The world has known about y2k since many years now so Hoffmeister believes that we (the world) should have all just let the "market forces" loose and y2k would have solved itself on its own because "it is in no one's interest to let the company fail". This would have also presumably included both large and small companies plus Federal, State and Municipal institutions and agencies worldwide. So Hoff believes that no y2k leadership was ever needed. That would have been socialistic, according to him.

Please read

"Y2K Newswire latest article. Can anyone explain the math?"

some 70 threads below.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 13, 1999

Answers

Can someone please set up a direct link to the thread I mentioned above?

Quite frankly, I don't know how to do it myself.

Thanks

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 13, 1999.

I have to say, I believe Y2K to be a very signifigant, possibly life altering event. However, the ninnys at Newswire are grasping at straws to come up with a "See we've exposed the cover up!" argument. It just doesn't fly.

Everyone with some clue is scared and some are making dissociative efforts regarding this fear. If I keep focussed on proving I'm right, I don't have to stop and soil myself 'cause I'm so freaking scared.

Waste of bytes. C'mon people use your damn heads. The problem is real.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), July 13, 1999.

Here you go, George:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0014 iW

Always willing to help.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 13, 1999.

Anyone who thinks that "free market forces" or "the invisible hand of Adam Smith" or such crap is going somehow fix bad code when there is too little time to fix (and test) it, has totally missed what the Y2K problem is all about. You might as well say, "Since being able to turn lead into gold would obviously bring enormous profits, it therefore follows that this WILL be done, due to capitalistic market forces yada-yada-yada".

You cannot turn lead into gold. You cannot fix Y2K by Jan 1. It really is that simple.

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

Hey, Your Highness, you forgot Jack's blinking "Y2k CANNOT BE FIXED".

Maybe Jack can lend you the rights to it.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 13, 1999.

Well King,

The argument that Harry Browne and all the other "market" guys make stating that the market can take care of Y2K rest on an assumption. That assumption is that market forces can be brought to bear on the problem.

This assumption completely ignores the distortion caused by the HUGE federal, state, and local governments bring into the equation.

NONE of these entities are guided or controlled by market forces. They therefore CANNOT and WILL NOT be fixed in such a manner.

The problem with Browne et al is that they are such gung-ho capitalists, that they think all problems could be solved by eliminating ALL government intervention.

Now, I won't argue that point, since it's irrelevant to the current situation. Capitalism is NOT the cause of the Y2K problems in our DOD and various governments. Capitalism will not solve it.

Left to themselves, then, one has to ask, "How confident am I that the federal, state, and local government can fix their problems?"

My answer to that is: "Absolutely no prayer whatever."

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), July 14, 1999.

Amen, Jollyprez.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 14, 1999.

Thank you for posting the thread Hoff. I'll have to learn how to do live-link threads on my own. Thanks again.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 14, 1999.

Pollys like Hoffmeister, CPR, Decker and Stephen Poole are worried about federal government intervention. Perhaps their opinion is that an orderly liquidation of non-compliant businesses without government interference is vital to Y2k recovery. Larger companies would buy up smaller non-compliant ones and then everything would be OK.

That opinion conveniently ignores Y2k ripple effects, vendors, companies that depend on hundreds or thousands of suppliers and the international situation. It doesn't take into account city and county governments and state and federal governments that operate outside of most market forces.

But the most important thing being overlooked is that many of us have children, parents and grandparents whose safety and well-being are our responsibility. The elderly are more sensitive to the cold and changes in drinking water than others.

Don't panic. Prepare.

-- Prepare early (don't@panic.prepare), July 14, 1999.

Hoffmeister, thanks for the link. are your efforts on this forum and elsewhere the result of working for an entity such as government, corporation etc?? Do you receive any remuneration for these efforts??

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 14, 1999.

Now, Ray. Wouldn't that take all the fun out of it?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 14, 1999.

I think that the Y2K issue is one case where free market forces have actually contributed to the problem. Since the government never stepped in and mandated action, companies never did anything to deal with the issue (other than, I suspect, in the banking system, which will serve the government's interests well when they decide to rob us of any money we foolishly left in the bank because of their P.R. shame tactics. Bank compliance can be a double edged sword if the gov't decides to steal your money). Compliance efforts in the rest of industry would have cost too much, cutting into profits and hurting stock prices (and executive compensation).

Along the same lines, I think that Clinton never took action because the economy would have suffered for the reasons just stated above and it would have hurt his approval ratings. (I'm feeling nauseous just thinking about his approval ratings - what a sick statement about our society).

I have a theory that companies (and governments) are like people in that they exhibit similar tendencies in their behaviour in similar proportions to individuals. In other words, most seek maximum personal gain (based on their definition of gain), a few are altruistic, etc. Government doesn't care about it's citizens, it only "cares" about making more money, grabbing more power and control, etc.

I'm definitely for the free market, and for the most part, a healthy desire for gain is a good thing for society in general. But there are few individuals, companies or governments, indeed, that would have the discipline and restraint to act in a responsible manner when their (short term) profits are on the line. That is another similarity between organizations and people; most are short-term thinkers, only a few can think and plan longer term. (That's also why I think bank runs will be inevitable, regardless of whether banks are compliant or not, and even if they could prove it ahead of the date rollover, which I don't think they can).

Y2K is one case where the government should have stepped in and taken agressive action. But hey, no surprise. We all just got f**ked again. What else is new? That's what President Clinton and our government does best. F**k us.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), July 14, 1999.

Hoffmeister commented:

"Now, Ray. Wouldn't that take all the fun out of it?"

I suppose it would but I'm havin to much fun as it is !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 14, 1999.