Today's Wall St. Journal Has Global Investing Section; No Mention of Y2K : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Today's Journal has a special 16 page news insert (not a paid advertising insert) which attempts to dissect the recent collapse of global markets. Much of the insert is under the heading "Now What?"

Conspicuously absent from the discussion of the future was mention of Y2K. I cannot deign call this a disconnect, more like a separate reality or another dimension.

Has the Journal become nothing more than a febrifuge to be administered by the lords of commerce? How can a discussion of the future of global markets not include a discussion of Sens. Bennett's and Dodd's statement that "The international situation will be more disturbing. Those who suggest it will be nothing more than a 'bump in the road' are simply misinformed."

How can the Journal ignore it's own reporting that the FCC's NRIC committee's latest assessment of global telecom readiness shows that readiness has actually "worsened" in some countries.

How can the Journal ignore the CIA's congressional testimoney that y2k may have "humanitarian consequences" in some parts of the world, including former Soviet states.

How can the Journal ignore the Senate Committee's report that Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, providing 30% of US oil imports, are 12 to 18 months behind the US in remediation. Why is there no discussion of where Japan gets its oil and the state of remediation of those countries?

What about Scott McNealy saying his computer company may be unable to make computers next year because of y2k effects in Asia.

I continue to be baffled by the lack of *any* investigative reporting on this issue. Even the more informative articles and well-written articles are superficial reportage of publicly-stated facts and statistics.

There has been no top echelon investigative reporting based on any independent investigation. It appears that this is the one important news issue of the last three decades where there are no confidential sources, no deep background, no sources "close to" anything or anybody, no highly placed sources, no reliable sources, no unnamed sources, simply no sources other than public statements issued by CO's of one type or another or PR employees. Heck, there aren't any paid sources supplying The Enquirer. etc.

Now one rational explanation is that there is nothing to leak because the PR line is absolutely consistent with the reality. This would be a logical explanation and I do not at all discount it. The main weakness I see with that argument is that it would be the easiest to confirm with an actual investigation. For example, has The New York Times sent a skilled journalist to General Motors with a request to investigate the remediation. By investigate, I mean asking the real questions, hiring real experts to assist with and refine the questioning and determining, analyzing and reporting the detailed factual basis for the company's confidence.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

Let me suggest a story for some enterprising reporter at The Times. (Let me know if this has been done.) Interview Cory Hamasaki. He has celebrity among the y2k devotees, both pollies and preppers. Give Cory his best shot to build a story for you. Naturally, he can't reveal confidences, but if the problems are as widespread as he claims, let him pick a likely y2k failure. Let him engineer your investigation. Let him draw conclusions. Subject your investigated facts to independent paid experts. Subject Cory's conclusions to the same. Write a story.

I am frustrated that the only source of investigated knowledge is Cory and anonymous writers such as Infomagic. But I do know that these guys, in contrast to the professional media, at least purport to give a behind the scenes glimpse.

The inaction of the professional media is inexplicable. I'm beginning to think that The New York Times would let you confirm your own obituary, especially if you work for an infrastructure provider.

-- Puddintame (, April 26, 1999


More talk of global disruption coupled with a stated desire to investigate can be found at y2knewswire:

PRESIDENT'S YEAR 2000 COUNCIL REPORT IMPLIES A GLOBAL Y2K COVER-UP Essay by the Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM staff Y2K won't be a big problem here in the United States, according to the President's Council on the Year 2000 Problem. But other countries? They're in deep trouble. Says a recently-released report authored by the Council, "It now appears that a number of countries will experience Y2K failures in key infrastructures such as electric power, telecommunications and transportation." This AP story also adds, "An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. industry experts advising the government lack confidence about overseas airports and air-traffic control systems, foreign telephone networks and routine imports of some types of foods."

End paste.

Did I read that right? An anonymous administration official cited by the AP? Well, push me over with a feather.

-- Puddintame (, April 26, 1999.

my paranoid-y2k-nutbag take on this is that the money powers that be know very well that they're going toward the bright white light,and they're keeping quiet so they can bend us over for that last ass-rape . . .

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)

"If you believe everything you read, you better not read." (Japanese proverb)

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." (Abraham Lincoln)

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." (Bertrand Russell)

-- zoobie (, April 26, 1999.

My guess is, unfortunately, nothing more than denial. "It simply won't can't happen here" is so widespread that I can believe even the Wall Steet "giants" would be able to ignore it. As has often been said here, it was the same in 1929 or in most other "disasters".

The desire for everything "to contiue as it has" can overwhelm even supposedly astute analysts.

-- Jon Johnson (, April 26, 1999.

My guess (perhaps the article indicates otherwise) is that the article is looking too short term to pick up on Y2K. Same reason the market isn't focusing on Y2K in general yet.

-- Brooks (, April 26, 1999.

owww!!my ass!!my aaasssss!!

-- zoobie (, April 26, 1999.

This reminds me of the WSJ commercial that says the WSJ gives people CONFIDENCE! :-)


P.S. I like that use of febrifuge!

-- Jerry B (, April 26, 1999.

A lot of pros that actually trade stocks, commodities, options, rather than general business readers, like the Investor's Business Daily for its articles (as well as data).

-- A (, April 26, 1999.

I think it was "our very own" Gary North that said something to the effect that if (by the time) you read about it in the Wall Street Journal, it's too late to do anything about it.

-- A (, April 26, 1999.

Ask yourself how many economists foresaw the Great Depression or the Asian financial crisis.

The World Bank, the Bank for International Settlements, the UN, the CIA, the National Intelligence Council, etc.--all those organizations ARE very worried about what is going on internationally with Y2K. On this issue, use the WSJ only for an occasional laugh.

-- Don Florence (, April 27, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