Folks, let's address some of the key issues brought up during the recent PAUL MILNE et al vs. FLINT exchanges, which I have tried to summarize through a set of five questions below.

Please also understand that my perspective is from a very distant, but still probably pertinent and valid side-line (you'll all understand what I mean later).

But first, whatever our ideas/thoughts/opinions on y2k may be, let's please let's avoid intellectual in-breeding guys! Flint may be wrong, or partially wrong, or partially right, or maybe he just doesn't fully know and is trying to find out for himself through this process (and for all the rest of us while he is at it!) but that doesn't mean that we should all try to firmly exclude him from what should be and can be a most constructive y2k forum.

And I'm afraid that's what many have done, one at a time, probably without really knowing about how it would all turn out for Flint, but still making things terribly difficult for anyone in his position. We all need many Flints, and Paul Milnes for Crissake to think their thoughts out loud, so don't discourage them then. Quite frankly Flint, I'm amazed how patient and how strong you are. Are you aware that this puts you in the Gary North category of y2k stamina? (As you see, y2k can introduce you to very strange bed-fellows!)

Having said that, I want to address you a few questions which I believe might help us all, and possibly yourself, if you would kindly care to answer Flint:

(1) As y2k's impact will vary depending upon location, are you trying to find out how strong y2k will hit in your specific set of circumstances? What are your criteria? Do you have anything resembling to an ad hoc "methodology" of some sorts?

(2) What type of defensive scheme could you set forth for y2k survival in a city? How large a city? Please describe location. (By the way, I believe there are reasonable possibilities open, as I will try to prove later. This may be interesting for some)

(3) How much "y2k burden" (meaning flaws) can the infrastructure take? Are you taking for granted that reasonable "poor boy's" workarounds will always be found? Not always? Where and when then? How many flaws can the international banking system take?

(4) What type of "means of payment" do your scenarios foresee? Barter? Money? What type of "money"?

(5) What specific positive y2k factors are you counting on in a city or near-city environment? Why?

I hope this doesn't sound like a test, but rest assured that your reply (and subsequent debate) will certainly be of value in this y2k end-game that's coming to us at the cruising speed of 3600 secs. per hour. By the way, maybe other "yourdonites" care to answer the five questions above. You all are most welcome to do so also.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 06, 1999

Answers

George:

Unlike Milne, I'm not omnicient. I can't see the future. I can try to address some of your questions a little, but that's about it.

1) As for my location, my efforts to get details have met with the usual mixed success. Verbal assurances, but nobody will put anything in writing beyond the legal boilerplate. The head y2k guy at the local power company (hydro) says everything is fine, and we can island in an emergency. The official company position is "they're working on it, and should have no problems with the century change." My bank mailed me glowing reports of their success, yet someone posted a rumor here that a prospective buyer of my bank let the deal fall through because their IT department was beyond repair. Etc. Etc.

2) I live about 10 miles from the center of a city of about 120,000. It's a suburban neighborhood of mostly elderly people. My defensive capability isn't much different from what you'd ordinarily expect. I have locks, and burglar bars, and guns. I consider the bars a remediation expense. The guns are more of a hobby, and I pray I'll never need them for anything else.

3) I have no idea how resiliant our systems will prove to be, and I don't believe anyone else does either. By now, I'm fairly confident that the banking system will survive, if not intact, at least adequately. But I expect some problems with it; it won't be a cakewalk. As for the infrastructure, I expect fairly few problems and fairly quick fixes. But "fairly" covers a broad range. I expect people will have to live with a lot of frustration for a while.

4) Ordinary money. I hope to have a few weeks' expenses in cash saved away by rollover, in case the bank is "closed for repair" for a while. If it takes more than a few weeks, all bets are off.

5) I think this depends on details nobody can foresee.

Basically, I've tried to prepare to ride out most kinds of difficulties for some while. Of course this assumes that these difficulties will diminish as time goes by. As for location, after a *lot* of discussion my wife and I decided that we simply can't guess whether we're in the best or worst possible location. If you expect some bullets might fly by, and you don't know just where, you might as well stay put. You're just as likely to move *into* the path of one as out of that path.

