problems in time. For one, Y2K is a unique event with no precedants; businesses would have reacted to it quicker if they had experience in dealing with it before. The financial system is a far along as it is, because it deals with loans that stretch into the future. Other sectors of the economy haven't been so lucky in having that kind of advanced warning.

Another reason why the free market has trouble dealing with Y2K is that spending money on remediation reduces profits. The natural tendency is to delay Y2K fixes until later. It's the "maybe someone else will be the CEO by then...let it cut into their quarterly profit statement" type of thinking.

Remember, spending money to remediate Y2K often does not increase productivity. Y2K remediation is about spending money to keep your company's productivity from dropping--if the business can be convinced of that. Your version of "staying calm and rational" could cause thousands of small businesses to assume Y2K is just hype and as a result do nothing.

And I still don't understand why you believe public panic is so possible. If the free market economy is as close to solving the Y2K problem as you say it is, panic is not going to happen.

I take back what I just said. I think I do know why you are so concerned about panic: it's because of your politcal agenda. You're afraid of...

...a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."

Some people who call this forum are accused of having agendas. Some are concerned that enough interruptions or failures will occur that the government will have to find "solutions." Mr. Decker, you're no different from them...it's just that they're mostly concerned about the computers and you're most concerned with panic.

Is a recession or even a depression due to cumulative Y2K computer problems likely? Will we able to get a package across the globe overnight in January 2000 or April 2000?

I would read "Year 2000 Recession?" by Dr. Edward Yardeni.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 28, 1999.

"Year 2000 Recession?" by Dr. Yardeni:

http://www.yardeni.com/y2kbook.html#B1.1

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 28, 1999.

Ed:

The free market has always tended to work incrementally. The y2k problem wasn't addressed until organizations recognized that it was worth the incremental cost to address it. In this case, it wasn't worth the cost until there was absolutely no choice but to pay it. Even then, it was postponed as long as possible.

The pattern you observe follows this same principle (and indeed, your professional experience reflects this). Give the software project a little bit of time and money. If it's not enough, give it a little bit more. One increment at a time. Organizations are well aware from experience that if you give any project twice the time and money they really need, both will get spent anyway.

How much of what you observe represents a genuine underestimate of time and money, and how much just reflects normal incrementalism, I can't say. Probably nobody will ever know.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 28, 1999.

Mr Yourdon:

Two points. First, you seem to be mixing apples and oranges, in discussing S&L's and banks. To my knowledge, S&L's are not banks, and never have had the insurance provided by the FDIC. Even so, the government did bail them out.

Second, your point that it would have been cheaper to "fix" Y2k years ago, and with it the seemingly underlying assumption that business did not begin to address the problem. How then do you explain the 20,000+ SAP installations of R/3? And SAP has just under 50% of the client-server ERP market. This boom was directly fuelled by Y2k considerations. How would it have been cheaper to "fix" systems that ended up being replaced? For that matter, a system that had undergone full Y2k remediation and testing 5 years ago would still have been subject to constant testing of ongoing changes for Y2k, and most probably still be required to undergo complete testing and probable modification again at this date.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 28, 1999.

Why, thanks for nothing Hallyx. We poor clueless pollys do so enjoy being talked down by a pompous pseudo-intellectual who likes to append pretentious quotes to his silly prose. If you're under the delusion that these sniglets make you seem less of a self-important poser, sorry to burst your bubble, bub: they don't. They only show that you have delusions of adequacy.

And since we're indulging in gratuitous pesronal attacks, a big **piss on you too** to that flea--infested cur up above. I hope you get worms, ya mangy mutt. Decker's post deserved better manners than you two boneheads dished out. Toodle-loo.

-- BigBadTrolls (GNBFI@GNBFI.com), March 29, 1999.

"BigBad"--the word you sought is 'poseur,' not 'poser.' If you're going to vilify, at least get the vocab down.

-- Spidey (in@ja.com), March 29, 1999.

Excuse me all over the place for the misspelling, because you see, as the ever-condescending Hallyx likes to point out, we Biffies don't use the spell/grammar-checker or even bathe much. How he can discern that particular olfactory fact over the Internet is beyond me. Oh, wait, that must be just another vilification.

-- BigBadTrolls (GNBFI@GNBFI.com), March 29, 1999.

Mr Yourdon:

The point I was addressing was your statement that it would have been cheaper to do the Y2k remediation years ago. In any other circumstance, using the Federal Government budget process as a realistic view would be absurd. Obviously, the Federal Government does not operate under the same constraints as a normal business.

The predicted escalation of costs, such as COBOL programmer rates, has failed to materialize, at least on the scale some had predicted. Budget estimation on Y2k projects may have been understated, but that estimation does not serve the same role as in a normal development project. Normally, a cost/benefit analysis is performed, to determine the viability of a development project. That analysis is not truly applicable to Y2k remediation; except for an analysis of "do we truly need this system". It has not been my experience that companies weighed the costs of remediation versus replacement; the systems that could be replaced were. What is left must be remediated, or discarded.

Also, my limited direct observations have been that companies are still carrying basically "dead-weight" in their budgets. For example, my current client still has budgeted Y2k remediation for two systems that are on schedule to be replaced in May and June, respectively. This dual budget is a fallback position only.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 29, 1999.

So, what's up? All the ruminants from GBIABFI are renting pads on this forum, since they're about to be evicted from their roach motel?

-- Lisa (move@over.y'all), March 29, 1999.

Mr. Yourdon,

I am delighted by your willingness to respond... (if indeed it is you.) On the Internet, one can never be sure. If I might respond to a few of your points.

First, my comments on the savings and loan debacle were to point out the incredible strength of the domestic economy. The S&L collapse did not cause a depression. As I attempted to note in my original post, the free market economy is a good deal tougher than given credit for. (Unfortunately, the S&L crisis did not convince everyone that more often than not, government intervention in markets creates havoc.)

Second, the Great Depression was a complex event. Many actions taken by policy makers actually made the depression worse. In the aftermath, policies were created to avoid future catastrophes. Even during the height of the Depression, most (75%) of Americans worked. It was not a pleasant time, but the best defense was (as always) a combination of marketable skills, a solid work ethic and no personal debt.

Third, the free market is only efficient in economists' dreams. If you read the list required for "perfect competition," you'll understand. The government is not a business entity subject to ordinary marketplace rules. The government is not driven by profit motive nor does it have competing entities. This is why the government is often less efficient than the private sector. In fact, as an entrepreneur you are free to engage in high risk/high reward activities unlike gov't bureaucrats. With all due respect, I am quite certain your current "take home" exceeds the income of the U.S. President. Of course, you may not have all the benefits....

In short, the private sector is responding more quickly, but perhaps not perfectly. If you think computer scientists ought to run the companies, I suggest you read Thorstein Veblen. You might find his vision of a society run by engineers appealing. I do know this... many firms are making the necessary steps to remediate Y2K problems and would love the additional market share if competitors fail. In the Darwinian economic world, the strong survive and weak do not.

