Why Decker is full of broomer bologna

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

On a thread earlier today I asked Decker the Magnificent:

Decker:

1972: World plunged into serious RECESSION because a few rich oilmen think they should be getting more money for a barrel of oil. Effects last for years.

2000: World is beset by severe shortages in many industries [CIA]. Ripple effect from Y2K computer problems causes cascading, long lasting failures in many systems. [Gartner Group] Severe power outages occur throughout the year. [Koskinen, Tava/Beck, European News Agency] Stock bubble bursts. [Yardeni] World currency system is strained to breaking point. [Soros] Nuclear, biological, chemical and/or cyber terrorism is unleashed. [CIA] Solar and other environmental effects further exacerbate the situation. [NOAA, NASA]

Business as usual? (laughter)

-- a (a@a.a), July 12, 1999.

and he replied with

"a,"

When I "retire" to the academic life, I'm saving a seat for you in my Econ 101 class... front row.

Regards,

Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 12, 1999.

Now Decker, you're such an eloquent and entertaining windbag, couldn't you just give us a teensy little primer on how the "Market Forces" are gonna make the boogeyman go away so we can all start sleeping better? I mean, if an ARTIFICIAL and ORCHESTRATED crisis like the '72 oil embargo could cause a great big ole recession, how is it that the REAL and UNCONTROLLED snafus on tap for later this year and next will cause nothing worse?

-- a (a@a.a), July 12, 1999

Answers

Even as I type this, Decker's wheels are probably turning, thinking up yet another "smoke and mirrors" type response. It will be long, it will be eloquent, it will be bullshit. If double Decker ever goes into politics ... the horror, the horror....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 12, 1999.

King, you beat me to it. I was just thinking "I wonder if this thread will ever be answered without the help of a straw man."

Actually, Decker, good luck. I'd like to feel better too. Actually, I sleep just fine though so I don't need perfection, just good enough will do.

Mike ==================================================================

-- Mike Taylor (getting sick and tired of typing my email address in this thing because my Microsucks Explorer browser isn't holding my cookie so what the heck how long a name can you type in here anyway?@home.com), July 12, 1999.


Pretty long name, Mike. Bake some new cookies.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 12, 1999.

a -- Decker knows less about more things than most people could possibly forget if they set their mind to it. THERE. How is that?

(laughing)

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 12, 1999.


why is everyone always picking on decker ?

-- Guns, Grub & Gold (The End@the World.com), July 12, 1999.


I suspect that Mr. Decker was primarily reacting to your characterization of the causes of the 1973-74 recession, which seem somewhat simplistic.

The threats you enumerate for 2000 are real enough, though, of course, it's very difficult now to predict just how severe each one will be individually. Just how much disruption to global supply lines, just how much terrorism (cyber or otherwise), etc.? These are still largely unknowns.

Don't misunderstand: whereas Mr. Decker is basically in the "serious recession" camp, I'm somewhere between the "recession" and "depression" camps; I think there's quite a range of possible scenarios, in fact, depending upon how the cards and chips fall. You can add to your Soros comment his recent remark that if the U.S. stock market bubble bursts before the world has had a chance to really recover from its current financial mess (despite rebounds in overseas equities markets, etc., 35-40% of the world remains mired in recession or worse), then we're looking at another Great Depression. A number of other folks, from Sakakibara ("Mr. Yen") to Paul Volcker (former Fed chairman), have also been sounding alarms lately; in fact, I sometimes think that almost anybody who isn't on the Administration payroll or pushing stocks to suckers is probably worried these days, and for good cause. I won't bore people by going through the Fed valuation model and trotting out all the numbers yet again: we all know already this is a greatly overvalued U.S. stock market, by any rational standard. Y2K (and *maybe* some other unpleasant things) will intrude into that situation. I would expect serious economic trouble in the near future even without Y2K, in fact. You can inflate a bubble for only so long. And after learning from the PBS "Frontline" documentary "The Crash" just how our supposed financial "geniuses," Rubin and Greenspan, bungled grievously at the 1995 G8 conference, thereby helping precipitate the Asian financial crisis two years later, I certainly don't think we're immune from the same unfortunate results that we have helped to foist upon so much of the world through our miscalculations and greed.

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), July 13, 1999.


I will take a shot at it. The problem in the 1970's that the fed had made some very poor decision as it came to monetary policy during the years of 73 to 76. The sudden decrease in the amount of oil sold to the United States created a supply shortage. The whole idea was not cut and dry because stagflation began to rear its head and the situation wasn't fully understood at that time by the fed.

