Y2k author less fearful of meltdown on December 31, 1999greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
For those who follow Michael Hyatt, a short interview at:
'Just passin it on. . .
-- FM (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 27, 1999
I guess the incessant barrage of governmental and corporate propaganda can wear anyone down. He still is recommending considerable preparation though. Maybe, his fear level is lower due to his own preparation ??
He advises people to prepare for the new year by withdrawing a 30-day supply of cash from the bank, converting stock holdings to safer investments, and stockpiling food and supplies in accordance with their own assessment of the risk.
In colder climates, people should prepare to keep warm without electricity.
Hyatt said he is following his own advice by preparing in cooperation with neighbors and members of his church.
"Where will I be on New Year's Eve?'' he asked. "I'll be home with my family and not answering the phone.''
On the other hand, I don't fear a meltdown on December 31, 1999 either. I do however, expect a dissolution of lifestyle as we know it by December 31, 2000... or earlier.
-- WebRNot (email@example.com), April 27, 1999.
The nut bar doomers like "WebRNot" just hate it when former apologists take a more moderate road. Here are some other things Hyatt said that our doomer friend conveniently left out.
"I certainly don't think this will be the end of the world as we know it.''
"A lot has changed over the last 12 months,'' he said. "I think there's less likelihood now of the 'meltdown' scenario.''
"There is good work being done in several areas, however,'' he said. "I'm less concerned about telecommunications these days even though, even there, we're not totally out of the woods.'
-- Y2K pro (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 27, 1999.
Y2K Pro, thank you for beating me to the punch and putting into words what I find most frustrating about y2k prognostications: the camp mentality. It is quite unfortunate that when someone largely respected is subject to ridicule and scorn for doing an update of his analysis and finding that indeed, remediation efforts have been progressing. For all too many gloom and doom types, the deJagers, Yourdons and Hyatts of the world were to give their analysis 2 or 3 years ago, and then basically stand by it until the date rollover.
I find myself now firmly back at square one. I have heard the doomer logic and I have heard the 'everything is beautiful' rant, as well. I have become convinced that the truth is somewhere in between and that no one can survey the entire y2k landscape and make an assessment without aspersions being cast upon him from either side.
I think I'll just resolve to be optimistic.
-- Dr.Zero (email@example.com), April 27, 1999.
"Meltdown scenario" would refer to a 10 on the 1-10 scale. Michael Hyatt is saying that he thinks there's less likelihood now of a "10" scenario.
We've done polls on this forum before on this subject. A majority expect Y2K to be less than a 10. Also see...
"What The Experts Think"
-- Kevin (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 27, 1999.
I have read Hyatt's book. He clearly states in it that the chance of "meltdown" was/is minimal, and spends very little time discussing it in the book (1 page, as I recall).
Hyatt is no different than the majority of posters here: he stands firmly in the "middle ground". Always has.
Very few people (North, Milne, Infomagic) are extremists on Y2k. How sad that the rest of us get conveniently "lumped in" and associated with those views.
Y2k is not black-and-white. It is infinite shades of gray. Most people understand this. Hyatt, Yourdon, Hamasaki, et al. understand it as well. Unfortunately, battle lines have been drawn around the two extremes.
-- regular (email@example.com), April 27, 1999.
I agree with Hyatt. I do think that the chances of a total meltdown are less now than they were 1 year ago. My family has been preparing for the worst and I don't regret that one bit. One can only react to the information one has at the present time. Why regret having to change one's outlook based on new information?
But I do still think there's a less-than-trivial chance of things going Infomagic; it's just that my estimation of that chance has decreased. Some months ago I fully expected it to be "lights out" nationwide with the attendant catastrophe and I think that based on the evidence at hand that was a very reasonable outlook, no apologies to those who were Pollys back then. Now it appears that there's less chance of that. Good. Great!!!
That being said, I still agree 100% with Ed Yourdon that we're probably facing "one year of disruptions, ten years of depression." That's still pretty much my best case. Not so good. And well worth some serious preparations. Will that destabilize our population or global dynamics enough to trigger war and hence a slide into Infomagic? Possibly. Again, well worth preparing for.
IMO we live in the most dangerous times since the Cuban Missile Crisis. I have seen people on this forum scoff at those who built bomb shelters back then. Balderdash! Those people were prudent. So what if they were wrong? They acted reasonably in the face of what we know now was an greater threat than even they imagined at the time. So it is now.
With all my preparations, I just hope I don't have the last laugh.
-- David Palm (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 27, 1999.
TEOOLSAWKI (tee ool saw kee) ?
The End Of Our LifeStyle As We Know It?
-- Reporter (email@example.com), April 27, 1999.
Not even bringing Y2K into the subject, you could come to the conclusion we are on the verge of "the end of our lifestyle as we know it" Read: "On The Horns of The Beast" by Bill Still
By the way, this is not a religious book, it is about the U.S. Monetary system.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 27, 1999.