Thank you for you considered comments.

Regards,

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 29, 1999.

Gentle Readers,

My post has generated a volume of gratuitious personal attacks. I had not read the Ed Yourdon forum until one of my essays was "cross- posted" here. After I "found" the forum, I compiled some of my thoughts on the economic perspective of a Y2K disruption (Y2K and Risk). I understood the purpose of this forum was an open discussion of Y2K and related matters.

I respect your right to disagree with my views, however, please do so in a civil manner. Personal attacks simply waste the time of readers who actually want to engage in discourse.

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 29, 1999.

Thanks for this post Mr. Decker. You are a breath of fresh air on this forum. I've always enjoyed your posts on the Gary forum; please continue to ignore the ignorant.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 29, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

In your essay, you did make comments such as...

Often, Y2K doomsayers try to force Pollyannas to prove the world will not end.

When you misrepresent the position of those preparing for Y2K, you shouldn't be surprised at the reaction.

Enough of that, though. I posted several reasons why the free market system, for all its good points, will have trouble getting enough computers systems remediated in time. I've seen no reply from you to my points.

Are you secretly hoping to be flamed, or did you want to discuss the free market economy and Y2K?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 29, 1999.

Kevin:

I'll let Mr Decker respond to the economic questions.

But, you say that his statement:

Often, Y2K doomsayers try to force Pollyannas to prove the world will not end.

..somehow misrepresents the majority opinion here. How so? Isn't this mindset endorsed by Ed Yourdon himself, in one of his recent essays, where uses the "guilty until proven innocent" phrase? Isn't it this mindset that allows him to make statements such as:

there are thousands of small towns and counties across the country who may discover that their fire engines don't work..

..without evidence of a single such failure? I believe Mr Decker nailed his description precisely.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 29, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

It misrepresents the majority opinion here because none of us, to my knowledge, are expecting the end of the world in 2000. Most of us are not even expecting a 10.

This forum's average opinion about Y2K's expected impact is an 8.0...some less, some more. Gary North is a 10, and he has his own forum.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 29, 1999.

Kevin:

I see. So his sin was leaving off the ...AWKI part.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 29, 1999.

TEOTWAWKI = The end of the world as we know it.

TEOTWAWKI is possible, even if all 50 states have a continuous supply of electric power in January 2000.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 29, 1999.

Dear Kevin,

Let me respond to your points in kind. First, many events are unprecedented. The rise of the Internet serves as an excellent example. The private sector has adapted remarkably well to the Internet despite having no previous experience with e-commerce, etc.

Second, spending money on fixing Y2K problems preserves profits. The well-managed firm will understand that it has to stay in business to make money. Not all firms are well managed, but capitalism does not warrant that every firm is. We simply must let weak firms fail, and the strong reap the rewards.

Third, Y2K spending does not, by definition, decrease productivity. If a business chooses to replace an aging mainframe with a newer, faster system, increased profits may result. After all, the folks down in IT have been telling us for years we need bigger, faster computers (even when we didnt). This is a golden opportunity to upgrade.

Fourth, small businesses that dont fix problems deserve to fail just as companies who produce poor products, treat customers badly, etc. (Although many seem to take a long time to die.) Many small businesses use a computer, but do not depend on it. If their system fails, some will simply do without. If our computer systems go down, our business does not stop operating. It just is less efficient.

Fifth, markets are rational, even in the face of nonrational behavior. People want to stock ten years of soybeans firms emerge willing to sell them ten years of soybeans. Explain the utility of pink flamingo lawn ornaments or designer jeans. I cannot. Simply an interaction of supply and demand, markets perform rationally its people who flake out.

I worry about panic because both the Republic and the free market work well when everyone does their job. Economies flow. A panic can disturb the flow of goods and services. In short, we all suffer. Some, of course, more than others.

Before I go, lets take a moment to talk about the power of the free market. Walk back in time. Standing on a city street in 1899, we meet. I tell that I have seen the future. During the next century, you will be able to fly across the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours for the cost of decent suit. You may have heard about the car? In the next century all of the cities in North America will be connected by a high-speed system of roads. Almost everyone will own a car and routinely travel at speeds of over 65 miles an hour.

In the next century, you will watch events unfold using a new invention called television. Everyone will have one, and many families will have two or three. The moving picture will have sound, color and be available 24 hours a day through your television.

We will greatly extend our life span and conquer many feared diseases. We will learn how to transplant every organ in the human body and we will unlock the secret of the genetic code. We will split the atom and create weapons capable of destroying the entire plant. We will walk on the moon, routinely travel in space and explore every last corner of the globe.

In less than 100 years, you will be able to send a package to anyone, anywhere in the world and have it arrive overnight. Oh, and it will cost you less than good meal. The size of the average American house will double and double again. Labor saving devices will wash your clothing, your dishes and your car all automatically.

A millionaire today is less well off than a poor man in a hundred years. And trust me, a million dollars will be worth a lot less!

You laugh, and most likely, consider me mad. The free market, my friend, will do all I said and more. It will invent the unimaginable, and with the excess finance the wildest ideas of our government. Look at what we have overcome in the past century for me, Y2K looks manageable.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 29, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I'm comfortable with what I said about the limitations of the free market, and you're comfortable with your nearly theological faith in it.

The free market system did not prevent the Titanic from sinking, though, and it did not stop the Great Depression from taking place. You said...

Look at what we have overcome in the past century...for me, Y2K looks manageable.

Yes, we will overcome Y2K--eventually. The question is, at what economic and personal cost?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 29, 1999.

Dear Kevin,

Let me borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill. Capitalism is a terrible economic system, but it is far better than the alternatives.

Please do not think me so foolish as to believe capitalism has no flaws. The free produces abundantly, but does not distribute equitably. Very few markets are perfect (in economic terms). To paraphrase Adam Smith, businessmen seldom gather except to invent new ways of fleecing the customer. Large corporations exert undue influence over government. External costs (and benefits) are not taken into account. Capitalism is amoral. The profit motive has caused incredible devastation of the natural world.

The problem, good Kevin, is that we have not matured enough as a society to wield the awesome powers we have. We still enjoy our bread and circuses. But do not blame capitalism... the free market rises (or falls) to the moral level of any society. From Churchill to Pogo... we have seen the enemy, and he is us.

Regards,

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 29, 1999.

Decker: Yes of course a free market allows for an increase in the standard of living. But what you fail to recognize is the fact that all systems have breaking points. IMHO, in the next several months, we will be pushing the free market system, as well as a host of social and political systems, past their breaking point. That means they will "break" and the results will be some form of catastrophe.

Now doesn't that make a lot more sense than your "parallels to the year 1000" theory?

