Thoughts on the Navy/Lord information

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

Kosky and the pollies say the Navy spreadsheet regarding utilites was old, it was poor data, and it was in public view the same way my underwear is when I change my pants in the bedroom.

Ok, so what?

The point of that authenticated Navy report was planning and contingency work for worst case scenarios, right? Nothing in it said 'sure to happen'. Nothing said 'RUN AWAY!'. It was just a planning tool for contingency plans. So what's the big flap about?

I think I know........

The big flap is NOT about the report and NOT about government/business contingency planning. It's about INDIVIDUAL contingency planning. You see, individuals that make worst case scenario contingency plans are threatening the stability of our banking and government systems. Little people taking their little money out of the banking system can bring it crashing down. Little families buying a few extra groceries and filling their fuel tanks all at the same time can send a life threatening shock through the JIT world we live in.

Little people and little families and little business owners care about themselves and look for ways to get themselves through life with as little trouble as possible. Do you think BIG people and BIG business and BIG government think any differently?

Think about the motives behind peoples actions.

Little people look for ways to get themselves and their families through the possible problems we face. Some of those 'plans' include making sure their assets are safe and the family is provided for. Pretty non-threatening, right? Sounds like it should be the goal of every Mom and Dad in the world... just basic family responsability. So why does it get the established government, big business, and their noisy little minions all hyper and upset?

For the very simple reason that Mom's and Dad's acting in a responsable fashion can threaten the stability of the government and big business world. 'They' are upset and rightly so. 'Their' world is threatened because average people are working to mitigate threats to their own little family lives. 'Their' world relies upon having the little people's assets at their disposal. 'Their' world relies on all the little people doing what they are supposed to when they are supposed to.

So why the big flap? Because the 'flappers' are truly threatened by all the little people and their actions for a change. Think about motivations and goals. Think about yours, and think about theirs.

If every family draws their assets from the banks before the years end then the banking system might collapse. That is a very real possibility and it scares 'them'. On the other hand a family that leaves their assets in an institution that fails might be faced with years of hardship before they see their money again, if ever. That's what happened to many when the Government closed so many savings and loan institutions. In most cases their money was safe, but safely in someone ELSES hands for quite some time.

Even if Y2K should fizzle like a wet firecracker the problem of confidence exists. We live in a society that's run like a huge confidence game, A CON game. Your assets are not really yours, your cash has no real value, your property belongs to the government, and you can't live through a day without breaking a dozen laws. We live by trust.. thinking that we have some say over our money and property and lives. We TRUST the banks to safeguard our assets and we TRUST the government to not take away our homes and we TRUST the police to not enforce the law regarding keeping double edged daggers in your horses saddle bags when you ride through New York City.

That trust just might be threatened over the Y2K issue. When the trust is gone so is the Confidence and therefor the CON game won't work anymore.

Life is going to get very interesting soon. Listen to them shrilly squeal.... It's almost funny.

Look around you at your family and friends, and decide for yourself where your duty rests. Do what you think is right. This society does not exist for the benifit of the government nor big business, but for the individual people. Look at those who would tell you differently and question their motives in comparison to your own.

-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), August 24, 1999

Answers

Great stuff Art, as always!

Between you and Lane, there might be hope after all. STICK IT TO 'EM GOOD!

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 24, 1999.


This says it all Art. Thanks.

-- Joe Stout (joewstout@iswt.com), August 24, 1999.

That's it in a nutshell...

"This society does not exist for the benifit of the government nor big business, but for the individual people." Can this somehow be added to the Constitution?

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), August 24, 1999.


Well said. Preparers see the forest, and the approaching fire. Pollyannas see a tree. They can't smell the smoke. The few Pollies who are able to see the forest, demand the forest be sacrificed in hopes of protecting *their* tree. They want you to believe the fire is small, no threat. Some claim it has turned away.

