I am new, so bear with me. After several months of following this site, I feel the need to ask those of you who have been so active the following question. Have you changed or altered your opinion from, say three months ago, what you thought at that time about the consequences of Y2K. This may seem like a simplistic question, yet I ask it in the interest of whether or not preconceived notions have been changed as the months click away. Ten months ago I was fairly skeptical about anything much more than "a bump in the road" would occur, yet today I feel that much "more" is likely. What exactly that "more" will be is apparently anyone's guess. (Actually, I'm pretty tired of the "nobody knows" aguement. If this late in the game, nobody knows, that in and of itself, speaks volumns)

For those of you who could give me a serious answer about your changes in assessment here at the beginning of Sept., I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks

PS. I asked a somewhat abbreviated same question to a posting by Theda earlier.

-- Bill (Schlieder@Prodigy.net), September 06, 1999

Answers

Bill...

It's a good question, I ask myself that same one everyday. Some days I'm on the fence, some days I'm over the top. My opinion has not changed, and I have been aware of Y2K since the 1970's at Northrop in southern California. We were aware of the century date change back then. However, nobody wanted to do anything about it because of money, and, most people said that they would be retired by 2000 so they weren't going to worry about it anyway.

To make it simple, and to use the 0 to 10 scale with 10 being the worst possible scenario, I am still a 5. I am also of the opinion that anything over a 3 will change our way of life for quite awhile.

Regards,

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Y2KOK.ORG), September 06, 1999.

I still fear that millions and millions will die.Most from backed up sewerage and a lack of potable water.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), September 06, 1999.

Hi Bill. Amazingly enough, I have a somewhat more optimistic view of y2k than I did when I began the research of the problem over two years ago. But I certainly DON'T subscribe to the polly idea that all will be fine and have made preps to last a couple of months. As FLAME AWAY will tell you, it gets mighty cold here in the Ohio Valley during January and should extended power/heat outages take place here at that point, well, I'm thinking my preps may not be enough.

At least I have a large wood supply.

I can't embrace the ideas of the doomers either, although their points are well taken. Worst-case scenarios are often like best-case scenarios: we often see the two outer fringes of the scenario and migrate to the philosphy associated within. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

I enjoyed 'winter wonderings' 99% thread below and think it speaks volumes about the need for total remediation. But since you asked, here's my view from the fence:

-sporadic power outages that last a few days (and if the situation is not addressed fully, these will occur during heavy usage months like June,July or August) -economic downturns associated with businesses either going under or having profit margin problems due to their failure to remediate their systems. Higher unemployment, higher inflation, recession, stock market backpedal. -assorted day to day infrastructure problems. Cascading effects cause sporadic problems with banking, day to day living, all of our jobs. -gas/oil prices rising signicantly due to programming problems that mean that companies must rely upon their oil reserves for shipment.Rationing?

But not cataclysm/disaster.

Just my two cents. I'm like everyone else here...waiting, wondering, speculating.

regards.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), September 06, 1999.

Crept up to 8.5
Very schizzy surreal being an 8.5 basking in the sunny abundance and easy convenience of today's world. We like it today and hope we're completely wrong. Sorta energy-tugging to be prepping toward 8.5 yet be happy as a lark. Oh well, the last year has been velly velly interesting! These are the Good Ole Days.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 06, 1999.

Bill, I can't say that I have changed that much either way as far as my OWN very pessimistic expectation. But, for what it is worth, I often oscillate on Joe Sixpack's Y2K reaction, which is an important piece of the pre-Y2K puzzle.

The Navy report, some half-way decent front page news articles, CSPAN coverage, etc., have at different times of the past three months led me to believe that Joe Sixpack was going to "get it". I mean, even in recent (including today's) "Cathy" comic strips, Y2K and its potential problems are getting high visibility. But, Joe Sixpack has always, always proved me wrong, and still clearly does not really "get it".

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

When I jumped on the Y2K bandwagon in early '98 I was an 8-9.

I have slowly moved down to about a 7-8, just about where Yourdon is, "a year of disruption followed by 10 years of depression" (I don't think that is a good quote from Yourdon, he says it better)

No particular reason, just trying to put the best face on it, but I have 10 man years of food in the basement for 4 of us. Just in case.

Maybe that's why I feel better.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), September 06, 1999.

I think what Zoobie is really trying to say is that the 'sewerage' will back up into the potable water which will then seep into the potable plants causing over fertilization causing super potable plants that will then take over the world.

-- What is he trying to say (may@never.know), September 06, 1999.

Bill,

I've seen some movement in my thoughts, but not much. Still on average a "5." (But my 10 is global thermalnuclear war.)

Even when I think it all might be better domestically (not so good internationally), the dot gov's and dot mil's from Washington D.C.-- still pushing their version of spin when anything the least controversial surfaces--keep me wondering and observing their actions... not what they say. Think of all the vested interests and youll realize well probably NEVER know the whole Y2K truth... even six month afterwards.

Potential early January showstoppers (oil refinery fires, nuclear plant and chemical manufacturer accidents, etc.) aside, I DO expect a slow global devolution into economic depression by June of next year due to global supply chain disruptions, and rising prices which will force many more selective purchasing choices on the part of a more careful global populace. Frankly, the international ripple effect of small to mid-size businesses going bankrupt, and larger layoffs at the Fortune 1000-type mega-corporations--as they attempt to protect their profitability at the expense of the labor pool--will likely be the economic kicker.

