Economic Implication of Y2K Debate By John Westergaard June 7, 1999

The debate between myself, John Westergaard, and Mitch Ratcliffe Wednesday evening in Albany-Troy at Hudson Valley Community College was nicely attended (circa 75) and there was pre-debate interview TV coverage from two stations.

Truth of the matter, however, is that the subject doesn't work well in a formal debate context because too much of the material is soft, subject to opinion. I can say that the Chairman of H-P says he's looking into a black hole when it comes to Y2K and Mitch could counter with a comparably optimistic statement by some other CEO. That kind of thing.

Ratcliffe won by a wide margin but only 9 listeners said the debate changed their minds which means that there was a heavy preponderance for his optimistic side going in. Nice people organizing the event and quite a few regulars readers of Westergaard Year 2000 introduced themselves. Dick Mills summary of the debate can be accessed at http://www.albany.net/~dmills/bigdebate/summary.htm.

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 07, 1999

Answers

Ya know, Y2K profligate, it's not like Y2K is sports or anything. It's more of a concept. If you'd ever worked around any type of production system, it'd be easier for you to grasp, I suppose......

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 07, 1999.

Well now, maybe Y2K Pro is onto something. Maybe if we just take a big VOTE as to how Y2K will turn out, that will settle matters once and for all. (Oh, and be sure and input the outcome to all the computer code that we depend on, so that it will know to fail or not accordingly.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 07, 1999.

If you bothered to check the summary, you would know that Ratcliffe "won" because he provided clear, rational, factual information to the audience. Westergaard "lost" because his litany of doomer complaints, became laughingly preposterous when exposed to cold logic. Get It? Didn't think so...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 07, 1999.

Still not a beauty contest, here, Prop... and hope Ratcliffe can pay the bills/put food on the table with "clear, rational, factual information"............. Are you particularly annoyed by Y2K since you're gonna have to sit and stare at grounded planes outside your office window? Do you really, really believe the FAA and control will be ready? Really? Internationally?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 07, 1999.

"...only 9 listeners said the debate changed their minds which means that there was a heavy preponderance for his optimistic side going in."

Y2K Pro, did you even read your own cut&paste?

-- a (a@a.a), June 07, 1999.

Lisa,

Of course I believe the FAA is going to be ready. Their remediation process is examined (by us and others) in exacting detail. Just like Canada(NAV CANADA) Britain, Iceland, Spain, Portugal and the rest of western Europe. Those countries (mostly African I expect) who are not compliant will not have American aircraft flying through their airspace. An inconvenience? Undoubtedly. TEOTWAWKI? Only to you and your rapidly decreasing amount of doomer friends

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 07, 1999.

cpr,,,uh, I mean Y2kPro,

Take a troll,,,uh, I mean poll about anything and then twist it as you like, Who cares? Stick to the facts, most of the world that matters ain't gunna make it, get over it.

Name 10% of any country, County, city, Fortune 2000, 1000, 500, companys that will say " We are Done!, we are compliant, Smileys all around. HARD facts, not we think we will, or we hope we will, or we expect to. Don't give me the lawyer crap, it's the BEST thing a company can do, imagine the edge a full compliant statement would be.

Now I know you will jump on " compliant " as a non-word, it don't mean nothin', Wrong baby, perception is all when working with the public.

Prepare for the wourst, hope for the best, but prepare,

Your neighbors will thank you

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 07, 1999.

Fact CT?

You wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit your sorry-cult backside. You are so blinded by the message from your army of doom that a company could piss compliant nickles onto the floor of your trailer and it would not suffice. Take a deep breath and know, once again, that you are wrong.

Sorry to dissapoint, I am not CPR...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 07, 1999.

Y2K Propecia said:

"Only to you and your rapidly decreasing amount of doomer friends"

Hmmm...this must explain the dwindling number of daily post on this forum and the explosion of new posts on the Biffy site, huh?

LOL

-- a (a@a.a), June 07, 1999.