In general, the big picture doesn't look overwhelming, but the details (all the little picures) are critical. I expect to see sequences of events that would shame Rube Goldberg, and I expect to be surprised. It's kind of like expecting the market to rise. Even if you're right, the exact stocks you buy are what counts. If you pick losers, it's cold comfort that the market rose on the whole.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

I'll have to agree that you can't see the future Flint, why heck, you can't even see that "booger" hanging out of your nose!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

As a net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this world is connected by a series of ties. If anyone thinks that the mesh of a net is an independent, isolated thing, he is mistaken....

Buddha

"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Sufi Prophet Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan's prophecy (Complete Works, 1922 I, p. 158-9)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 06, 1999.

My sincere apologies, George (really). I shoudn't have busted into your thread looking for Flint (in the heat of battle....). The questions you are asking are valid and appropriate. Here's my own personal take: 1. location means as far from a large population as possible. 2.I couldn't have imagined the possibility (not with children) I refused to compromise too much of their lifestyle and childhoods in general. To implement an acceptable plan would not have been realistic. 3. I can't imagine any possible way for the banking industry to survive even minimal (if possible) disruptions. This makes all of the previous context of that question not worth discussing 4. A combination of both (depending on how quickly banks can recover (hoping real hard) The travelor's check "suggestion" would be about as useful as dirty underpants (possibly less). 5. the return of the people's government. "with Liberty and justice for all". The way I see it is, that in the process of our desire to take *advantage* of our "Liberty"...."Justice" needed to be eliminated. I'd like them returned in their originally intended forms. The *only* upside to y2k that I can imagine. Will people be prepared for this? Will they be up to the task? Will they answer if called upon to do so? Will they have what it takes? These are the only questions that scare me now, in *JUNE 1999*

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Thanks for your input Flint. I respect your points of view. I also believe that everyone else should help out in this difficult process by contributing well-thought ideas such as you have.

Please let me react to your strategy right off the top of my mind, without thorough analysis at first. Later I'll go deep into details.

(1) LUCK I agree in that sheer luck will have a strong influence upon individual y2k outcomes. Still, as you would also agree Flint, this should NOT be an excuse for not preparing and/or exerting our finest efforts to absorb y2k's impact as best we can. This means, among other things, planning out our individual strategies after thorough consideration of knowledgeable opinions from others, including the Paul Milnes and the Gary Norths and the Infomagics of this world. Same goes for them et al.

(2)CITIES? Which cities? Where? Why? I also tend to agree with you Flint in that there are quite positive alternatives open for y2k survival in cities, outskirts, etc. Of course I'll have to explain later what do I mean by this but for the time being let me remind our distinguished audience that the world DOES not begin and end in the USA. As a matter of fact, only 5% of the world's population lives in US territory, and they are also human beings, who think, breathe and all that, right? Furthermore, many Americans live outside the US, so this concept involves them too and, finally, many y2k "survivalists" currently living in the US may consider the possibility of leaving US territory come 2000, as the essential component of their individual strategy.

(4) Countryside? Why? I still have problems with the theory that countryside is better than ANY city bunker, anywhere in the world. In the first place, if you currently live in city or close to one, a "countryside" environment means abandoning your own turf, which goes against basic theory on survival of the fittest. Second, moving wherever and setting up y2k shop implies a far larger expense. The cost-benefit equation goes out- of-wack most of the time. You would be rocking the boat all over. The same money invested just where you are goes farther and smoother if the city bunker is reasonable. Third, the "countryside" solution means you'll have to turn into a "jack-of-all-trades" with new skills. without barter and other 'markets' which may evolve in some city scenarios, where the money would be. We might even think in the possibility that things would not be that terrible (middle of the road) and that 'markets' as we know them today may survive, partially or totally. Unless, of course, that Mad Max reality dawns upon us, in which case "countryside" solutions are only second-best. Because in that scenario the real best is an isolated island in temperate climate, (how about the Caribbean?) with a 17th century fortress protecting the dock. Finally, to secure and defend an open perimeter in the countryside is almost "mission impossible" precisely because of security problems. You would need an Army platoon or Swat Brigade for such purpose. That's exactly the 'Bill Gates problem' if you know what I mean.

So I'm not clear at all on "countryside" solutions. I'll stick to "special city" solutions for the time being, just like you Flint, including the ugly side.

(4) Optimist? Pessimist? Now then, after all is said and done, you or I or anyone else can see the glass half-full or half-empty, and we would all be right. The point in question right now is establishing how much water the glass holds. Maybe it is not 50% full. Maybe it's only 20% full. This should change things, 'cause the glass should be considered as almost empty.