Yesterday, was prep shopping here in Silicon Valley, CA... at CostCo and other locations. To illustrate the Y2K disconnect... at one store, over the battery supplies, one woman was mentioning how she was upgrading her earthquake emergency kit. I responded with... Were getting ready for Y2K too. There was a flicker in her eyes, a shrug of the shoulders, and then she began discussing how her Alhambra Water supplier was telling her to order her water supplies by October, because they were concerned about running out, for their regular customers, by December.

You see... its acceptable in the Valley to work on your earthquake stash, but mentions of Y2K usually invoke nervous titters and rolling eyes.

At another store, Orchard Supply Hardware, I noticed big displays near the two front entrances devoted to emergency supplies. Lots of flashlights with fresh new Y2K labels, portable bar-be-que grills, and charcoal, oil lamps, coolers, matches and the like. Frankly, it looked more like an end-of-the-summer-season clearance display, than an appeal to stock up on your emergency supplies.

At yet another store, they had a sign up... re: our local electric company...

"PG&E says... when the Hayward Fault snaps, expect to be without power, lights, gasoline, water & natural gas for 2 to 8 weeks... until services can be repaired!"

Whatever you call it... Im convinced... being prepared for lifes upcoming curve balls... is just a wise investment in your near-term future.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 06, 1999.

Bill,

Good question. And one I've tried to adress a couple of times lately, as I batted it around in my head. I came into Y2K awareness almost two years ago, incredibly ignorant of computer programming technology. But after a marathon of internet study, I realized that if we had five year's work to do, and only two years to do it, we were likely to be running down a blind alley with a brick wall at the end.

As I learned more (considerably on this forum), I began to realize that there were instances and scenarios which would mitigate the problem somewhat. I began to believe the we (they) might actually pull it off, and Y2K would be an economic crises, but not a social cataclism.

Entering the end-game, now, I must realize that even though a lot of lip-service has been given to "compliance", "readiness", "capability", and the such, we have made insignificant progress overall. In short, my hopes have been dashed upon the rocks of complacency and well-meaning.

If this sounds confusing, it is. But my basic preparation plans have remained the same. I have the responsibility to my family to safeguard their wellfare, and I have deeply prepped to that goal.

But to parahrase Thoreau, "I wish I was as wise as the day I was born"

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), September 06, 1999.

My opinion on the probability of various Y2K scenarios has not changed since this July poll taken on this forum:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0015U1

I am a little more optimistic about Y2K this year than I was last year, because some information is available now that just wasn't available last year. On the other hand, Y2K projects often last two or three years for an organization, and three months is not going to change the outlook for organizations (and countries) that started in 1998 or 1999 rather than 1996 or 1997.

Here's one of my favorite quotes about Y2K. This is from chapter five of the book "Managing 00: Surviving the Year 2000 Computing Crisis" by Peter de Jager and Richard Bergeon:

[Capers] Jones also validates our estimation that an enterprise starting in 1997 is likely to get through only about 80 percent of its applications; if it waits until 1999, only 30 percent. And even conceding that only 30 percent of the applications may be critical to the business of the enterprise, that 30 percent is probably attached by data to another 40 percent of the other applications that won't make the transition in time. At best, the organization will be crippled; at worst, it will no longer exist.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 06, 1999.

It varies for me depending on how depressed I happen to be on that particular day: it fluctuates between 5-10.

Much uncertainty.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

Bill,

Has my assessment changed? Yes, it has. The two extremes have been given increasingly lower probability. I now pretty much discount the 1, 2, or 3 scenario, and the 9, 10 scenario. A year ago I considered these likely, depending on reaction to the problem at that time.

Unfortunately, at the same time I am now beginning to discount 4s and 5s -- because of what I perceive of as government failure to provide any useful warning to the public. What may have been a 4 now becomes a 6 because of public reaction, and so on.

Certainly I think we'll see economic problems that aren't ovecome for years. I also think we'll see loss of life, including loss of life in the US and Canada. The work that's been done will reduce that loss of life, of course, from what it could have been, but I see no sign that we are really out of the woods. My industrial concerns are petroleum and chemical industries and health care. My infrastructure concern is water. I still don't want to be living near a big city this winter.

So, that's it -- the chances for an extreme scenario have gotten slimmer.

-- de (delewis@XOUTinetone.net), September 06, 1999.

Thank you for your insight. Most of your comments seem to be about where I stand at the moment. (subject to change!) As a follow-up: what specifically do you feel will happen to the food distribution system next year? Those of you putting in food stores for up to a ten year period are way beyond what I can even contemplate. When exactly do you expect to have to start using these stores? Even in my most pessimistic moments, I can't believe that a concerted effort at remediation couldn't bring "infra-structure" back on line within a relatively short period of time (six mo-1year??). If you don't agree, and I want to know if you don't, why then do you stick to a middle of the road (5-6) point on the scale?

Thanks again

ps-what kind of name is "Zoobie"?

-- Bill (Schlieder@Prodigy.net), September 06, 1999.