The Deja.com site as well, some very interesting postings going on there, I like this one in particular about martial law straight from the people who brought you the CIA:

http://x34.deja.com/[ST_rn=bg]/threadmsg_bg.xp?thitnum=5&AN=486238463. 1&mhitnum=0&CONTEXT=928793305.1987706985

-- (workathome@atl.ga), June 07, 1999.

Well, we do have FLP at 95% as of a few weeks ago. But don't get me started on that. To come up with the NERC average of 75%, that means someone else is at 55%.

And we do have that bank that said "We're READY!"

And yes, that Ford, truck I think, plant that did it.

Got any more? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 07, 1999.

The more people Rattail convinces, the shorter the lines at the grocery stores.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 07, 1999.

It all still comes down to this:

1) We do not know everything about what Y2K will do. 2) Based on what we do know, a reasonable conclusion is that it may well be very bad and last a long time. 3) If you prepare and little happens, no big deal; you eat the food, sell/keep the gold and guns, enjoy being in the country instead of the city, etc. 4) If you do not prepare and TSHTF, you are very probably screwed.

Anyone have any trouble following this?

My Y2K website: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), June 07, 1999.

"Winning the debate" doesn't really matter. Some years back, the flat earthers "won the debate". Didn't keep the world from being an oblate sphereoid...

I heartily agree with Minnesota Smith, above.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 07, 1999.

Y2K Prostitute,

You can have all of the debates that you want. Government and business and spin all the lies that they want. The fact is that the code is broken. The world started too and and devoted too few resources. We needed a Manhattan Project and instead got PR.

-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), June 07, 1999.

You're a putz CT! Name one catastrophic failure caused by a company being non-compliant as of today, June 8th. Hint: You can't because compliance isn't necessary until December 31st you moron.

Then we have the brilliant Sysman who says, "Well, we do have FLP at 95% as of a few weeks ago. But don't get me started on that. To come up with the NERC average of 75%, that means someone else is at 55%."

Aren't you supposed to be educated? What if there were four at 70% and one at 95%, wouldn't that give you a 75% average as well? Only you could conclude that 'someone else is at 55%' based on so little data. What a maroon!!

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), June 08, 1999.

Do You See,

OK genius, have you looked at the latest NERC report? 67 of 235 companies are BELOW the 75% average. 19 of those are at 50% or LESS. And a few are in the 10-20% range. And good old FPL that is at 95%, well they started work in 1995. I hope YOUR power company started that early. Most didn't. No problem though, we've still got lots of time left to fix it. And you call me a moron. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 08, 1999.

Wasn't there an announcement by NorthWest Airlines that they were finished? And that they had found lots of problems too and fixed them?

I thought I had read that here in a post, but cannot recall the name. Oy! That search engine sure would be nice...

But, as I see it, the possibility of any disruptions is a disturbing thing. Yes, the usual daily problems are disturbing too when they hit me personally.

So, being prepared, as the Boy Scout motto says, is a good thing, as Martha Stewart says.

I also like the idea of gardening for my own consumption and to share with friends and family.

So, while I prepare for possible disruptions in my life, I become better able to take care of myself regardless of what life throws at me.

Insurance is good.

Planning ahead is good.

Frugality is good.

Penny pinching is good.

Safety in all things is good.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 08, 1999.

I see nothing (other than your prejudged opinion) that shows Westergaard "lost" the debate in any form

And, since you are not a qualified nor un-interested judge, I don't really care what your opinion is. Your opinion, no matter often stated, does not change the simple facts that

(1) We cannot predict exactly what will happen.

(2) Not enough people, companies, or government agencies will finish - we can argue about how many have already got done through testing (perhaps 5%, more likely 1 %); how many might finsh and test ahead of Jan 2000 correctly (perhaps 50%, perhaps even 75%, more likely 25%) and we can argue about what happens if (when) the remainder fail - but your opinion doesn't change the fact that many (perhaps most) will fail.