-- a (a@a.a), March 29, 1999.

a: no, it does not.

-- lurch (---@here.there), March 29, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

When I composed my message to you about the free market system and said...

Now don't get me wrong...even though the free market system is flawed, it is the best one available.

...I was paraphrasing that quote you just provided by Churchill...

Capitalism is a terrible economic system, but it is far better than the alternatives.

So, obviously, I was also not doing what you thought I was when you just said...

But do not blame capitalism...

And when you just said...

...we have seen the enemy, and he is us.

...that was exactly the point I was trying to make to you when I made my comments about the limitations of the free market system! You appear to be either clueless or you feel you must disagree with those who call this forum.

My disagreement is not whether a free market economy is the best system; my disagreement is with your blind faith that free market economics guarantees Y2K disruptions will be minimal.

Go easy on the condescension and have a good evening.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 30, 1999.

Kevin,

Let's not waste each other's time. My faith in the free market is not "blind" nor do I think any economic system offers guarantees. Y2K could cause a depression. With all due respect, so what. If I knew in 1928 there was a possibilty of stock market crash in 1929, I would not have filled my cellar with soybeans. I would have continued to live my life just as I do right now. Just based on my experiences, education and lifestyle, I am more prepared for "disaster" than 99 percent of America. In fact, my next "major" post has a simple thesis. How you live on a day-to-day basis is the best preparation. I'll give you a sneak preview... are you healthy? Are you debt-free? Do you live well within your income and have six months of living expenses in liquid savings? Do you have high demand skills and an excellent work ethic? Are you calm, rational and flexible in the face of a changing environment? Do you have a positive attitude?

You cannot buy these "preparations" at a Y2K supply house. I contend, however, the aforementioned list will have more to do with "survival" whether Y2K is a bump in the road or the end of the road.

Life is not about guarantees, Kevin, it's about playing the odds. In my opinion, the odds are Y2K will take some steam out of the longest expansion in peace time history. How much? I don't know. We live with the chance of catastrophe, personal or societal. We always have. I sleep a little better, though, living in a society with personal and economic freedoms. If allowed to function, the market will adapt to changing conditions....

Are we down to quibbling about the odds?

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 30, 1999.

[Decker --- you've wasted an extraodinary amount of bandwidth with your banal statements that give the appearance of being fresh.]

Let's not waste each other's time.

[we can only wish ......]

My faith in the free market is not "blind" nor do I think any economic system offers guarantees. Y2K could cause a depression. With all due respect, so what.

[... yet you have the temerity of implying that this forum is casual about its expectations of Y2K's impact on people's lives. Hypocrite.]

If I knew in 1928 there was a possibilty of stock market crash in 1929, I would not have filled my cellar with soybeans.

[overlooking that none of us have, the effects of a Y2K depression on the supply chain will be radically diff than 1928, not to mention the relative lack of self-sufficiency of our communities today. But why waste time reasoning with someone who is irrational.]

I would have continued to live my life just as I do right now. Just based on my experiences, education and lifestyle, I am more prepared for "disaster" than 99 percent of America.

[we'll see .... but it's nice to be reminded again how arrogant you are. Very few of us feel that way, even though we have made concrete preparations.]

In fact, my next "major" post has a simple thesis.

[groan. it figures. take your time, we're willing to wait many years before you post again. fortunately, we can outlast you and, more importantly, outreason you, as this thread demonstrates to anyone interested in preparing for Y2K, which, as you've heard but not understood, is the SOLE reason for this forum. A reason you have trashed in this final (if we're lucky) post on this thread.]

How you live on a day-to-day basis is the best preparation.

[true, but utterly banal and similar to statements made the world over like, "they have to fix Y2K." ]

I'll give you a sneak preview...

[we were afraid of that ....]

are you healthy? Are you debt-free? Do you live well within your income and have six months of living expenses in liquid savings? Do you have high demand skills and an excellent work ethic? Are you calm, rational and flexible in the face of a changing environment? Do you have a positive attitude?

You cannot buy these "preparations" at a Y2K supply house. I contend, however, the aforementioned list will have more to do with "survival" whether Y2K is a bump in the road or the end of the road.

[again, utterly banal and trite, though TRUE and, if you were modest enough to read other threads, something that has been said literally thousands of times by many participants on this forum. You don't have to "contend" as though you're letting the hoi polloi into the secret place. Welcome to the club on this one, Decker.]

Life is not about guarantees, Kevin, it's about playing the odds.

[Listen up, Kevin, the oracle is speaking]

In my opinion, the odds are Y2K will take some steam out of the longest expansion in peace time history. How much? I don't know. We live with the chance of catastrophe, personal or societal. We always have.

[Each time you reach for the banal, you find it more convincingly than before. Yet, you're clueless about how nakedly you reveal yourself on this thread. This is trivially true. Everyone knows it. But you present it as some sort of epiphany. And, it has zero to do with prudent preparations (determining how one handles the market, personal liquidity, health insurance or a potential disaster that has a known date].

I sleep a little better, though, living in a society with personal and economic freedoms. If allowed to function, the market will adapt to changing conditions....

Are we down to quibbling about the odds?

[there is nothing to quibble about, Decker. You imagine that you can cause a few lurkers to this forum to keep from "panicking", oops, preparing, or, perhaps, that you can "deprogram" a few regulars from "panicking", oops, preparing. It ain't going to happen, sorry.

Or, maybe you just get off on the notion that you're "rational". Sad, because so untrue.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 30, 1999.

DEcKER!!!!! whY dOES DIetEr feEL A kiNSHiP WitH YoU?????? HuH???? BEcaUSE yOu anD DIetEr ShaRE DELusiONS oF GRanDeUR!!!!!! jacKAL!!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 30, 1999.

Mr. Decker - Excellent contributions. I've just posted a question to the forum "What would happen if we all did nothing to prepare?". Is it possible to construct a valid argument for doing nothing special about Y2K?. Most people are doing nothing special and not necessarily out of ignorance. Are they wrong? Is doing nothing special, no personal preparation, just going about life as normal, legitimate or even possible? Will we be forced to make personal preparations regardless of whether we think there will be a problem or not, simply because the shelves will be cleared of basic essentials by GI induced mass panic?

-- Tickle (Tickle_yer-fancy@hotmail.com), March 30, 1999.

Decker, you know the best way to stop a mutt from humping your leg is a swift kick in the balls.

-- Animal Control (amused@bigdog.turd), March 30, 1999.

As fate would have it, after reading Big Dog's message I had to rush off to a presentation. I cornered an associate who happens to be senior manager at a small regional bank holding corporation ($80 billion assets). I asked her about Y2K. She told me her firm had finished with ALL testing, but had concerns about customer panic. As we chatted, I was struck by the dichotomy between our calm conversation and the comments posted on this forum.