So could we compare the mid 70's situation to now? We could if the economy begins to slow down. But the difference I feel that seperates us now from that period is that interest rates are not high and employment is still below the national average of 4.5% or whatever the figure they are using now is. I remember last year a economic teacher even brought up that inflation could begin in the summer of 99 because of the very low unemployment rate that was only showing the frictional population(between jobs, dropped out of workforce.)

Also too you have to take into account that Y2K is a anticipated event and the OPEC deal of the 70's was really a political move. But the oil crisis was just one of several factors of a recession during that time period. Our economic situation right now is not too similar to the late 60s and early 70s.

A good site I would recommend to look at is found at:

Supply and Demand visual chart of Stagflation

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), July 13, 1999.


I can't get into the site you provided, Pat, but here's a little more information on the oil situation in the 70's: A little more information on what happened at the time.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 13, 1999.

a, your answer to the velvet smog was really good, accurate. Thanks. I really need the reminder when I'm feeling chirpy otherwise.

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 13, 1999.

"a,"

Well, I see some helpful folks have already weighed in. As Don Florence stated, my comment dismissed the simplicity of your assertion. One, the world today is markedly different than 25 years ago. Two, the economic problems of the early 70s cannot be reduced to the motives and actions of a few individuals responsible for a share of oil production. Sorry, "a," the world economy is a teensy bit more complex. Oil price shocks hit an economy with some fundamental weaknesses and problems were exacerbated by poor public policy decisions. We also had a oligopolistic domestic economy that had been sheltered from vigorous global competition, a move off the gold standard, the end of the Vietnam War... it's a rather long list.

As to your second issue, the free market is resolving Y2K problems at a brisk pace. Like most, I worry more about the public sector where there is no profit motive. Seriously, "a," most people acknowledge the overall progress of the private sector in the U.S. has been excellent. Why? Because these companies want to continue making a profit in the year 2000. It's just Adam Smith's invisible hand at work.

On the "hand," the much vaunted Y2K remediation firms have little luster. Nor do we see COBOL programmers making pro athlete salaries. I keep an eye on the marketplace for Y2K "price signals." If there was a spike in Y2K remediation "prices" (generically speaking), it might indicate a shortage of resources. As it is, the question for some IT professionals is, "What now?"

Don and I agree on some of the fundamental weaknesses in the economy. If/when we suffer a recession, it will not be due solely to Y2K. For extra credit on your first Econ 101 oral exam, please list the other factors that may contribute to an economic downturn in 2000. (laughter)

And BD, shouldn't you be working on your Y2K recipe book over on the "preps" forum?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.



"a,"

Well, I see some helpful folks have already weighed in. As Don Florence stated, my comment dismissed the simplicity of your assertion. One, the world today is markedly different than 25 years ago. Two, the economic problems of the early 70s cannot be reduced to the motives and actions of a few individuals responsible for a share of oil production. Sorry, "a," the world economy is a teensy bit more complex. Oil price shocks hit an economy with some fundamental weaknesses and problems were exacerbated by poor public policy decisions. We also had a oligopolistic domestic economy that had been sheltered from vigorous global competition, a move off the gold standard, the end of the Vietnam War... it's a rather long list.

As to your second issue, the free market is resolving Y2K problems at a brisk pace. Like most, I worry more about the public sector where there is no profit motive. Seriously, "a," most people acknowledge the overall progress of the private sector in the U.S. has been excellent. Why? Because these companies want to continue making a profit in the year 2000. It's just Adam Smith's invisible hand at work.

On the "hand," the much vaunted Y2K remediation firms have little luster. Nor do we see COBOL programmers making pro athlete salaries. I keep an eye on the marketplace for Y2K "price signals." If there was a spike in Y2K remediation "prices" (generically speaking), it might indicate a shortage of resources. As it is, the question for some IT professionals is, "What now?"

Don and I agree on some of the fundamental weaknesses in the economy. If/when we suffer a recession, it will not be due solely to Y2K. For extra credit on your first Econ 101 oral exam, please list the other factors that may contribute to an economic downturn in 2000. (laughter)

And BD, shouldn't you be working on your Y2K recipe book over on the "preps" forum?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.


Recipe for Steamed Decker:

1 Decker or equivalent (Flint acceptable in a pinch)
big pot of water, include enough to cover a fat head
marinade sauce (two parts "a", one part Milne)
sugar for adding sweetness

Mix, set aside in a dark place and marinate until 12/15/99.
Put in Dutch oven on your wood stove.
Turn the heat up, just enough to simmer, until 1/15/2000.

Remove and say, "I told you so."