Having said all this, I gather from your answer that you live in Florida or other Southern State, close by to a 120,000 pop. city, which sounds better than Chicago, Houston or New York.

But:

(a) Your local infrastructure (power, water, etc.) sounds pretty bad to me Flint. So you NEED to secure power, water, medicines and 'cooking' heat on your own. This is easy to do with some money at hand. If I may, I insist you do just that. If I have done it in a seventh floor city apartment, you can do it too, right?

(b) Your confidence in the banking system in my opinion is not justified Flint. Beware, 'cause you're staking everything on that. Here again the rest of the world plays too guys, don't forget you are NOT alone in this globalized economy. I could scare everyone to death about this by just discussing the international front, which would topple the US financial front too, believe it or not. So your fall- back plans need to address the whatwhithal question. Otherwise you and your wife would be sitting ducks. There are several ways to better ensure your money/gold/silver other than leaving it in the bank. Your "few weeks" cash at hand may not be enough. I would play it safe by having a full year's cash on hand at least. There are several security strategies available also. You probably can think of some yourself.

(c) Flint, you say you "expect fairly few problems and fairly quick fixes". That's dangerous. What happens if you are wrong? Can't you hedge yourself any better? Your assumption that "difficulties will diminish as time goes by" can work out exactly the other way around. Why not plan and act accordingly?

(d) Establish alliances with GI neighbors.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 07, 1999.

George:

[I fear you are jumping to conclusions here. But I'll try to address these:]

(a) Your local infrastructure (power, water, etc.) sounds pretty bad to me Flint. So you NEED to secure power, water, medicines and 'cooking' heat on your own. This is easy to do with some money at hand. If I may, I insist you do just that. If I have done it in a seventh floor city apartment, you can do it too, right?

[What do you know about my local infrastructure? I said the y2k man at the local utility was confident. I said we can island. I said it was hydro. No utility can guarantee power. Maybe you regard the fact that they're working on the problem as bad news? Why? Just what are you using to support your assessment of "pretty bad", beyond your own unsupported assumptions? ALL you know about my local infrastructure is what I told you, which is pretty good. You conclude the opposite. For shame.

And of course I have secured substitutes. I heat and cook with a wood stove. I have lots of water. I have lots of oil lamps and oil. I have medicines and vitamin supplements and a huge food stockpile and supplies out the wazoo. WHY did you assume I haven't done these things? I didn't *say* that. Once again, you have used NO evidence to draw exactly the wrong conclusions. I urge you to read what's there, rather than what isn't there. You'll be *much* more accurate that way]

(b) Your confidence in the banking system in my opinion is not justified Flint.

[What confidence I have in the banking system is based on compliance reports, testing reports, programmer testimony, regulator reports, etc. If you are of the "banking is toast" faith, then you go to your church and I'll go to mine. I place faith in the totality of available evidence, and change my faith when the evidence changes. If you can't or won't do this, I can't help you]

Beware, 'cause you're staking everything on that.

[What am I staking on that? I didn't say I was staking *anything* on that. Again, you draw conclusions based on nothing but your own assumptions, and not on anything I said.]

Here again the rest of the world plays too guys, don't forget you are NOT alone in this globalized economy. I could scare everyone to death about this by just discussing the international front, which would topple the US financial front too, believe it or not. So your fall- back plans need to address the whatwhithal question. Otherwise you and your wife would be sitting ducks. There are several ways to better ensure your money/gold/silver other than leaving it in the bank.

[I don't have anything in the bank, and I won't be leaving anything in the bank either. Nor did I say I would. May I ask, just how did you 'know' I'd be leaving it in the bank, when I won't and didn't say I would? Do you ask me questions to get answers? Or just to project your assumptions?]

Your "few weeks" cash at hand may not be enough. I would play it safe by having a full year's cash on hand at least. There are several security strategies available also. You probably can think of some yourself.

[Yes, I'm aware that a few weeks cash may not be enough. Sadly, that's all I'll have left. Everything else will have been spent getting out of debt. If you are in a position to have a year's supply on hand, good for you. Wish I could say the same.]