I'm not a doomer - if that means I think everything is going to stop at midnight. But I believe, as I did seven months ago when I first experienced the tramatic shock syndrome - denial -anger -grief -and finally acceptance -nothing will be the same after 1/1/00. I see a major economic crisis - worldwide - I see intrusive government intervention and worst of all I see soft - lazy, self-indulgent people crazed with the loss of their easy, convenient lives. The people of this generation, for the most part, have no idea how to be frugal, how to make do, how to give up their habits. Example: news item from this hot dry summer - neighbors in Baltimore turning in other neighbors for watering plants outside - turns out they were gathering condensation from their air conditioners and another fellow was washing his car with bottled water. Two things are important about this exercise - neighbors will turn in neighbors and the more subtle point is - people don't know how to change lifestlye even in crisis. My conclusion - much will be wasted before people finally understand what is important - and this is what will kill them. :)april

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), September 06, 1999.

I've gone from a 5-6 to a solid 8 due to the amount of lip service within my own industry (petroleum). It is my belief that the industry has not taken this situation seriously enough and the press is no where to be found.

I am also seeing financial dislocations which approximate the beginning of "market quakes". Our market may actually not be the FTQ destination of choice.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

I think Lon has nailed this quite well. He "must realize" that we have made "insignificant progress". Now this is interesting, in light of the avalanche of progress reports coming in from almost everywhere. Read the thread down a few about what some programmers say. These are the people up to their elbows in the offending source of all y2k concerns, right? And they're complacent, because they came, they saw, they conquered. They're done.

So just how can Lon decide progress has been insignificant? Because of the complacency of those who have done what needed to be done! It's just like saying the proof we haven't reached our goal is the very satisfaction of those who realize we HAVE reached our goal, on the part of those who got us there!

This inverted thinking is possible only if a y2k crises is taken as a given, NOT to be questioned NO MATTER WHAT! As it becomes clearer and clearer that we're in the last stages of testing (which last forever by definition) and we're passing the mainline tests with flying colors, and the embeddeds weren't the threat we feared and we've replaced outdated systems and on and on, it becomes increasingly difficult to chant the doomcult catechisms with a straight face.

And this forces us into Lon-logic -- that we're sure to have big problems because we're so happy that we won't. Uh, whatever.

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

Bill:

I'd have to say that I started off at about a 9.5 to a 10, optimism not being one of my strong points.

I now think that, with luck, we will get by with an 8 or so.

Food distribution? Nutsy next year. Manual workarounds? I manage a temp agency. I'm lucky to find temps who can add with a machine, let alone think creatively.

However, I'd REALLY love for all of my family to be able to razz me mercilessly next year because I'm such an extremist.....

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), September 06, 1999.

I think Flint is really trying to say that he is out of his leauge when discussing y2k issues!

-- What is Flint saying? (well@well.well?), September 06, 1999.

I notice Gordon uses this same logic. He says essentially, I'm pessimistic because those in my industry who know the details, are not pessimistic.

Now, is it possible they know more than Gordon? Of course not, because y2k is a GIVEN, dammit! Therefore they must be clueless, while Gordon Gets It. Well, circular reasoning is comfortable to be sure. And fortunately, when little happens those like Gordon will still be comfortable.

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

Pardon me for saying so, Bill, but I'm getting a strong impression that you're one of those people who won't do anything, until you absolutely know that there will be a problem next year.

I don't know that I'll be in a car wreck, yet I have car insurance. I don't know that my house will burn down, yet I have house insurance. I don't know that I will be alive, this time next year, but I still do needed preventative maintenance on my house.

Sorry to not comply with your request that "nobody knows" types stay away from your thread, but "no one knows" is really sufficient reason to take this all seriously. I'm not going to wait for every last polly expert to cave in, before I choose a course of action.

My feeling pretty much remains the same. We will likely experience something that a well prepared person will probably survive (even if they are a little worse for wear), and that an unprepared person will quite possibly die from. I don't expect TEOTWAKI, but I do think the world-as-we-know-it might take a sabbatical for a while.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 06, 1999.

Bokonon, name the Y2K Polly experts who have caved in. I wish more of them would.

-- Rockafeller Skank (rocky2k@x-networks.net), September 06, 1999.

Flint-Did I miss something. As I said in my first comment, I am new so maybe I don't follow your comments. Do they have something to do with your change of opinion (assessment) of Y2K effects or the follow up about food distribution?

Focus, my good fellow.

-- Bill (Schlieder@Prodigy.net), September 06, 1999.

Bill, good question. I have not changed my opinion over the last year or so, 8.0 to 9.0. There is more than y2k involved here, we have a stock market that has been artifically inflated for years and will contribute immensly to the overall problem.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 06, 1999.

Great progress reports from the people who know, Flint? LOL!

Where is there, TODAY, a single Y2K compliant anything that counts? Oh yeah, I know the spiel, "enough" has been done so that Y2K is now "effectively" taken care of, even if indeed nobody is actually fully compliant.