Decker-Flint will then be ready to be put to work around the old homestead, next to "Pa" and "Ma".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 13, 1999.


a, why don't you stick to discussing things you know, such as, science fiction. Your attacks on the pollies and debunkers are becoming dull; you've lost that edge. Face it, nothing Decker or any other non-doomer says will make you "start sleeping better". You are so entrenched in your depression mentality no amount of reasoning, logic, or remediation facts will bring you to the surface.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 13, 1999.

I remember watching Ross Perot on CNN suggesting that this whole thing can be whipped by setting the clocks back to '72.... and thinking how lucky we'd be if the only damage from Y2K was that our economy were set back to '72, as well.........

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 13, 1999.

BigDog,

LOL!

One comment: You can never add too much sugar to that recipe!

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 13, 1999.



HUMOR:

Big Dodger's Black Helicopter Bottom Pie

Do not preheat oven. You started "too late" and the "oven is broken." Coat a tart pan with "grease." Dust lightly with Andy's pansy flour and set aside.

Prepare a pastry crust with flour, Spanish lard and water. Close eyes while cutting in lard (respect for hog.) If squeamish about lard, shortening may be substituted... the shorter the better.

Roll out pastry crust with an inflexible iron roller. Sing the St. John's college hymn for flakier crust. Place to one side and ignore while making filling.

In a large bowl, create a custard by combining cliches, tautologies, heavy cream, eggs and a thesaurus. Whip... repeatedly. In a separate bowl, mix NWO, ZOG, "constitutionalism," and rum.

Line the pie tin with the crust covering grease and flour. Carefully spread the viscous "black helicopter" bottom. Cover with custard. Place a thin layer of pie crust over the pie. Brush with egg white.

Read Debunker forum, place head and pie in oven and bake.

When the crust has a pleasant, shiny veneer remove from oven. Label pie, "Apple," and use as a decorative centerpiece. WARNING: This pie is not meant for consumption!

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.


Sounds delicious Decker -- probably goes well with my "UFO pudding". :)

-- a (a@a.a), July 13, 1999.

Mr. Decker

How you can say that things aren't the same? August last year and the whole financial system came very near a crash. This can be confirmed by the FRB documents.

Oh I see, things are worse today. You should know better. World Economics are a mess and that is from the top. It is just a matter of time till the mess gets sorted around. Good or bad. More than likely bad. Did you do your FRB homework I gave you?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 13, 1999.


I cannot believe that this "invisible hand of Adam Smith" nonsense is still getting flouted -- it shows a complete and total lack of understanding about what the Y2K problem really is. In a word, it is uncontrollable, in that the amount of time to do the repairs and testing with yet other outside entities is not there.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), July 13, 1999.

The invisible hand is fistf#*king your planet, in case you haven't noticed. What else might it do wrong?

-- very perfectible (A.W.@portmeirion.com), July 13, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

May I say you have hurt my backside! I laughed so hard I fell out of my chair!

One thing. I tried your recipe; it made my house stink so bad I had to throw the whole thing out!

(Laughter)

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), July 13, 1999.


Well.... look what the dog dug up and the cat drug in today...

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 13, 1999.

Did you miss me?!

(DOUBLE laughter!)

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), July 13, 1999.


Yes.... I guess I did miss you. Strange: you're the nicest guy over at diBunki, and the nastiest one over here.....

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 13, 1999.

BD,

You have been asking for humorous satire. I thought you'd appreciate the effort (and my delicious wit.)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.


Decker said / 'a' says

Well, I see some helpful folks have already weighed in. As Don Florence stated, my comment dismissed the simplicity of your assertion. One, the world today is markedly different than 25 years ago.

Yes, Decker the world today IS markedly different than 25 years ago. More folks dependent on the computerized welfare dole. More violence, drugs, and dangerous criminals on the street and in prisons. Less family values and patriotism. Many more people concentrated into smaller areas. Fewer self sufficient farms and businesses. Lower saving rate, higher percentage living on credit. Thanks for making my point.

Two, the economic problems of the early 70s cannot be reduced to the motives and actions of a few individuals responsible for a share of oil production. Sorry, "a," the world economy is a teensy bit more complex. Oil price shocks hit an economy with some fundamental weaknesses and problems were exacerbated by poor public policy decisions. We also had a oligopolistic domestic economy that had been sheltered from vigorous global competition, a move off the gold standard, the end of the Vietnam War... it's a rather long list.

Yes, and the list of y2k issues is much, much longer. Again, THAT's my point. You failed to address my main worries, so I'll elaborate a little.

Lets say we have no power problem in the US. What about the rest of the world? What about our imported oil & gas? Is it reasonable to conclude that this very REAL problem will at least parallel the ARTIFICIAL problem created by the oil embargo? I think the CIA thinks so and terms it "severe".

How will this affect transportation, agriculture, government services, medical care, and all the other industries dependent on energy and that will be hit by their own y2k issues?