(c) Flint, you say you "expect fairly few problems and fairly quick fixes". That's dangerous. What happens if you are wrong? Can't you hedge yourself any better? Your assumption that "difficulties will diminish as time goes by" can work out exactly the other way around. Why not plan and act accordingly?

[Again, why do you assume that I'm not? I've sunk a *lot* into my preparations. We're back to the issue of risk vs. stakes. Why have you assumed that I did *not* prepare against worse than I expect. If I told you I didn't expect my house to burn down, would you automatically assume I'm not insured against fire? I've hedged to the best of my ability. I never said I haven't. YOU said that, again on the basis of NO evidence.

And maybe, just maybe, you can get an inkling of how the doomer mentality works. You've made a worst-case assumption about everything I didn't say. You've been wrong in every instance. On the basis of these erroneous assumptions, you've developed a totally incorrect picture. And I'm willing to bet you made these errors as an outgrowth of exactly the same process you've applied to y2k in general. If most people here have used this same method, it's no wonder they're so upset. They've done it to themselves.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

Flint, thanks for your reply and willingness to discuss your personal y2k preparations despite the fact that we don't even know each other.

I reckon I did underestimate the amount of data you have requested and received from y2k stakeholders, the degree of y2k scenario anaylisis you have developed (although we may have our differences there), and the specific steps you have taken to prepare yourselves accordingly (quite consistent with your views by the way). I find your input most constructive and coherent in itself, and I believe we all benefit from it, although each and every one of us might have a different perspective and/or evaluation criteria as underpinnings for our individual y2k game plan.

Flint, it is also true that I've made a worst-case assumption about everything you didn't say, although I'm not sure I was wrong in "EVERY instance". You are basically correct, but I'm not sure either that such mistake was all that bad considering what's at stake. My worse case assumptions may prove to be wrong in your case, but my experience around here dictates that most of the time I'm "right" with other folks, which ends up affecting boy scouts like you and me anyway! You have obviously studied y2k in depth Flint. So have I. Most people haven't. I had no idea beforehand of how much you would end up knowing. So now I've learned, but as y2k awareness "overkill" doesn't really hurt, I don't mind having made such "mistake".

Also Flint, are you aware how important is it that most people haven't gone anywhere close to the depth of analysis you have? Many people are clueless. That's a problem you know. A big problem. People are taking many y2k "non-decisions" by default, ignorance, negligence, laziness, etc. That's obviously not your case. Still, later I'd like to analyze your y2k scenario-underpinnings a bit further if I may. Like thanks to your time, investment and effort you are constantly reading the y2k radar screen and are willing and able to act accordingly. But most people are not ready to do that Flint. That's also a very important part of the game.

And of course timing is everything in y2k. And even as aware as you are, and as close as you monitor y2k events, I guess you would accept that maybe, maybe your y2k strategy will not give you enough time to react. That's the reasoning behind pre-emptive measures which you may not accept as needed right now, but please understand that maybe, maybe you might get into the y2k scram manouvers a bit too late. Lives might be at stake.

Still, despite the many differences, I am convinced it is worthwhile to listen to each other. Let's get down to business. For example:

(1) we currently differ in the interpretation of verbal assurances and legal boiler plate replies from power/water/bank companies. I interpret that when they tell us that they are working on the problem it's bad news because remediation time is over and they should all be engaged in overall network testing (which they acknowledge they are not), with import and export of data (which they are not yet doing), ready to implement and roll out by September at the latest (user training stage, etc.), while the rest of the other network stakeholders are at least as late as they are.

Apparently you don't agree with the statement above.

And I don't agree in that the individual members of a network could island on their own, not in an electrical grid, not in the international banking system.

(2) The difference between your "religion" and my "religion" is what happens if yours or mine are wrong. I'll throw a party if my church was wrong. What would you do? Complain? to whom? what for?

(3) And yes, you are staking everything on banking industry's health not because your money would be locked up in the bank but because everybody else's money would be locked up in the bank. They have not prepared as well as you Flint, and the level of disruptions in that case will be much higher. Too high maybe for the level of preparations you have taken. See my point?

Flint, still, congratulations for your input and for your degree of interest in surviving y2k.

God bless you

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 07, 1999.

Like Flint, how many of the pollys out there have hydro-electric for your local utilities? That is a variable by itself that can flavor the spins. Hydro-electric is the only resource that benefits the grid, the rest is questionable. The picture becomes clearer very day.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 07, 1999.