Despite the barrage of personal attacks, Big Dog did make a point. Most Y2K preparations are common sense. If I close my eyes, I can hear my grandfather saying the same things. "Stay healthy. Keep off the booze and cigarettes. Pay cash. Put your money in savings first and live on the rest. Know how to fix everything yourself, at least you'll know when the trades people are trying to screw you. Don't pick your horses, dogs or women on looks." The list goes on.

Big Dog is right. This type of advice has been around a long time and I am just repeating it. Read Polonius' farewell to Laertes in Hamlet... it's the same "banal" stuff.

I do have an idea. My grandfather taught me how to play poker (God bless him.) He used to tell me, "Don't bring more money to the table than you can afford to lose." He also thought how a man played poker spoke volumes. Perhaps we can add some zest to Y2K preparations with a sporting proposition.

I suggest the Y2K doomsayers post cash... we can work out the details of escrow, etc. The "pollyannas" can match the sum in gold coins or some other product of equal value. We can set an easily verifiable post-Y2K performance benchmark. For example, 75 percent of the country does not have power as of January 15, a February 2000 unemployment rate of 10% or more, the Dow-Jones falling to 6000... I'm open to negotiation. If we lurch into the new millennium in decent shape, the "pollys" share the cash. If not, the doomsayers double their investment and have the satisfaction of being right.

Ante?

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 30, 1999.

From Ed Yourdon's home page:

"To facilitate an ongoing dialog about Y2K issues, we have provided a Web-based bulletin-board forum that generated over 75,000 messages through mid-March, 1999. Send us any new Y2K information that you've come across, and join in our discussions! "

Enough with the "this forum is only for people who want to prepare" crap.

-- not prep only (anythinggoes@yourdon.forum), March 30, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I'll try to be very brief. The only reason I said your faith in the free market is blind is because in your essay, you stated as fact...

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems.

If you were suddenly back in 1928 and knew what was to come, I agree you'd keep yourself out of debt, and I agree you wouldn't fill your cellar with soybeans.

But I'm also sure you would get out of the stock market at the beginning of September 1929, and you'd take your money out of the bank in 1932.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 30, 1999.

Tickle,

You asked...

Will we be forced to make personal preparations regardless of whether we think there will be a problem or not, simply because the shelves will be cleared of basic essentials by GI induced mass panic?

If the news about Y2K is as good as people like Mr. Decker say it is, and if the news is only going to get better as the year goes on, then mass panic later this year is impossible.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 30, 1999.

Dear Kevin,

Out of the market in 1929? My goodness, I would have starting buying in 1929... right through 30s. The folks who bought in when blood was running in the streets made fortunes when the economy inevitably came back. Contrary to popular opinion, most banks survived the great depression. In fact, Kevin, I agree with some of the parallels between 1929 and 1999. I have been slowly taking profits and moving into a more "liquid" position in my portfolio. While I am reluctant to reveal my strategy more precisely, let's just say I am preparing to buy in during the next "correction." I expect the market to overreact to Y2K... both going down and coming back up.

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 31, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

As you may know, I have enjoyed your earlier post(s), while yet remaining firm in my "rational pessimism" to prepare for some potential hard times.

I agree with a fair bit of what you say. Even if Y2K produces an 8 to 10 or even a worse "meltdown", we will recover. No civilization lasts forever, and there has always been a new one eventually. Personally, the "kicker" is the word "eventually"...

Yes, we survived the Civil War. But it was indeed TEOTWAWKI for the South. The scars remain to this day in the minds of many of the people, and in the culture of the respective halves of our country.

The world survived World War One, but it led to the downfall of three major Emperors (German, Austrian, and Russian). Was this not TEOTWAWKI to the Europeans of the time? Were they not subject to destruction unprecedented since the Thirty Year War? To the dead and displaced, was this not TEOTWAWKI?

WWII saw the shattering of Europe and the rise of a two power world system possibly not seen since the Roman and Persian confrontations, certainly not since the European/Ottoman conflicts as evidenced by the Crusades and the invasion of the Balkans by the Turks. Was this not the end of the multi-state "balance of power" which had supposedly preserved European peace since the time of Napolean? It led to a level of militarization not seen since the Norman days in France. Again, TEOTWAWKI. Again, we eventually recovered. In that case, we recovered by largely because the US was relatively unaffected, and could lend a hand to the rest of the world. Y2K will affect the entire world in unpredictable ways, all at roughly the same time.

I agree our system has redundancy. I do fear that our moves toward JIT production, lean manufacturing, etc., have removed much of the cushion in our system we formerly enjoyed. For this reason, I choose to take precautions.

I strongly disagree that Y2K does not have the capacity to affect our physical "plant". I have worked as a machinist in the past. Once, I ran an old Warner Swasey turret lathe of WWII Defense Plant origins. Half of it's gears were stripped and we held the gear shift lever in place with a large rubber O ring. But it worked as long as it had electricity.

Modern PLC controlled production machinery, on the other hand, is subject to potential controller failure which renders it essentially useless. Yes, the controllers can be replaced or redesigned, but the lead time for this could become quite significant in the event of supply chain disruptions. Or not. We don't know. I choose to take precautions. And yes, the potential failure rate is debatably low. but it is there, and the timing is poor.

During the Great Depression, much of the country was still living in rural, farming conditions. They could survive a "no money" economy far better than our current highly specialized division of labor economy is likely to.

Currently, I work for an employment agency. My family owns it, and I manage on of the branches. Our industry is extremely recession sensitive. During the last major recession, almost 75% of the agencies in the country went bankrupt. So, I do indeed have personal worries. I also have family loyalties.

I am not as physically prepared as I'd like. I'm over 40, fairly sedate, and a bit overweight. I believe I am mentally prepared for periods of uncertainty and change. I know I can learn new skills and adapt to new situations. That does not mean that the process will not entail hardship and sacrifice. To me, my preparations are to minimize that chance of hardship to my family.

I cannot help to prevent Y2K. I am not a programmer. I cannot fix code. I can keep my family off of the streets and out of the stores in case there are shortages. I can prepare for some degree of self sufficiency while we muddle our way to a new level of balance. Perhaps I can help friends and neighbors along the way.

For me, the final word is my 13 year old daughter. I have a commitment to get her to the age of adulthood if humanly possible. No where in that job description do I see exceptions for wars, famines, flood, civil disturbances, epidemics, and the other amusements we are prone to.

I do hope to see you posting again on our forum. I enjoy the chance to arrange my thoughts and my penchant for history into a presentation. Take care.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), March 31, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I thought you would have liked my late 1920's-early 1930's strategy when I said:

If you were suddenly back in 1928 and knew what was to come, I agree you'd keep yourself out of debt, and I agree you wouldn't fill your cellar with soybeans.

But I'm also sure you would get out of the stock market at the beginning of September 1929, and you'd take your money out of the bank in 1932.