Japan's banks are folding. Their postal pension scam is ready to detonate in a few months. They are totally dependent on imported food and oil. There is little doubt that y2k will be the straw that breaks the camel back.

Russia's banks are also insolvent. Their society is a shambles, run mostly by organized crime. Their chemical refineries and nuke plants are extremely vulnerable. And for some reason they keep dusting off their nuclear weapons and making veiled threats.

UK - faltering in their own remediation attempts. Europe - dependent on Russia, mentioned above, for their energy. Koreas - either starving or almost at war. India/Pakistan - ditto. Iraq - essentially a wasteland. China/Tiawan - also unstable, poorly prepared for y2k. Indonesia - toast. Italy - hasn't started remediation. African nations - no clue about y2k and dependant on aid from the developed world. Aid that will not be available post 2000. South America - narrowly avoided economic meltdown a few months ago, what will the stresses of y2k bring? Mexico - will they need another 40 billion?

And speaking of economic stresses, what about all those hedge funds, leveraged to the HILT, that come due in a few short months? I may not be an macroeconomist like you, but I sure as shit know a pyramid scheme when I see one. Tech stocks? Have they made a profit yet? Gee, the flower bulbs bought and sold during the Tulip Panic didn't either. Amazon.com, little more than a warehouse connected to a database and web page, worth more than Union Pacific? Wow.

Social Security, entitlements and pensions of retiring baby boomers? No problem. Congress says we'll have a trillion dollar surplus by 2015. Uh oh. That was based on fallacies, like reduced spending and continued "ebay.com" style economic growth.

We all know what terrible shape the rest of the worlds currency is in, but what about here at home? We have a Fractional Reserve System that has been manipulated to the point that folks like you agree that its a matter of CONFIDENCE now (as in con game) that it stays afloat

What about out nations capital? What will life be like in DC for the lawmakers post y2k? When do you think they will emerge from their bunkers?

Water - say we have plenty. What about the rest of the world? Too bad, so sad, you say? Will there be war in the Mideast when these systems fail due to y2k? Have you read the PBS Crash page? Did you see the show? The rest of the world is mired in hard times RIGHT NOW Deck. Y2K ain't gonna make things any better.

Increasing terrorism threat? Solar interruptions? Intensifying hurricanes? Freaking TAX PAYOFF DAY coming LATER every YEAR?

I could go on, but I'm busy at work maintaining part of the infrastructure that allows you to sit on your ass and pontificate about how brilliantly astute you are, and how pessimistic and shallow people like me can twist thing around...

As to your second issue, the free market is resolving Y2K problems at a brisk pace. Like most, I worry more about the public sector where there is no profit motive. Seriously, "a," most people acknowledge the overall progress of the private sector in the U.S. has been excellent. Why? Because these companies want to continue making a profit in the year 2000. It's just Adam Smith's invisible hand at work.

You are too optimistic. Overall, its extremely clear that the remediation has failed. Of COURSE there are success stories, Decker. No "doomer" ever believed that NOTHING would be fixed. But it is insufficient. Not just worldwide, but domestically as well. And I'm not going to go into the lying and spin doctoring that has been perpetrated by FAA, NERC, FDIC, and the rest of the crew. That's a subjective issue and suffice to say that we have a lot of wishful thinkers among the captains of government and titans of industry.

On the "hand," the much vaunted Y2K remediation firms have little luster. Nor do we see COBOL programmers making pro athlete salaries. I keep an eye on the marketplace for Y2K "price signals." If there was a spike in Y2K remediation "prices" (generically speaking), it might indicate a shortage of resources. As it is, the question for some IT professionals is, "What now?"

The remediation was by and large mishandled from day one. The fact that there was not a larger boom in the y2k field is not indicative that the problem was smaller than we first thought. All estimates have ballooned, not shrunk. The lack of higher salaries reflects more on the office politics of management and their software coding peons than it does on some complex economic indicator that you suggest. And BTW, the folks that ARE gearing up to make the $1000, $2000 per hour salaries are the lawyers, Decker. I wonder why that's so? Gee, could it be the estimated TRILLION dollars in litigation that the IEEE has warned us about? Wake up son. You're missing the important hints.

Don and I agree on some of the fundamental weaknesses in the economy. If/when we suffer a recession, it will not be due solely to Y2K. For extra credit on your first Econ 101 oral exam, please list the other factors that may contribute to an economic downturn in 2000. (laughter)

I am glad that you have now accepted that a recession, at least, is inevitable. I understand that you had to be alerted to y2k by your parents, and that you were a late bloomer to it all. So, you've made progress. Hopefully, your mind has not closed and you soon accept the information we are presenting here objectively. Remember, Deck,

"Only Fools never change their minds." - Voltaire

-- a (a@a.a), July 13, 1999.