(3) No company, agency, or utility - anywhere - has tested things without fixing them first - thus you DON'T know (and can't predict) what and how things will fail. Until you test, you simply don't know.

(4) No company, agency, or utility - anywhere - has tested things and found that they wasted time, money and effort on Y2K remediation. 90% of large found so many "extra" unanticipated problems they exceeded their original budgets and schedules, all found problems in unexpected areas and interfaces, and all found they needed more time to test (and re-fix failres) than originally scheduled.

Simply put - you've seriously deluded - but only yourself in some religious fervor to convince others - in your zealous crusade against ???????

Against other people spending their own money as they see fit to protect their families?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 08, 1999.

"I see nothing (other than your prejudged opinion) that shows Westergaard "lost" the debate in any form"

Dummy.

Westergaards words: "Ratcliffe won by a wide margin" Try again. Oh, and please don't trot out that tired old chestnut about pollys objecting to preparations. It has been debunked so many times I'm surprised you have the gall to bring it up again...

-- Y2K pro (2@641.com), June 08, 1999.

Hey, I have the gall to bring it up everyday, Y2K Proctologist. You make grave mischaracterizations about me everyday, and you gonna get it back, thug, whenever I get the chance.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 08, 1999.

Bob the Cook, Professional Epicurian:

"Your opinion, no matter often stated, does not change the simple facts"

And your opinion, now matter how often you state it, does not change it to a fact.

"(1) We cannot predict exactly what will happen."

OK - you got one right.

"(2) Not enough people, companies, or government agencies will finish ... but your opinion doesn't change the fact that many (perhaps most) will fail."

Whoa, pardner! You need to be a little more precise here. Do you mean "fail" as in display the wrong date, or "fail" as in a minor problem, easily worked around, or "fail" as in catastrophic failure? If you mean the latter, and you call it a "fact", I assume you have plenty of evidence to point out which systems, companies, government agencies, etc. will indeed fail because without such "proof", that statement is merely your opinion, right?

"(3) No company, agency, or utility - anywhere - has tested things without fixing them first - thus you DON'T know (and can't predict) what and how things will fail. Until you test, you simply don't know."

Not sure what you are trying to say here? Are you saying they should have wasted time by testing things they knew how to fix before they fixed them, watch them fail, fix them, and test them again? Wouldn't good professional engineering practice be to fix all the things you know about first, then test it and see if you got them all? Also, have you talked to every company, agency & utility to know for a fact that none of them tested before they fixed their systems? Otherwise, we have another one of your 'opinions' here and we know how much you disdain opinions instead of cold hard facts. And you are right about testing -- that is why people are still testing systems now, so they can be sure.

"(4) No company, agency, or utility - anywhere - has tested things and found that they wasted time, money and effort on Y2K remediation. 90% of large found so many "extra" unanticipated problems they exceeded their original budgets and schedules, all found problems in unexpected areas and interfaces, and all found they needed more time to test (and re-fix failres) than originally scheduled."

Again, have you spoken to all of these companies, agencies, and utilities and have they all told you that everything they tested would have failed had they not checked it and thus there was no wasted time or money spent on testing? I didn't think so. If 90% of the large companies have found more problems than they originally expected, that means that 90% have apparently conducted a fairly thorough Y2K program and, with 6 months to go, will probably be able to finish before 12/31/99.

You should really be more careful, Bob. You'll start to sound like a doomer troll if you don't watch it!

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), June 08, 1999.

Lisa:

I don't mischaracterize. I know what you are - A doomer end-of-the-world Cult member - plain and simple. I could also accurately call you a mouth-breathing witless kook, but that would just be mean spirited of me...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 08, 1999.

Y2Kook: you're wrong on both counts. Idiot.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 08, 1999.

Do You See:

You're quite right, Mr. Cook was at best imprecise. At worst, his position of "opinions don't count, only facts count. My opinions are facts, therefore they count" sounded awful familiar.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 08, 1999.