I still smell smoke. It's getting thicker. I just want as many trees to survive as possible. Do what you can. Create a fire break. If it misses us, you'll be ready for the next one.

"and it was in public view the same way my underwear is when I change my pants in the bedroom."

I just love this place..........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 24, 1999.


As a side note: Any Polly who falls into the second category I mentioned, is far and beyond more DANGEROUS than any Doomer could possibly be!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 24, 1999.


Yes. Was just discussing this over the past few days with people here abouts. They tell us that the only thing worse than Y2K would be 'panic' over Y2K. Which translated means 'so long as you folks don't disrupt 'the system' with your panic WE DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU in the long run'. Another example is 'keep your money in the bank' so that we don't 'threaten the banking system' which translated means 'The system itself is more important than you are (or your individual experience)'.

These are the messages they have been subtly encrypting as assumptions in their messages. They never come out and say these things but that is entirely what they mean (or assume as foundational to their POV).

A neighbor recently asked how it was possibly for there to be 3 trillion dollars in cash accounts? Where did all the bank notes go () after depositing them)? We talked about this in terms of the checks we all get and the automatic payments into accounts (bank numbers, account number, amount numbers). Finally he realized that there really were not $3+ trillion in bills out there, just numbers zipping back and forth or resting for a while in between..all very intangible. At that point we talked about the $100 billion in cash banknotes that were available to be used in circulation in the USA.

He recounted that his father had a contract with the city back in the Depression. His father had a truck and was contracted to haul out the possessions of the wealthy who were now flat broke. He was hauling this stuff to the Dump every day: antiques, Tiffany lamps, beautiful furnishings all going to the Dump because no one had any money to buy it at even 10" on the $.

These formerly wealthy people had all their money in the banks and virtually nothing in hand, no cash. When the banks folded so did their lifestyle. They were bancrupted because they were on margin and debts to keep up appearances. Many of these poeple were committing suicide.

Even though we have the FDIC (also its inability to deal with a systemic crisis of any size) we are still facing a situation in which we could see the very same thing..no available money, locked funds, banks unwilling to accept checks or wire transfers due to questions of liquidity of the issuer, etc. What happens when you take a check to the bank and they say they have to impound it for two to four weeks to see if it will clear?

The implication is a real big slowdown of the speed of, the flow of money. Those businesses which are dependent upon the speed of money to remain solvent will die first. The credit pool will shrink and the flow of funds will slow even more. eventually those few who do business, the shrunken credit pool and the slow speed of turn over in money usage will bottom out. Many people will be unemployed and its the big "D" word all over again.

10,000,000,000 financial transactions per day. 0.1% error rate equals 10,000,000 errors per day which must be reconciled by hand.

At what point is it impossible for the system (the staff) to correct these errors and a period of accumulating errors poisons the well so to speak? Days.

Forget 'the system'. Forget those who protect it. Forget those who are basking in the warm glow of its present radiance. They are doomed.

Go out and buy a dump truck and get ready to haul stuff to the dump. But remember to have a place to collect the goodies. In a few decades they may be worth something again.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), August 24, 1999.


Wasn't it Milne who originally said something about Pollys like:

"You're standing on the railroad tracks. There's a freight train heading for you at 75 mph. You refuse to look at the train, or get off the tracks. ("If there's no train, why do I need to get off"?)

The only remaining question: "How far will your lifeless corpse be thrown?"

I think that sums it up pretty well...

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 24, 1999.


Thanks, Dennis.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 24, 1999.

Kudos Art, excellent!

But buddy... "it was in public view the same way my underwear is when I change my pants in the bedroom

I hope the shades are pulled : )

These past few days have illustrated very well how much the internet is feared by the establishment. No wonder "control" of the net is something some politicians are interested in.

The web has changed the rules for those who are entrusted the power of we, the people. Suddenly, a substantial omount of the power is back in our hands and at our fingertips. Don't take this phenom too lightly. It changes the game and puts fear into those that must maintain power at any cost. It's dangerous and exciting and, did I say dangerous?