'a,'

Yikes! Time to have someone put away the sharp objects.

One constant throughout history is that someone is always predicting the end of the world. You might want to revisit the "Club of Rome" predictions from the early 70s... nice and gloomy. Paul Ehrlich does a wonderful cover version of Malthus' greatest hits. Sorry, but I just can't dance to it. After Y2K, 'a,' you'll find something else to worry about. Bioweapons, domestic terrorism, China, antiobiotic- resistant strains of disease; pick a favorite.

All told, I'd rather be alive in America today than live in other period of recorded history.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.


Decker, gasping for breath, concedes to 'a'.

Good work, son. God, you amaze me.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 13, 1999.


Decker thanks for the pat answer. Your reluctance to address the issues, and your smugness in your belief that the problem is actually all this "doomsaying" you're hearing goes to show that you are indeed full of shit. Just as I said when you first entered the fray several months ago.

What you are failing to realize is that y2k is a SINGULAR event. It represents a tear in the macroeconomic continuum. My point has always been that this "tear" is occurring with the confluence of several other factors that dictate a particularly poor outcome.

Maybe I'll be the one teaching you economics 101 in a few years.

-- a (a@a.a), July 13, 1999.


Fried Decker also yummy, tastes like won tons when diced into little pieces by a. Put in stone soup and serve to needy folks next year.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 13, 1999.

Lisa:

Mr. Decker has inspired me to be more civil. But I can be just as nasty as the regular GI's here at your little y2kultist kommunity.

I'm not welcome at the de-bunking board as far as I know. I told you before, I am not a de-bunker. I sure hope your not flaming some poor gal in maryland because you think you "know" who I am. That was a pretty sad exercise in logic on your part. But then that is the only other standard besides "double" that you know on this forum isn't it.

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), July 13, 1999.


Gosh, 'a,' so this is what it looks like when you bring the full weight of your intellect to bear. If you want a serious answer, 'a,' I can provide one. It will just take more than my occasional latte breaks.

Let me ask you to reduce your "all over the road" Y2K jitters into a direct question or two. Ask nicely, and you'll receive a thoughtful answer. Continue with the profanity, and it will be another trip to the woodshed. (Lisa, it seems, is doomed to stay in the woodshed until she decides to actually write about Y2K.)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.


Don't bother Mr. Decker. You've already answered my questions (the silence was deafening...)

-- a (a@a.a), July 13, 1999.

Oh, and 'a,' ease up on the Star Trek. There may be a space-time continuum, but there is not one in the global economy. (chuckle) And it wouldn't surprise me to see you teaching economics. Your lack of humor makes you an ideal choice for the field.

Ah, BD. No comments on your little pie? And after you all but begged to lampooned. Perhaps you thought you'd be a main course?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.


OK, what did I predict at the beginning of this thread that Decker's answer would be?

1. Long.
2. Eloquent.
3. Bullshit.
4. All of the above.

... And the correct answer is number 4 -- all of the above.

Our cleverest troll never lets us down, does he? (And pay attention to this SuperPolly/SuperTroll, so you can see how the master troll does it. Wide-eyed understudy that you are.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 13, 1999.

[muffled shrieks from the woodshed]

Decker, but I'm too busy reading to write, Sir.

I did ask you one question at DB: most of the participants there were once 9/10s and have talked themselves down to being 1/5s (which, incidentally, is what most Yourdonites are attempting to do, as well). I speculated that you never were a doomer... is that correct? I ask because that information would render your position more decipherable.......

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 13, 1999.


Lisa,

A "doomer?" Compared to what? Compared to most people, I am pessimistic about Y2K. Only on this forum am I considered an optimist. In the past six months, I have relaxed about Y2K and grown more nervous about the U.S. economy. Last year, the "iron triangle" arguments were all the rage. Currently, I think we are in decent shape in terms of power, communications and financial services. As noted in the recent PC Week article, global trade is still a concern.

If you are asking if I have ever been a "survivalist," the answer is "no." Mostly by accident, I am well prepared for most contingencies.

And don't you think 'a' should have called me, "Decker the Munificent?"

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.


No......... I think he should have called you "Decker in his first incarnation who stands in staunch defiance of natural (and unnatural) law".

I guess what nails me about "optimists" is they generally exhibit no respect for what Y2K might deliver. Lotsa people here pay the mortgage via large-scale-system fixing, and have lucked out many times over of what could have been terrible situations. Here, in this shop, we even make occasional sacrifices to the printer gods...

Pagan I'm not, but I consider it exceedingly dangerous to scoff at the gods of luck, because, frankly, that's all we have left on our side, IMO.