I don't think anyone knows WHAT will happen when we go into the year 2000 with systems that are "on track" but NOT FIXED! Least of all, you.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

KOS:

Have you seen the latest? Navy report, I mean. They're SLOWLY beginning to correct some of their errors. I noticed that the latest report doesn't show the errors in the Fort Worth gas company anymore, but they STILL show NAS Dallas...which was closed down sometime back. I'm sure it takes time for them to get everything straight, and they have more motivation now that they believe someone is actually READING the thing.

Latest Navy Report

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 06, 1999.

I decided early on (February 1998) that Y2k could cause some ugly problems for our society (and my family). I have been in the prep mode over all these months and will continue into the turnover. I decided that I could not afford to flip-flop on this decision so I have been proceeding come "hell or high water". I have no regrets nor will I have any regrets.

Constant researching of the issue has only reinforced my resolve to be as ready as possible for whatever may unfold. Sane, logical, common sense thinking should convince anyone that we may have life style changes ahead.

So many people have shared their thoughts and links and information....my thanks go out to one and all.

-- rb (ronbanks_2000@yahoo.com), September 06, 1999.

Bill said:

***** As a follow-up: what specifically do you feel will happen to the food distribution system next year? Those of you putting in food stores for up to a ten year period are way beyond what I can even contemplate. When exactly do you expect to have to start using these stores? Even in my most pessimistic moments, I can't believe that a concerted effort at remediation couldn't bring "infra-structure" back on line within a relatively short period of time (six mo-1year??). If you don't agree, and I want to know if you don't, why then do you stick to a middle of the road (5-6) point on the scale? *******

Since this seems to be directed at me I'll answer.

I expect a 7 to significantly disrupt my income stream and possibly the income streams of some of my neighbors. Thus a 10 man-year supply of food for a family of 4. I expect that I might need to feed myself, family and some of my neighbors for up to a year(that's 10 people for a year.) If it goes much beyond that then I hope to be able to barter my skills for raw farm products and support my family.

I know that sounds like a lot of food but it consists of a lot of rice and beans and isn't really that expensive. If things turn out better than a 7 or the food supply lines come back up in a month or so it's all stuff my family likes and we'll just eat it. Although I will keep at least a years supply down there as we live in an earthquake zone.

Not totally bonkers, just a half bubble off center.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), September 06, 1999.

Flint, I have a question for you. I respect your opinions, sometimes. Other times I think you're just having fun making some extreme doomers look stupid.

I guess you could say I'm a Polly wannabe. I want y2k to be insignificant. I personally have fluctuated between an 8 down to a 1 or 2 and back up to a 5 (whatever that means) I was feeling pretty much like you seem to feel--lots of progress, lots of good reports (assuming that the Navy report was overblown by Lord, or whoever claims to have the only copy)

But what keeps happening is I keep reading these reports that tend to make me think (again) that we're being duped. For instance, I keep getting these reports in my electric bill, and I've read that others here get pretty much the same thing, which say that my power company (Pacific Power and Light, part of Pacificorp) will be 100% OK. They claim to be TOTALLY prepared. Then I read the report from Orange County California. This report, which I assume you've read, while clearly indicating that the county is doing their best to prepare, makes me very suspicious about the power grid. ALL the information they lay out in regards to their back up generators, their anticipation of "brownouts and rolling blackouts", their concern that they space their generators in the most effective way, so that they can try to cover all their pumping stations for the expected power outages, All this info seems to be in conflict with information which comes from the power companies.

If the power companies are to be believed, why does Orange County feel the need to go through all these gyrations?

Flint, I can tell you that I look forward to hearing from you on this; I DO want you to ease my mind on this.

Thanks,

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 06, 1999.

Flint, I have never responded directy to you before, because, I have not seen the point in engaging in infantile name-calling which you seem to revel in. I stated that I moderated my "doomer" viewpoint, because of what I read on this thread. The person mostly responsible for that was none other than YOU.

For months, I read what seemed to be logical, well-thought postings of yours, and began to believe, even though I saw no first-hand evidence of successful remediation programs. (I'll save you the trouble - I've seen no first hand evidence of failures either)

But somewhere about July, I realized something about your postings. YOU use the very thing of which you accuse everyone else. That is INDUCTIVE reasoning. It didn't matter what discussion you were involved in, you could never, never admit that Y2K would be anything more than a minor annoyance. If someone said that it was irrefutable that the moon would crash into the earth, you would immediately reply with, "Yes, but it's not bad, really, just green cheese, we all know, and here's a report to prove it".

So, in the end, I may have been snookered into buying some extra food (which I could afford, thanks to a life-long work ethic), but I'm no longer buying your irresponsible, happy-face, well- meaning, well-writen, bull shit.

If it offends you that I am able to think for myself, and fend for myself, well, so be it.

PS. The "avalanche" of success reports you mentioned - were those the ones from the Navy, the Senate Commitee, or the GAO?

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), September 06, 1999.

The engineers at Morton Thiokol told me that the temp. at lift off was a threat to my safety, because of an o-ring FLAW. It MAY,COULD,POSSIBLY,PONTENTIALY,DID'NT KNOW FOR SURE, BLOW UP!!

They wanted to know if I still wanted to Liftoff??

-- D.B. (dciinc@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

Bill:

Over the last year, I've moved from a likely 5 to a likely 2 or less. I'm still prepared (insured against) an 8, and I'll stay that way. But just having insurance doesn't guarantee you'll need it.