Here's why I thought you would have appreciated this strategy.

At the beginning of September 1929, it looked as if the U.S. economy could do no wrong. The Dow Jones went up 29% between late May, 1929 and early September 1929. The consumer price index rose only 1.2% between August 1928 and August 1929. The economy was seemingly perfect...a dangerous sign.

The Dow reached it's all-time high (until 1954) on September 3, 1929. As I said, the Dow then was up 29% since late May of 1929. I would have "taken my profits" on that day. The market did not break significantly until October 24, 1929, and Black Tuesday did not occur until October 29, 1929.

Between then and 1932, 10,000 banks failed in the United States, or 40% of the 1929 total. As a prudent man, I'm sure that you would have removed the profits you took on September 3, 1929 from the bank by at least 1932.

With that cash, you could have bought into the market during the month that the U.S. came closest to the "blood was running in the streets" situation...March 1933, when the third major bank run took place, and when Roosevelt then declared a bank holiday.

I disagree with you that 1929 would have been a good year to buy stock. The situation was just too rosy in 1929. I would have waited until 1933.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.

Dear Kevin,

After the 1987 "crash," I bought into the market. I would have used the same principles after the 1929 crash... although I would not have purchased on margin. If financially able, I would have continued to buy stock throughout the Great Depression. And I would have written many letters to my elected officials encouraging them to stop bone- headed public policies like Smoot-Hawley. Other than a bank, I am not sure where I would have kept my money in 1932... my mattress? Of course, like now, I would carefully investigate my financial institutions and keep my money in several different entities. Of course, we do have depositer's insurance now... even if it is underfunded. While I consider myself a savvy investor, no one can see the future as clearly as the past. As I freely admitted, there are parallels between 1929 and 1999, including the maldistribution of wealth. That is why I am moving into largely "cash" and waiting for the inevitable correction. For the most part, I think we agree.

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.

For the most part, I think we agree.

Agreed!

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Ignoring my response will not change the nature of the situation.

Your argument is fundamentally wrong. Y2K is not about risk, it is about stakes. (and you even told us how your grandfather had "taught" you this lesson!)

If, and it doesn't matter whether it's a big "if" or a little "if", there is a significant loss of electrical power for two weeks or longer in more than a few major cities, Western Civilization as we know it will end.

If, and it doesn't matter whether it's a big "if" or a little "if", there is a significant loss of potable water for two weeks or longer in more than a few major cities, Western Civilization as we know it will end.

If, and it doesn't matter whether it's a big "if" or a little "if", there is a significant loss of sewage facilities for two weeks or longer in more than a few major cities, Western Civilization as we know it will end.

There are other "systems" that are as vital to our society as those. I'm sure that you know what some of them are. The list is quite long.

You seem bent on defining the size of the "if", instead of considering the value of the stakes.

What would your grandfather say about those stakes? ("He used to tell me, 'Don't bring more money to the table than you can afford to lose.' He also thought how a man played poker spoke volumes.")

I think so too.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 01, 1999.

Not Decker, not any other pollyanna, will address what you just so eloquently stated, Hardliner. Not ever. It is a "built in defense mechanism" that pollyannas have. What you have pointed out, and done so many times on this forum, regarding the STAKES, will never even get ACKNOWLEDGED, because it is so rational and sensible.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), April 01, 1999.

If, and it doesn't matter whether it's a big "if" or a little "if", there is a significant loss of solar energy for two weeks or longer in more than a few major cities, Western Civilization as we know it will end.

Nothing wrong with this statement either but no one will believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 01, 1999.

And that goes for beer too.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), April 01, 1999.

Troll Maria,

It is quite apparent that you have been sucked in by Mother Culture!

Do you really mean to compare the slipshod technology of mankind to that of Creation?

If you want to see some truly sophisticated technology, simply examine a single drop of pond water under a good microscope!

Whether Y2K turns out to be a BITR or TEOTWAWKI depends on human beings with all their inherent faults and imperfections.

Whether or not the Earth continues to rotate depends on the continued operation of the laws of the cosmos.

Considering some of your earlier remarks about your life experiences, I'm astonished that you hold so much faith in people.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 01, 1999.

OK I'll choose an example not dependent on nature. "If, and it doesn't matter whether it's a big "if" or a little "if", this is Tuesday, then this must be Belgium." This is a valid statement. Going back to your p's & q's in mathematical logic, an IF statement is only false when the first part (if clause) is true and the second (then clause) is false. All (three) other instances (combinations of true false clauses) of IF statements render valid statements.

"Whether Y2K turns out to be a BITR or TEOTWAWKI depends on human beings with all their inherent faults and imperfections." Not such much human beings but this technology train we seem to be riding. Yes it got us here but it's done a lot more than that and it will resolve technology issues as it has in the past. Yeah, you're right from my previous posts, many people have let me down on a personal level (isolated and discrete incidents). But that doesn't compare to the technology train's momentum.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 01, 1999.

Troll Maria,

You're talkin' garbage! You're also confusing (on purpose?) the "IF-THEN" construction in programming logic where the the "IF" is a condition that is either met or not and the "THEN" is an action to be taken or not with the semantic "If this is true, then this also must be true", where both the "if" and the "then" are conditions and require a causal connection between the two and an unspoken but unquestioned second premise, as in, "IF-THEN-SINCE". ("If this is Tuesday, then this must be Belgium, since I am always in Belgium on Tuesdays" or, "since cities require a constant supply of electricity or potable water or place to flush their toilets.")

None of the "noise" about logic changes either the odds or the stakes of Y2K.

Your faith in that "Technology Train" is even more to your disadvantage than a like faith in human beings would be. Do you imagine that such a "train" runs itself? If that's the case, why are you necessary as a Y2K Project Manager?

Now we are agreed about the momentum, but as you should be able to clearly see, that momentum will either enable the train to "jump" a gap in the rails (only up to a certain size) or it will add to the effects of the destruction when the train comes off the tracks.

Gamble on the odds if you wish. You may not alter the stakes nor opt out of the wager.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 01, 1999.

Talking garbage???? Dont think so! I said mathematical logic not programming logic and I should know since I taught the course at Temple University. Im not constructing any thing in any program language. Im using mathematical logic used in proving or disproving theories. Take the course if you dont believe me hardliner and then argue with the professor about your ps & qs.

Now let us assume, that mathematical logic is correct (after all its only been around for centuries). The point I want to make is that the size of the if (big or little) DOES matter. Take this example: If there is a significant lose of airplane fuel (or landing gear or engine or stabilizers or any other endless possibility), the plane will crash. A very valid statement for someone who is afraid of flying to use to support his position to not fly. But most of the rest of us, examine the IF clause a little more closely. We ask, What are the chances? The same is true for driving an automobile. What are the chances I will be in an accident next time I get behind the wheel. We then take precautions to lower the chances and reduce the risk of being injured. Same with Y2K, the pollys and doomers both evaluate the chances and then take precautions to reduce the risk.