Oh, and 5 months of remediation.... with the weekend left for testing.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 13, 1999.


Lisa:

You wrote:

"I guess what nails me about "optimists" is they generally exhibit no respect for what Y2K might deliver."

Now that I've seen this sentiment a zillion times, I think I'm slowly beginning to understand it. Of course Mr. Decker and I have plenty of respect for what might happen. We have both predicted recession (mine longer, I think). I've predicted local disasters up to possibly bhopal levels. We both expect negative economic impacts. I've talked my fingers numb about downtime, screwups, delays and shortages. I have emphasized my own preparations a dozen times at least. Ordinarily I would be amazed that this would be characterized as *NO* respect for what might happen.

But slowly, slowly I'm learning the cant. "No respect for what might happen" *really* means, "doesn't expect *everything* to go wrong that possibly can". Or maybe it means, "doesn't extrapolate the worst from every speculation while discounting all good news 100%".

An absolutely huge number of things have the potential to fail catastrophically, OK? A small (but still significant) percentages of those things *will* fail, and a small (but still significant) percentage of those failures will be catastrophic. The testing we've done (and there's been quite a bit) has shown us that our exposure to most y2k bugs isn't nearly as great as we'd originally feared, and also shown us that those bugs are very real and can bring many things to a grinding halt if not dealt with.

We've learned that these bugs are (in most cases) a *lot* harder to deal with than we'd hoped, for many reasons. Progress in making repairs is therefore a lot slower than we'd hoped. And the number of bugs we won't find that end up biting us will be a lot larger than we'd hoped. I go along with all of this, there's no denying it.

But I also recognize that these bugs have limits that are being constrained by remediation, and quantified through testing. These bugs may be unlimited in our imaginations, but reality is proving quite different. Very true that many here (like yourself) are preserving your imaginations by selectively discounting or tuning out the reality on the ground. But those of us giving suitable weight to *all* reports, and seeing reality's constraints, still have *plenty* of respect for the problem. It's big and it's real.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 13, 1999.


Flint, I am glad that you are finally starting to get the point that has indeed been made a few zillion times: the worst case scenario is not beyond possibility. To prepare for this means "to play it safe", nothing more.

Like all pollys, you still do not yet come to understand the significance of the INTERCONNECTION of Y2K failures -- i.e., that a failure in one area can result in a failure in a completely different, and seemingly unrelated, area. Likewise, you do not yet understand that having many such failures occur at virtually the SAME TIME can potentially overwhelm us, resulting in all kinds of big problems that may end up being unsolved. Its tough to fix anything when the power is out, the water is dirty, the food is scarce, and nobody is getting paid anyway because the bank system has collapsed.

Y2K is unique and unprecedented, both in its potential severity and scope. I know that you probably don't yet understand any of this, but please keep trying. You have yet another five and a half months to grasp it....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 13, 1999.

KOS:

The scenarious you describe are effectively eliminated. I know you won't (not don't, you're not stupid) admit this. You have taken a fixed position, and will defend it whatever is required. You are not an investigator, you are an advocate. Power failures, riots, food shortages, etc. have become inevitable to you, and the avalanche of reports to the contrary cannot be credited, lest you be forced to match your expectations to the information available.

And what will you post (and you'll be able to) when these things don't happen? Will you say, well, they had a 3-day power outage in East Pissant, so power failures happened? And Del Monte canned peas were 3 days late in North Zulch, so there were food shortages? And seven banks failed during January, while the average is only five, so the banking system failed too? And someone went postal in Los Angeles and killed 3 people, so there were riots?

I can see it now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 13, 1999.


Careful Flint - you're wobbling dangerously again. You seemed to be getting the gist things but now you're drifting...

What you just described is total normalcy for this country - is that what you're predicting now? Nothing out of the ordinary?

Your brand of wait-and-see optimism and trust-our-decisions myopia is what gets us into situations like the Challenger disaster.

-- a (a@a.a), July 13, 1999.


'a':

No, that's not what I'm predicting. I'm obviously expecting much worse. My point was that people like King (and you) will *not* admit error, even if things actually turn out to be normal. Whatever happens, you will carefully dig it up and present it as typical, however unusual it may have been.

Already we're seeing every untoward event, no matter how unrelated to y2k, showing up on this forum either with suspicion that it really *was* y2k related and they're covering it up, or held out as an example of what we can expect, as though that made the dangers worse.

Again, I ask if you might suggest some method of filtering out the background noise of normal problems, so as to identify just how much y2k itself may have contributed to what we experience over the next year or two. If some of us are unable to meet here and discuss these problems, how many does that 'some' need to be before we decide things were 'bad'?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 13, 1999.