KOS:

While of course nobody knows for sure, I tend to believe test results, of which there have been many (though only a small percentage of them has been publicized). Try reading Arnold Trembley's St. Louis Time Machine reports, as an example. Massive testing has been going on for some time now. Most banks have done literally millions of tests, both internally and interbank, even internationally. Most electric utilities either are running or have run with the clocks set past 2000. Telecommunications tests have shown few if any y2k bugs that could affect the functionality of communications. GPS went by basically without a hitch, which is very good for shipping. The General Motors assembly lines, called a "disaster" a year ago, now work seamlessly. (And so do others I'm aware of but can't talk about).

Now, I suppose you could argue that these tests are flawed (but nobody who knows the details has noticed this), or that they're incomplete (because most aren't PR events, so you don't know about them), or that there aren't enough of them (who knows?). Still, when I read about testing in the news, when software testing has NEVER before been newsworthy, I know something really significant has been accomplished.

And you can claim you don't know anyway. But I think that's because you don't *accept* positive news.

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

I've been actively participating in Y2K prep and general investigation for less than four months. I started with a perception of upcoming of the end of the world but gradually am moving towards "bump on the road". To put it in numerical terms, I advanced from 7-8 down to 2-3. Let me elaborate on this. While fundamental factors appear to be leaning towards eventful outcome of the Y2K there are a few things that do not and especially one very major issue that makes me wonder. The issue is the STOCK MARKET. It acts as if no Y2K threat exists. I am not even talking about bullish S&P or Dow Jones indexes trends. I am more concerned about time sensitive instruments, like options or futures. There is no interest from the market place towards short positions after the rollover or for that matter any time in the year 2000. Which simply means that people who control investments in stocks do not anticipate any trouble in a future. I find it hard to buy arguments that brokerage firms, financial consultants or leading economists of the world (with very few exceptions, wherein Edwars Yardeni is the most notable)know or think about potential Y2K crisis less than, say, people on this forum. After all if they go wrong by overlooking the obvious there will be no future for these people. It's not like crash of 1987, for example, when there was no ample warnings and things went down somewhat unexpectedly. Y2K is widely publicised, there are very few people who do not know about potential threat it represents. Imagine if your broker or finamcial consultant kept urging you to hold on to some stock or even buy more and the market crashed down causing painful losses would he have your business in the future? There are some other items that made me alarmed ever since I started learning about Y2K. One of them is that this subject attracts a lot of paranoya. I already stopped laughing about widely spread rumors of government designed plot, Clinton's plan to scrap the elections in order to stay in power, mysterious black helicopters, blue highway signs and foreign troops in white uniform. I am tired and irritated about ongoing disinformation about shortages of generators, upcoming martial law. I am also quite concerned that even seemingly credible data like recent Navy Report had a number of holes poked in it. I mean, for example, the City Manager of the Moorehead City questioned the Report's validity because it was talking about City's gas supplies being in trouble while according to the Manager the City is not even connected to any gas supplies. The other thing that, in my opinion, is indicative towards a "bump" is conversion of such an authority figure as Peter de Jagger when he spelled out his relatively recent position in his work "Doomsday Avoided". One may easily rationalize on why politicians have an agenda in Y2K and cannot be trusted. Peter's vested interest, if any, would be to maintain the thrust of a Y2K threat. At least, he had a very comfortable niche there and he could've ridden the Y2K horse till the end without antagonizing his supporters. I can't find any other reason but to accept that he truly believes that the imminent danger of Y2K was somehow averted. In conclusion I want to make one more point. There are lots of people who say that they don't foresee any dramatic consequences of the Y2K rollover, maybe partial disruptions in energy supplies, temporary nuclear stations shutdowns, maybe certain malfunctions in government services that could cause some social unrest but things will, sort of, within a few months come back to normal. Numerically they stand at around "4". I personally think that there could be no "4"s. If fabris of society starts falling apart there will not be enough cohesive momentum to patch it up. In other words, I feel that 1-3 level is all that society able to handle as far as handling disrepairs. Anything outside of "3" will turn into a self-perpetuating disaster of 8-10 level. But the odds of it are IMHO very low.

-- Gene Kantor (gkane@netcom.ca), September 06, 1999.

Bokonon-No where did I suggest that "nobody knows" types stay away from this. Please reread. Secondly, my level of preparation was not the subject of the questions. For the record, I live rurally, am "normally" prepared for 3 months of difficulties (be they economic, electric, food, etc), have enlarged scope of preparedness to 6-mo- 1year in all areas of shelter, water, heat, food, and defense. There are several 'sub-systems' that I will complete in the next month, but are not necessary to the absolute well being of myself and my family.

I apologize for any misreading of my position. I very much appreciate that we all live in a world of grey. In my business though (surgery) we cannot afford the luxury of "I don't know". It is my natural inclination to have the facts to as many decimal places as possible, before making decisions and taking action.

While I'm on this point. Personal advice. Do not have elective surgery, if at all avoidable after Jan 1. It is not that hospitals and clinics will not still be up and running, but rather the supply chain will have, I am sure, some disruptions. Most hospitals have gone to a JIT inventory over the last several years to reduce costs and how the devil are we going to ensure delivery of for instance Latex gloves, when the majority of them come from Indonesia is beyond the ken. (Pay attention to the Malayasian crises)

Thanks again everyone.