I cant argue your statements Hardliner because they use waffle words such as significant, few and two weeks or longer (just the spin doomers accuse businesses and governments of using). Of course I will argue if you had simply said two weeks. But no way can I argue two weeks or longer. The longer part could put this into years or even decades. In that case, the city hit by this is in deep doo-doo. And again, I cant argue further because you state a few cities. Well how few and where? In some third world countries, no big deal; in New York, a very big deal.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 01, 1999.

Troll Maria,

Yes, talkin' garbage!

The logic that you took issue with was the semantic "If this is true, then this also must be true", where both the "if" and the "then" are conditions and require a causal connection between the two and an unspoken but unquestioned second premise, as in, "IF-THEN-SINCE".

I repeat, none of the "noise" about logic changes either the odds or the stakes of Y2K.

You continue, in step with Decker, to argue that the only reasonable course is to gamble on the odds and then proceed to argue that the odds are greatly in your favor.

I repeat, gamble on the odds if you wish. You may not alter the stakes nor opt out of the wager.

As for what you call "waffle words", they are no more than an attempt to describe an unpredictable situation as accurately as possible.

Just for the sake of hearing your arguments, forget the "or longer".

Two weeks.

Forget the "significant".

Power or water or sewer is lost.

Forget the "more than a few".

New York, Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas-Ft Worth, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle-Tacoma, Portland, Atlanta and Washington, D.C. all have one of the three conditions for two weeks. (in reality, there are many more than three problems to choose from). The federal government seems to think that there are 120 cities that are vital to the continuance of our society as we know it. These are only a "few" (10%).

If you have a realistic conception of the "emergency response" capabilities of our society, you can not believe that we would survive such an ordeal without immense loss of life and forever altering "life as we know it" in these United States.

But, I suspect that you'll try to say otherwise, so let's hear it.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 01, 1999.

Dear "Hardliner,"

With all due respect, risk is not only about stakes, but about odds. Take poker. We can have a friendly game of "two-bit" stud. If I am waiting for my final card to fill an inside straight, I'm looking at long odds, but in a low stakes game.

On the other, we may play for serious money. If I am waiting on my final card with a pair of ladies up and a third girl in the hole, well.... the odds feel a bit better.

As you define it, the "stakes" of Y2K are extraordinarily high, but we still have to deal and play the cards. Nothing in my original post suggested Y2K was a low stakes game. I simply think we have better "cards" than many on this forum imagine. The Republic and the free market system have seen and survived some dark days. Brother fought brother in a bloody civil war... a conflict "unprecedented" for the United States. In fact, many of the events we have survived were "unprecedented" in their day. Oh, and many have been "systemic."

So, I admit the stakes are high. Perhaps we can talk about the cards?

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.

Well, I will give Decker some credit, he actually replied to the stakes argument. With nothing but fluff. Look, dude, the stakes are high, high enough to warrant storing food, water, maybe a generator, maybe "going country" if you live in a big city, etc., etc. If you get caught in D.C. or NYC with the power off for any length of time, you will find out just how worthless your fluff is, too.

Your fluff is always sort of to just be on top of things, like old Grandpa would do, like that is going to help you. Y2K is an event that will come on time. And if it turns out not be be a biggie, then what the heck, what have you really lost? Its not like you have to live like you expect Y2K to always be coming and you don't know when.

Can you understand that???

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), April 01, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Your opening sentence (". . .risk is not only about stakes, but about odds.") reminds me of Daffy and Bugs arguing, "DID! DID NOT! DID! DID NOT! DID NOT! DID!"

That's almost exactly what you said in the first place, and I still disagree with you.

Not to put too fine a point on it, "risk" is a word that describes the chances that something will or will not happen. "Odds" is a term that describes the same thing, using numbers. "Stakes" is simply something else that is either increased or lost depending on whether or not you successfully predict the outcome.

But, you asked to talk about cards.

I have two problems with your poker examples.

First, in both, it makes sense to bet the odds because in the first instance, if you lose, so what?, and in the second, even if the stakes are higher, three ladies is a pretty good bet. These examples do not translate for me into Y2K analogies because we're not talking about low or high stakes, but ultimate stakes. We're talking about individual and/or cultural survival. Yet, I must note that there are those who play Russian Roulette.

Second, in both of your examples, you are playing stud. Closer to reality is the analogy that the federal government and corporate America are forcing us to play "No Peek".

Assuming that one has the necessary brainpower to count and remember cards and memorize and recall odds, poker would seem to be a simple mathematical exercise. I know better and I suspect that you do as well.

Bluffing and correctly analyzing when the others in the game are doing so is the essence of the game. "Knowin' when to hold 'em and knowin' when to fold 'em!" Nearly everyone knows this about poker; Hollywood has engraved it on our very psyches! And, I submit, most everyone who is trying to "play Y2K poker" is trying to figure out when the government and the corporations are "bluffing".

There is a game that Marines play endlessly aboard ship called "Liar's Poker". It is played with currency using bill serial numbers. Do you know the game? This game, too, seems closer to what is being forced on us except that the deal never moves. The PsTB are always the dealer!

Another game of cards and odds that Jarheads play a lot aboard ship is double deck Pinochle (no nines). Penny a point, quarter a set, dollar a game, unsheathed bayonets on the table. Now the Navy has any number of excellent medical corpsmen and surgeons and the finest of those are assigned to the FMF, but even those guys will not completely protect you from the effects of cheating at this game. Some of us have seen the government and corporations "cheat" before. God himself will not save them from the wrath of the survivors if they're cheating about Y2K and there are those of us who suspect that they are not being entirely fair or honest. . .

Finally, since you asked to talk about "cards", let me mention the game of "Acey-Deucy". For those readers who do not know the game, it is quite simple. It is played with an ordinary deck of 52 cards, with Aces being high and deuces being low. All players initially ante and the pot grows or shrinks with each play. If the pot is totally depleted, everyone antes again. The dealer gives each player two cards, both face up. Each player then bets whatever he chooses to wager (up to the limit of the current value of the pot) that the third card that he is dealt, also face up, will be between the two that he already has. Now if your two cards are an ace and a deuce, you have the best odds possible and a lot of guys will bet the pot on such a hand. Oh! There's another rule. If the third card matches either of the first two, you lose. I've seen men lose six months' pay on the turn of a single card when they had an ace and a deuce up. Would you play this game for your life?

You equate the circumstances of Y2K (as regards the resources of our society) to cards in a hand and note that we, as a society have dealt with serious problems before. The War between the States was indeed a dark time but as many have noted on this forum, it was TEOTWAWKI for those who lived through it. I can't imagine you'd argue that America was the same place before and after that unfortunate war. It would seem that you and I have also lived through such events in the recent past. Is this the America that you were born into, Mr. Decker? It is most assuredly not the one that I was born into and I remember what it used to be like and when it changed; when TEOTWAIKI came about. I think we had better "odds" then.