If Y2K turns out to be nothing but late peas in Peoria, I probably won't hang around this forum to take abuse from the gloating pollys.

If it's much worse than that, I don't expect them to be here either.

If it's as bad as I fear on the darkest nights, none of us will be here. Unless you're still doing major preps, it doesn't really matter. We'll know soon enough.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 13, 1999.


Flint,

For someone who likes to split hairs, you do take liberties with what others write. KOS did not say the worst case is inevitable. His words were "...can potentially overwhelm us..." and "... may end up being unsolved." How about owning up to your inferences for a change? By the same token, your comment "The scenarious you describe are effectively eliminated." certainly sounds like an equally unjustified "fixed position" as well, and until we cross over the singularity, none of us, including yourself, will know with surety how it will play out. Unfortunately, the worst case has a small but not trivial possibility of occurring.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 13, 1999.


Elbow grease:

Good observations. I'm saying KOS regards things as inevitable, even though he does phrase things in terms of "can" and "may", because these are the only positions he considers. Can you imagine KOS saying "might not overwhelm us" or "might be solved"? He has never once that I've seen given anything short of an extreme position any respect. When people post positive reports, he attacks both the reports and those who post them. Never do you see any allowance that maybe, just maybe, this is an indication that things might not be so bad after all.

As for extreme scenarios being eliminated, this is my best reading of the sum of the evidence available to me. Once I feel that a probability drops below a certain point, the focus of my preparations needs to change. I'm insured against fire, but not against a meteor striking me. It's not impossible, of course. There's a big difference between acknowledging that bad things are likely to happen, and insisting that all the worst things at once are likely to happen. For me, this difference is too big.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 13, 1999.


KOS said "Its tough to fix anything when the power is out, the water is dirty, the food is scarce, and nobody is getting paid anyway because the bank system has collapsed."

Flint said "KOS: The scenarious you describe are effectively eliminated...As for extreme scenarios being eliminated, this is my best reading of the sum of the evidence available to me."

Flint, I don't think your best reading is that good, especially in regard to the probability of a banking system collapse. Haven't you noticed those numbers describing public sentiment re. cash withdrawals? The FDIC's OWN SURVEY shows there's 10 to 20 times as many people who say they are going to go to cash, as are needed to deplete the entire cash reserves of the system. If only 50% of the required number had this sentiment then it would be sufficient cause for great concern, but it's more like 1 or 2000% !!! This, combined with a really predictable (given y2k) market correction/crash, and added to current systemic instabilities (leverage, derivatives, Japan, etc) all adds up to .... well, it's not outlandish to suggest that teotwawki for the financial world might cause quite a bit of teotwawki in the real world, money being the thing that makes the world go around, and all that.

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 13, 1999.


uh oh - One day back from vacation and Flint's already hoisted his ass back into the frying pan...

-- a (a@a.a), July 13, 1999.

Damn it, Flint. With 5.5 months until Jan 1, I would very much like to hear it from the utilities and the banks: "We have licked Y2K! We are ready for 2000! We have tested and are done testing! Here is our Y2K compliance certification from a Y2K auditing agency!"

No, what we have are at best a FEW utilities and banks mainly giving SELF REPORTED optimistic progress reports that they WILL be done by the big date.

Like you, I read all that I can, and make an assessment. My view is that things at this late date are dismal, and that Y2K "like" failures are valuable to discuss because they give us insight on what indeed could happen.

And I hope that you are right and that I am wrong. I could not care less about polly "gloating" in the year 2000. If you think that any "doomer" does, you STILL don't really understand what this is all about.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 13, 1999.

But, Flint,

I think you're falling into a similar trap. You appear to be amplifying any hint of extremism, or views expressed on other threads, into the main point of someone's post. It's as if you must religiously search out and stamp out all vestiges of doomerism. That standpoint is just as radical, isn't it?

As to probabilities, I'd be interested to know how you've quantified the various scenarios. Admittedly, the very worst cases seem to be diminishing, but I've expected the reports of successful remediation. At this point, that's what *should* be happening. But even if the good reports were overwhelming in number, (and I'm not saying that's true) that does not address their accuracy at all. Nor does it convey any sense of percentages. These numbers come from second-degree reports, having different sets of inaccuracies, biases and agendas. But I believe that your meteor analogy is off by orders of magnitude. I don't know. As Mr. Hamasaki says, I'm still clueless.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 13, 1999.


a,

*clap* *clap*

Flint & Decker,

My optomistic Gloomers.

So both you and Decker are pondering the likeliness of and have been prepared for a Recession. Interesting.

Why do the both of you slam so hard against the possibility of calamity?