I get goosebumps when I read something like this from someone like Art. It's cool, like everyone has a voice and that voice can be heard, or read, in an electronic instant.

I don't think "the machine" may share my point of view right now : )

That's cool too. But it also shows how quickly information can travel. And it's really clear that some of the more unethical trolls who visit here tried to use that power to manipulate us, get us to act in an irrational manner, push us into making big mistakes. It was great to see how well balanced and thoughtful and cautious people were!!!

Art, you're right on except I think life has already become very interesting : )

Mike

======================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 24, 1999.


A little something Tom Benjamin posted over at Rick Cowles' forum:

"I have decided I am delighted with Jim Lord for releasing the "Pentagon Papers" of Y2k even though I think the report isd offbase and even though I think Lord is not exactly correct about the level of deceit. Why am I delighted even though I think there is a lot of misinformation in his report?

1) While this demonstrates incompetence, not deceit, it is important that we see the incompetence. It was a dumb idea to roll up this data, it was a dumb idea to roll this data into a report, and it was a dumb idea to publish it, and it was a dumb idea to try to unpublish it. Do you think that this group will produce anything but a dumb contingency plan? There are incompetent Y2k remediation teams too.

2) While I cannot specifically point to a single lie I have heard from anyone in authority, I do think it is deceitful to try to make Y2k a non-issue. The typical American has not had the opportunity to assess the threat for himself. The Lord report reversed that to some degree. Not only did it get coverage because it was news, Koskinen had to repeat the story to explain it. It created a media flurry. We need more of that.

3) Even though I think the specifics of the report are laughable, it is not generally speaking a laughable scenario. If we wake up on January 1st, 2000 and only 100 American cities have partial or total infrastructure failure most of us would consider that a fairly positive outcome. That leaves 90% unscathed at least in terms of immediate impact. Both the Senate report and John Koskinen see exactly these kinds of localised disruptions. This is the kind of scenario we should expect.

4) Therefore, the Lord Report is substantially correct. I am glad that I am not Jim Lord because his reputation is going to take a beating over this, but he is still substantially correct. He has not exaggerated the risks we face and he has not exaggerated the degree of deception by very much either. Our governments are not explicitly telling us about the risks.

5) While Lord can be successfully attacked for putting the worst possible interpretation on a piece of misinformation, this kind of irresponsibility is what passes for journalism these days. On Y2k we see journalists happily take a piece of misinformation and put the best possible interpretation on it. There are several pieces published like this every day. This irresponsiblity is never challenged. There were a million Monica Lewinsky stories that were far more irresponsible.

Why should standards for Lord be any higher than for anyone else? I would prefer balanced irresponsibility to one sided irresponsibility.

Tom

-- Tom Benjamin (benjamin@prcn.org), August 24, 1999"

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 24, 1999.



You hit the nail right on the head. Thanks, Art!

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), August 24, 1999.

Dennis,

Another good analogy is a Dog ingesting Anti-freeze:

They love the taste of it and the smell of it and lap it up eagerly, not realizing it will soon kill them. The American people are the same.

Regards.

-- Paul Hepperla (paulhep@terracom.net), August 24, 1999.


I've been appreciating the irony.

Pop quiz:

When faced with a risk of unknown probability but with potentially disastrous effects, it is prudent and responsible to:

A) Hope for the worst and plan for the worst.

B) Hope for the best and plan for the best.

C) Hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Gary North would answer "A"

Most everyone else would answer "B"

The Navy, and us, would answer "C"

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.


I'm so glad I saw this, Art, I just found it on Michael Hyatt's site, linked by Dennis Olson. I just wanted to tell you that I think you are a really nice human being, and my all-time favorite article on Y2K is "What Keeps A Non-Geek Up At Night". (Thanks for printing it, Cory) And this ain't bad, either! Take care.

-- Also A Non-Geek (Who Can@Read.com), August 24, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