Also I must point out that even if you were once dealt a Royal Flush or a Double Run, you have no logical basis to expect that you will again receive such cards but gamblers always hope. And, even of you eventually get such a hand again, how many "folders" have you had in between?

Finally, I submit that in any of these card games, and in Y2K, betting the odds and skillful play will only carry one so far. "Luck of the Draw" (for lack of a better term) can and frequently does play havoc with events great and small. What is that line about the best laid plans of mice and men?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 01, 1999.

Dear Hardliner,

Well, you have nearly exhausted my range of card games. You missed, however, my personal favorite. My grandfather and I played cribbage for hours. In fact, it took cancer about a year to devour him whole. One of the few pastimes he could manage was merciless "pegging." (A nickel a point, double for a skunk.)

You are correct. The world "as we know it" is constantly changing. My contention: the essentials of "smart living" haven't changed much. Work hard, pay cash, stay out of debt and away from bad habits, be honest but tough, learn something every day and try to give your kids better than you had. At least that worked for my grandfather. He paid cash for a year of medical treatment, left a thriving small business behind and all with a 5th grade education.

My grandfather never thought a day about "preparation" the way it is bandied about on this forum. And if he were alive, and Y2K did end the world "as we know it" he'd be taking chances and making money through the whole shooting match.

By the way, many a Jarhead contributed to the Decker Fund. Uncle Sam showed me the world. The Marines paid for me to see it in style.

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.

Three things can happen:

1) You and the Clinton administration - are right - and nothing happens but the "bump in the road.

2) Gary North (and crew) are completely correct, and the world reverts in chaos to a final survivability level of maybe the 1890's or early 1920's. I'm okay - maybe move to a spring-fed lake in northern Arkansas and rebuild the power plant there. Or stay here.

3) There are irregular, unpredictable troubles, lasting irregular periods of time in irregularly scattered places across the country, due to unknown and irregular failures of weird and various causes affecting many and varied services and systems that affect many different peoples in many different ways. Each person affected responds in different ways to the pressure and problems - and each region responds in general in different ways depending on the cultural makeup of the majority of its citizens and its leaders. If so, I'll have some soup and water in the basement, some propane to cook it over, a kerosene heater, and a clean fireplace chimney to burn wood if needed, and lots of candles to light the rooms at night.

Probability of the first: no more than .25%, based on the fact that no more than 1% of the countries systems have been remediated and tested for more than one year, and doubling the number of systems tested. The SFO outage along, combined with the satellite failure last year, and little overseas remediation even beginning until mid-1998, indicates that "a bump in the road" should more likely be reduced to no more than a 0.05% chance, but I'll be optimistic here. If it happens, I lose nothing. If so, I'll have some soup and water in the basement, some propane to barbeque with over next summer, a kerosene heater to use next winter if needed, and a clean fireplace chimney to burn wood in if we want to, and lots of candles to light the rooms in the next power failure.

Probability of the second - 0.25% percent - just based on a guess. If it happens, I'll manage, and have enough tools and skills to improve life and make it better. If so, I'll have some soup and water in the basement, ome propane to cook it over for a while, a kerosene heater and enough kerosene to last a while, and a clean fireplace chimney to burn wood from the backyard in if needed, and lots of candles to light the rooms at night. Enough tools and knowledge and determiniation to succeed to make success likely.

Probability of the third choice - irregular failures lasting irregular periods of times affecting unknown areas over unknown durations and disrupting varying numbers of services to various degrees - 99.50%. If this happens .... I'll manage just fine....

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 01, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

First, let me confirm your experience gambling with Marines. We are not noted for being adept gamblers and many a cocky Jarhead contributed to the "Hardliner Fund" as well. (they were only in the majority however, because I was in the Corps. Had I been in the Navy, it would have been sailors who are every bit as "easy" followed by soldiers who are every bit as "easy". I didn't cross paths with the Air Force enough to form an opinion, but the ones I did meet didn't seem to be much into card playing). And, while Uncle Sam showed me some of the world (and a lot of it that I could have done without), the computer business showed me far more and I have to tell you that an expense account is infinitely superior to a mess kit when traveling a foreign land and there are no odds involved.

We are in agreement about "the essentials of 'smart living'", and that they haven't changed much. I am a cribbage fan as well and would have been honored to play with your grandfather. He sounds like a grand old man and although he may not have thought about "preparation" as discussed here, I'd bet a lot that if TEOTWAWKI happened to him, that he'd have a stash of TP (or some other such commodity) to make that money off of! In short, he sounds like the perfect role-model for someone who wants to enter the year 2000 in "good nick". The analytical skills that he practiced and taught to you are exactly the skills that need to be applied to the Y2K problem (or, as you have pointed out, any other problem). BTW, did your grandfather trust the government?

The obstacle to that process however, is information. No one ever hands you inside information for free and you must always work for it, but in the face of an openly acknowledged, well financed and well organized effort to shape public opinion by the government and industry, it is often so difficult to obtain that it simply makes good sense to assume the worst and prepare for it. It is usually (speaking with reference to Y2K only) cheaper and requires far less effort to do so.

As long as your preparations don't leave you with 8 million doses of malaria medicine in a world where mosquitoes are extinct, you can (as your grandfather would have) find a way to profit from them.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 02, 1999.

OK, I'll play.....

Y2K is actually a game of Russian Roulette. One bullet, six chambers. No choice about playing or not....if you win, you live. If you lose you die. The only CHOICE you have is whether or not you choose to buy and wear a bullet proof helmet, and what quality of helmet you buy.

Shopper out looking for the best damn helmet made.......

-- Shopper (Shopper@store.net), April 02, 1999.

Hardliner,

Thank you for your kind post. My grandfather did not trust the government... or lawyers, accountants, salesman of any stripe, etc. Some days, I am not sure he trusted me. (chuckling)

His skepticism would have extended to some of the posts written by "doomsayers." Like many of his generation, he loved his country. He understood the idea of America... not just the reality. To him, there was something right about a place where hard work and common sense might allow a man to move up in the world.

I can understand how people think Y2K problems will impact federal, state and local governments. Aside from a few "critical" functions, I'm not sure we would notice if some government agencies weren't functioning.

When you talk about the private sector, though, you are betting against the generally savvy American businessperson and the profit motive. Of course individual businesses make boneheaded moves all the time. Who can forget "new Coke"? Business, on the whole, surges forward.

Of course, the "techs" often think any idiot can run a business. As a rule, IT staff are smart. Running a business, however, is not the same as writing program or fixing a network. Some of the biggest small business rises and falls have been IT firms managed by IT pros with more hubris than business savvy.