Now what if Bell South, Lockheed-Martin & IBM Global Service have reported that half of their suppliers have been lying to them? (Understanding that, in part, your confidence stems from these same reports.)

Is the lying merely isolated to three companies?

How do you quantitativly measure the "lying effect" in an interdependent world?

Heck, just answer with your brilliant understanding of economics how latecomers to Y2K "remediation" will impact the Economy! And then factor in the Worlds small businesses that didn't even start!(Please disregard the small business that lied.)

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), July 14, 1999.


Folks,

For the record, neither Flint nor I deny the possibility of global meltdown. We simply disagree on the PROBABILITY. I have recommended modest preparations on this very forum. I think of the "worst case" scenario in terms of "Omaha Beach." Y2K "doomsday" has its own "fog of war." Survival will depend as much on luck as on preparation. Just my opinion.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 14, 1999.


Decker -- My recipe is tastier than yours because I add sugar.

You've kind of hit the nail on the head for once, without realizing it. As Cory often says, "are you feeling lucky today? Well, are you?'

Despite Flint's constant ranting about this, most folks like myself acknowledge the possibility that the entire world is going to have "good luck" about this and we're going to (laughter) eat beans peacefully for the next 10 years.

If Y2K goes south, "luck" will be a factor, no question. Most of us, Flint included, have done everything we can to maximize having a bit of "good luck" at the "right time."

In fact, we're all advising others to do the same within the constraints of our expectations, even you. If most Americans took even your advice (low debts, flexible job skills, etc., which I support, just not ONLY that), they would have to spend the rest of this year and next on "preps".

So, reader, how lucky are you feeling today? Flint once said that, in his case, "Murphy" would probably end up finding a way to his door, personally. Yup. With five kids, I am doing what I can to forestall Murphy's visit.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 14, 1999.


OK, I'll give this another try.

Number six: My opinion with respect to banking, is that the difference between actual software failures, and the perception of possible failures, is significant. IF the banks' software is in good shape (bugs reduced to easily manageable levels), there are plenty of things regulators can do to forestall panic withdrawals. Once the rollover has passed and it becomes clear that banks are perfectly functional (or appear so from outside!) then these regulatory steps become moot and can be lifted. A genuine market collapse (whether y2k- induced or not) is another story, but it targets far more than just banks.

Now, if banking software is well and truly hosed, regulatory steps themselves are irrelevant. In that case, banking problems are intrinsic to the banking system, whether or not there are regulatory restrictions, or whether or not there is public panic ahead of time. But I think the banks have done an acceptable job of remediation (obviously not an unimpeachable job).

KOS: I'd love the same thing you would -- a certificate of utility compliance from a qualified testing outfit. The lack of such outfits of course makes this a bit harder. Banking is different, since there actually are auditing procedures in place, but these have been performed (even if you choose not to believe the results for whatever reasons).

Lacking seals of approval on stone tablets handed down from the heavens, we are left to assess dubious information as well as we can. For the majority of utilities that generate no power, we have no reports. For the generators, we have exception lists. We have self- reporting. We have an 'oops' factor, where devices have noncompliances that didn't show up during the particular tests they were subjected to. In sum, our information is *way* incomplete and of unguessable reliability.

My feeling (nobody can know, sadly) is that taken all together, the information we have on utilities and banks and communications is that they work well enough to keep big problems few enough to remain mostly functional (with exceptions). Not a meltdown or even close, but certainly not business as usual everywhere.

Elbow Grease: I have no answers for you. Everything you say is correct. As I just told KOS, we have lousy data. Very lousy. And because it's lousy, it permits us to extrapolate almost anything we choose, and there's no definitive indication that *any* extrapolation is wrong, in any direction.

I just think it's important to recognize that just because contrary indications are less than definitive, doesn't mean they aren't real, or aren't based on some factual information. Those who claim y2k will pass without much public notice aren't making this up from whole cloth, you know. They back up such claims with a goodly host of documentation, albeit just as carefully selected as the doomers. And just like the doomers, their *interpretation* of what they read is solidly grounded in the presupposition that there won't be any big problems.

I admit I cannot integrate all of this into any consistent picture of what we might be facing. But unlike the extremists, I don't *need* to force this whole mess into a consistent picture, so I can recognize that as soon as you start forcing, you are trading accuracy for clarity. While I feel the bell curve of possible results is still messy, it seems that the kurtosis of this curve is increasing. And of course, my crystal ball is also cloudy, and I can be wrong as easily as anyone else.

'a': If you take the comment you just posted and substitute a couple of names (y2k Pro for 'a' and 'a' for Flint), you've posted *exactly* the kind of 'congestion' you're complaining about. Can't you see this?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 14, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