-- Bill (Schlieder@Prodigy.net), September 06, 1999.

Thanks for the medical advice Bill. I will e-mail Marilyn Manson to tell him to have that sex-change operation before 01-01-00.

-- newbie (nio@qwe.mnb), September 06, 1999.

I first found out about Y2K over two years ago and went from total skepticism to mild interest to real interest to concern to real worry over a period of six months, as my research led me to a better understanding of the problem. On a scale of 1 to couple of months ago, when I was absolutely bone-weary of being so pessimistic about the future, I

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 06, 1999.

Al:

Your request seems genuine, and I wish we could talk offline and save the bandwidth here. But you're a bit too anonymous for that, so...

It seems to me you are making a common confusion between contingency planning, and the probability of *needing* that planning. From a company's perspective, contingency planning is a double whammy, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If you don't make contingency plans against truly serious eventualities (loss of power, whatever) then the extremists will make you look irresponsible (and I'd agree. Contingency plans are something you should *always* have, and practice occasionally as possible). But if you DO make such plans, then the extremists will turn around and say, "Why would you do that if you didn't think you'd need it?"

Look, I have fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, fire insurance. Can you (or should you) conclude there's an arsonist in the house? Why else would I have these things, eh? It's very difficult to say you don't think there's anything to worry about, while taking actions that clearly reflect worry. But that's the nature of contingency planning. Personally, I'm always glad to see organizations taking all possible steps to withstand serious but very low-probability contingencies. It's a win-win situation, except in the eyes of those trying to build a case for disaster. And those people will build that case no matter WHAT you do. So you may as well be prudent.

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

My opinion has not changed. I always expected a tremendous amount of remediation to be completed in 1999 and I assume (though I can't find a great deal of hard evidence) that it is being completed.

I have also judged that the amount that will not be done (embeddeds+sw) will subvert the global supply chain and dramatically increase international tensions for a significant time period, with feedback effects from that which I can't anticipate.

I don't put, err, much "stock" in the market's lack of reaction to date because Y2K is too far off the spreadsheets to register accurately, especially when coupled to the way Y2K information has been disseminated culturally.

We are just now entering into a real-time global test of how inter- related our systems ACTUALLY are and how system Y2K REALLY is.

I'm hoping for a 2, but I expect an 8.5. Any single wild-card global sector failure (oil, banking, government, market bubble panic) and/or several internationally important country-wide failures happening simultaneously could generate an 8.5 even if the "rest" is reasonably ok. Unless the history of software has been repealed, I'm looking for at least one sector failure. Regrettably.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 06, 1999.

Good question Bill, I would go back to how I felt last year at this time. When I was part of the ( HAVE ) group, nice home, nice business, etc. Learning then about the Y2K I felt it was a 1 - 2 on the scale. After doing more researce, and selling the house/Bis and know joining the rolls of the ( HAVE NOTS ) I find myself more abel to understand the overall world-wide implications of Y2K. No longer Mentally unimpeded by my former net worth. Today finishing off my Preps I,m at an 8...---...

-- Les (yoyo@tolate.com), September 06, 1999.

I first found out about Y2K over two years ago and went from total skepticism to mild interest to real interest to concern to real worry over a period of six months, as my research led me to a better understanding of the problem. On a scale of 1 to 10, I gradually went from a 1 to perhaps a 9 or so, where I remained for a long time because there was simply no credible evidence to make me reassess my conclusions that we are headed for deep trouble.

A couple of months ago, when I was absolutely bone-weary of being so pessimistic about the future, I let my emotions get the better of me and decided to believe some of the pansy pollyanna claims being made by certain people and I started to think of Y2K as maybe a 3 or 4. I even changed the tone of my website (http://www.y2ksurvive.com), which is a Y2K preparation/survival website, to reflect a milder assessment of the effects of Y2K.

After a couple of weeks of floating around in the pink clouds of denial, I began to reassess my reassessment. Fortunately reality surfaced and I accepted the fact that I think Y2K is going to be an 8 to a 9 on the disaster scale. I immediately apologized on the website and rewrote the intro page.

There is just too much smoke, far too much smoke, from calm, reliable, non-radical sources, that indicates one hell of a Y2K fire just starting to burn. Only a person who refuses to see the truth--someone like Flint or Paul Davis, who will be responsible for much suffering if people believe their eyes-wide-shut idiocy--can possibly think that Y2K is going to be a rather trivial event.

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 06, 1999.

Anita S: If this were September of 1997 rather than 1999, your answer might actually make a bit of sense. Pollies never seem to grasp the folloing simple concept: Time is running out, there is not enough time.

Flint: So, bottom line, nobody knows. So, the obvious conclusion is to BE PREPARED (like you are). Then, if things turn out well, no problem. And if things turn out not so well, one is prepared! But will you agree with this? No, of course not. (Gawd!!!)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

Poor Flint. After he lost a lot of weight worrying about Y2k (see archives) he had to change his thinking or waste away to nothing.

-- (poor@poor.Flint), September 06, 1999.