Some of the guys in IT think they are just a little smarter than everybody else. Maybe you have met a few, Hardliner. I remember one post from a guy who said the IT wonks were going to be the "proto- monks" of the new civilization. I personally know of several firms where the CIO has nailed additional budget money using Y2K for leverage. One told me he really needed a few new servers... and once he mentioned "Y2K noncompliance" the procurement was on the fast track.

There are all kinds of angles to play on the Y2K billiards table. Perhaps in the next millenium we'll have a chance to take each other's money.

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Regarding ". . .the guys in IT (that) think they are just a little smarter than everybody else", my brother frequently asks a question that works well in a capitalistic society; "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

As for the motivation of merchants, we are in agreement and I suspect that those so motivated will find a way to prosper in nearly any environment.

The public sector however, is an entirely different story. I personally believe that it is unlikely that any government above the county level will be functioning very well, if at all, 18 months from now. Governments at all levels have immersed themselves in the technology of computers far too deeply to extricate themselves in anything like their present form in the time remaining. Governments at all levels must be financed, and that means tax collection, and in our society, that means computers. It also means that if those computers and the information infrastructure that they form is not functioning, tax collection will have to be done the old fashioned way by actual people getting their hands on some form of "money". Eventually some stability will emerge, but in the meantime, the world as we know it will have changed forever.

Two of the extremely critical problems that our society faced even before the Y2K uproar began were an educational system in utter failure from the secondary school on down and parts of the physical infrastructure being in such a state of disrepair that failure was more common than not.

The educational system, as described, is a mosaic of governmental entities. We are now a nation of millions of "latch key kids". If the educational system comes unglued, what's going to happen to all those kids? I don't mean eventually, I mean where are they going to go and what are they going to be doing while their parent goes to work? (if the parent has a job any longer)

The parts of the physical infrastructure that were ailing (roads and bridges, water systems, sewage systems) were, and are, primarily governmental entities. The parts that were functioning well and could be expected to continue doing so, were, and are, the electric power industry, and the telecommunications industry and not surprisingly are primarily private sector functions.

Now I understand quite well that politicians are motivated to retain power to an even greater extent than merchants are to retain wealth, but while the merchant uses "tools" every time he conducts a transaction that will serve him well in a non-technological world and provide funds for his continued operation, the politician's "tools" presuppose the presence of tax money to fund their schemes.

It seems apparent on the face of it (to me, at least) that if the government is unable to provide water or sewer or highways, not only will nothing work, no one will be interested in paying taxes to them (and may not be able to either). It is no secret that "the government" is not highly regarded by the population in America in the first place so it would seem to follow that the government doesn't have a lot (if any) of "wiggle room". They can propagandize endlessly for now, but when people get thirsty, or can't flush their toilets, or the trucks cannot deliver goods to them, all the propaganda will be seen for the hot air that it really is.

Have you ever been in a maintenance situation where it is discovered that (for example) a bad lot of lubricant has made its way into the system? If you can purge the system of the bad stuff before it is used, you're home free, but if it gets into general usage, you're faced with failure of seals, hoses, etc. over a window of time. If you don't rectify the situation before the first such failure, you have at least one problem. It you were in the cockpit of the aircraft that flamed out because of that first such failure while you were on final approach somewhere, the end of your world has arrived.

Y2K has a lot in common with such a situation. If the software is not purged of all the "20th century only" code before the first computer attempts to execute it using 21st century dates, we will have at least one failure. We have in fact had such failures already. The mercantile prowess of the business community will not be a sufficient resource to maintain American commerce as we know it if very many such failures are allowed to occur. How many? Here is where your risk assessment is invaluable. Like the hapless pilot above however, if your company has a fatal failure or chain of such failures and cannot recover quickly enough or at all, your world will change as well.

To come full circle to your original premise, "The issue of Y2K boils down to a simple issue-risk", I am still unconvinced. The issue for me is not only not simple, it is not how much risk is involved, but can I afford to lose the stakes involved. Furthermore, if I were to bet on the odds, I'd find myself betting on the government! That appears to me to be an exceedingly stupid thing to do.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker: I really had to smile when I read this comment in your post:"the few living Americans who were adults during the Geat Depression can tell you that it wasn't pretty". I was born in 1929 and was approximately seven months old when the market crashed. You are absolutely correct in your assuption that it wasn't pretty. It was a grim existence. I remember vividly going to bed at night very hungry - of never having enough of anything, of seeing my father cry because he could not provide for his family, of being cold because we had no good coats or good shoes (only soles wired on and cardboard inside to cover the holes), no money for doctors or dentists, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no transportation other than city buses if you would afford the fare.

Just as things began to get a little better for us in 1941, World War Two began - then it was deprivation all over again. Meat, sugar, shoes, tires - many things were rationed. The economic recovery began shortly after the war ended. I can remember quite clearly when most of life's necessities and even luxuries were provided by companies here in the United States. This is no longer true. We have become a service society and have relinquished our manufacturing base to other countries - so what happens when they can no longer supply these items?

Also, we survived thse harships because people were different then. WE were not a selfish, "me first" generation. We helped each other to survive. God help this world today if even part of the "worst case scenarios" I have read actually do happen.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 02, 1999.

Good post Nadine. The problem of how we will supply our economy when the world's lesser countries are in ruins is yet another issue that the denialists refuse to address.

Hey Maria, where do you come up with your analogies? Your "what if the sun burns out" reminds me of a thread on BFI by your brother Paul Davis last year. His analogy was "what if all the protons in the universe suddenly converged into one point in space?"

You pollyannas have quite a grasp on probability theory...

-- a (a@a.a), April 02, 1999.

Do tell, a, where do you obtain your knowledge of probability theory?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 02, 1999.

There's a good comment by Victor Porlier of Westergaard 2000 on Y2K and risk in this article...

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/vp9913.htm

...that I think explains pretty well what is it we're trying to do when we call this forum:

Life is filled with risk and surprising outcomes. That is why we pay insurance premiums to cover improbable, but not impossible surprises that can damage our health, homes, cars, and businesses. Every such situation requires a personal assessment. Should your car insurance include a collision rider? If not, you can reduce your current out-of-pocket expense. How risk averse are you?

People buy insurance, and they even go to the trouble of doing a personal assessment to decide how extensive their coverage should be. And all this happens, even though the person doesn't necessary believe they'll need this insurance during, say, a particular 12- month period.

I know that some people believe this forum concentrates on bad news. We know that more than 50% of all organizations in the U.S. will complete their remediation of mission critical systems. The Gartner Group estimates the figure will end up being about 85%. That other 15%, though, could have unexpected impacts on the 85%.

Good news, while always hoped for, is not the basis of personal Y2K risk assessment. To personally assess risk, you have to look at the bad news as well, even if the percentage of the news that is bad is less than 50%.

Just like with insurance.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 02, 1999.