I have been following the Y2K situation for about 6 months. I have gone from about a 4 to a 7 for the following reasons. I lived in So. California for many years and just recently moved to the midwest (tho not because of y2k). During both the riots and the aftermath of the earthquake the public reaction was panic to border panic EVEN IN MIDDLE INCOME areas where I lived. I personally witnessed panic from people over the possibility of water being cut off for 24 hours eg jammed stores, price gouging etc. If there is ANY water cutoff in So California the loss of life will be horrendous at best.

After moving to the midwest the things that bother me the most are if there is loss of power for over 2 days there will be massive loss of both livestock (as its frozen here in Jan so no water)and grain supplies (grain elevators require fans to keep the moisture down, no electricity the grain goes bad RAPIDLY). So there goes ALOT of food supply for the nation.

On a personal note what got my husband concerned about y2k problems was asking him how we would water our livestock if the power went out. Suddenly preparing became alot more personal to him.

-- Stacia (ClassyCwgl@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

Bill (Schlieder),

My sincere appologies. After months of suppressing my natural tendency towards unseemely behavior, it appears that I fell off the wagon with my second posting here.

You have started a creditable question, and I was sucker- punched into making a totally off- topic response.

Flint may of course, be correct. Lord knows I've missed the mark before. I guess that very history of guesses gone wrong is what makes me so doomerish in my outlook towards preparations. My beliefs may indeed be based upon ignorance, but I feel that there is a great difference between confidence and complacency. I am glad to acknowledge progremmers who are confident of their remediation effort. But I am dismayed at the general complacency of the governments, large and small, and the population in general.

As a "for instance", yesterday's Beaumont Enterprise (newspsper) had a front page collumn by the editor. He stated that they were ready for Y2K, and intended to extend their efforts into the community. The way they intend to help our area of 300,00 pop. is to co-sponsor (with the local elect co.) a band concert. Two weeks later they will hold an art show. Even later they will get down to the nitty gritty of a scholorship give- away.

I'm sorry, but I do not have the luxury to live in a cubicle. I have a small business, based on service to other small businesses. Tomorrow I will start my annual tour to visit each of my clients (300) in four states. I will travel many highways, many backroads to most major cities and most small towns over the next three months. I fear that I will look at many of them and realize that they are marginally profitable, leveraged, and relying on the continuation of status quo. I fear that I will not see many of them next year.

So again, I am sorry for the rant, but for me, Y2K is closing altogether too rapidly.

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), September 06, 1999.

To Gene Kantor - I have posted this before and I'm sure people are tired of it but I'll do it briefly one last time for you because I didn't see this angle mentioned in your thoughtful post. Nothing is more valuable in terms of information than personal experience.

Long story short - grid up or not - my Dh does not expect to be drawing a salary next year because he works for a Belgian based manufacturing company. Inspite of his concerned queries to their preparedness, including their suppliers, they have done nothing and give no excuses for not taking it seriously. The inaccessibility of one single part manufactured in Italy ( no other vendor available) can shut down manufacturing in this company and stop shipping indefinitely. We are one family in hundreds of thousands of American families whose businesses and/or incomes depend on goods from across the pond.

The equation is simple - no goods = no sales. No pay check. Y2k for us means living off what we were smart enough to put away this year. Who else understands this? Who else understands that broad unemployment means serious reduction in cash flow resulting in more businesses going under and more and more... Sounds like depression to me.

Like I said, I have posted this before but either I am the only one who can see the big picture this paints or maybe I'm just crazy because I haven't seen much discussion on this one sinister reality.

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), September 06, 1999.

Frankly, I discovered early that it was a waste of time to try and assess and quantify the impact of y2k and all the other potential disasters. I believe it happened when I realized that my new generator for the well pump did not address the interconnected problem of fuel availability. I was still techno-dependent. It did not address my root fear.

At the very basic level, I got a cheap well bucket. It was the lowest tech solution and the most labor dependent. I then found a hand operated pump that would work at the depth of my well. Then I knew water was in my control as much as possible and the solution was low-tech enough for me to fix if it broke. I could have water for thirst amd growing food, but dependent upon my labor.

I dealt with my root fears by working on gaining more personal control over satisfying my basic needs: shelter; water; food. Many people get side-tracked by trying to debate the repercussions of y2k. It won't change a damned thing. The real issue is fear of dependency and unless you address that, you will not address the problem.

The problem was not y2k; the problem was my fear.....

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), September 06, 1999.

April, no, you're not the only one who can see the big picture. I've been worried for quite sometime about oil and imports. Between that, higher prices and unemployment, I think we're in for a tough time even if the power and water are fine.

Lon, does this mean we won't be hearing much from you in the next 3 months? *sniff* Please check in every chance you get! :-)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), September 06, 1999.

April:

There are business cycles, to be sure. But very few lead inevitably into deep depression, despite the thought process so common here that makes such a progression seem so unavoidable.

And the reason is, the feedback mechanisms work the opposite of what you think. You describe a *positive* feedback mechanism, like an upside-down pendulum carefully balanced. When it begins to topple, the further off-center it gets, the harder it tries to continue.

The real economy has always demonstrated *negative* feedback, like an ordinary pendulum, where the further it gets off-center, the harder it tries to right itself.

I strongly suspect that the reason so many expectations have moved upwards toward worse outcomes, even as events long predicted to have really started to snowball by now are nowhere to be seen, is because of this basic misunderstanding of economic and social processes. When things get worse, we all try to make them better. We do NOT try to make them worse. If code has errors, we fix them rather than add more. If a company (like your husband's) cannot operate, many who can operate will be more than glad to scarf up the good people and the market share from the failures. When people are out of work, most look for new jobs and many find better jobs than their old ones.

By now, all that supports really pessimistic y2k outlooks is the lack of ironclad proof that things will be OK. And such proof is not possible even in theory. Two years ago, there was real cause for concern. You could legitimately say, Look at all the companies with big problems. Today, about the best you can do is say, Look at all the companies who cannot prove to my satisfaction that their problems are solved. Except if I can't be satisfied (we talked in another thread about verifying the verification-verifiers), nothing will do, and things will look awful.

Y2k is now like Harvey -- too big to ignore, if only it existed at all!

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

Cody,

I was going to write my own summation but after getting to yours I realized it was the same as mine, almost thought for thought, and couldn't improve on it. So, I second your thoughts, thank you.

Bill,

That puts me in the 8-9 scenario. A 10 is also possible during the 2000-2001 period. But a 10 is not really prep-able. It would come down to having shelter, clothing, food and water, period. The Native American Indians lived like that, of course, so it's do-able, physically, but would require a major psychological adjustment.

Food supply will depend on so *many* things, starting with petroleum. There must be petroleum products for farming/fertilizers, transportation, heating/cooling, lighting, etc. I believe that the pullback in petroleum supply will be significant, since currently we get 55% or more imported. The recession of 1974 was created by an oil embargo shortfall of 5% +/-, and I believe this time it will be far worse. Of course that is only one of the many, many links in our chain that must remain up and running. When one starts to connect all the dots and links it exposes the frailty of our current system. If you would like to play around with some "what-if" numbers, I recommend you go take a look at the Circle Of Dominoes Engine:

www.y2knewswire.com/Y2Kengine.htm

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

When I GIed, I saw Y2K in the 4-5-6 range: some scattered disruptions, rolling blackouts, brownouts, surges, and temporary inconveniences. A global recession seemed likely (Y2K being only one factor), loss of life and property were possible, unemployment would take a turn up, and Infomagic was a theoretical drama. The latter being an interesting exercise in imaginative demonstration. I was sure, however, that I'd downgrade as the year progressed. I got started on my preparations.

That was about February. As the countdown continued, I was gradually upgrading the risks, 5-6-7, 6-7-8, and, then, 7-8-9. There was some good news, but much was happy talk. I saw corporate happy talk not just in the news, but in documents and other materials that we worked on. More troublesome than the happy talk was that some of the big boys really didn't have a clue. Some were still talking about Y2K as a hoax. Outside the U.S., people were sure that it was an American hoax.

The mainstream media wasn't giving Y2K serious coverage (for whatever reason) and the average joe and jane (when Y2K was explained to them in a reasonable manner) not only couldn't recognize the prudence of preparation, but they were DWGIing. 14 Days of Preparations seemed extreme. It still seems extreme to them. In light of these things, I felt it appropriate to upgrade my view of the increasing risks, get more involved in educating people, and re-evaluate Infomagic's thesis.

There were some things that did come out well and this eased some of my anxieties about getting my preps done in time. The rollover for government accounting systems and GPS went well enough. Delivery and availability of Y2K-specific goods improved by summer. While the summer was a slow down as expected, there was business enough for us to modestly continue preparations without sacrificing our business. But increased happy talk and denial prevented me from downgrading the risks.

As summer winds down, I find myself in a 7-8-9 leaning toward the 9 side and feeling that my unfinished preparations will be inadequate-- even when my (spring-upgraded) preparations are completed. While a 10 remains unlikely in my opinion, it is not unlikely enough for my own peace of mind. My preponderance toward a 9 is a result of several factors: economic analysis of the global market place, sociological analysis of the American people, and the censorship of information.

While no one may know exactly what is going to fail and what the extent will be of technology failures, the lack of truthfulness, the unwillingness to face and desire truth, and the unreadiness of the American people will make worse whatever shall happen. Y2K has been bungled and botched by the highest offices of government and business. The failures, divisions, and weaknesses of Americans will make matters worse. I can only hope now that I have seriously misjudged them all.

While I do not have the skill to develop a metrics that can, for example, take a 3 and show how it will be a 5 or how a 5 could become a 9... that is the kind of metrics that I intuitively feel is now appropriate when evaluating the risks posed by Y2K, its mismanagement, and our unreadiness as a people. Still, I continue to seek good and reliable information from trusted sources. I remain open minded to the possibility of my misjudgments. I hope ever more intensely for the best.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.

I think Diane said it once, "It's getting as clear as mud". Following this from July of '97, I've concluded the following:

(1) It could go from 2-9. In the office pool I would probably be a 6-7. My view hasn't changed, just oscillated.

(2) You can't trust the Feds. (Analog to Jimmy Carter's famous quote: "I guess you just can't trust the Russians.") In this case, however, I didn't fully appreciate the extent that you couldn't trust them. A corrolary, you can't trust the media to dredge everything up. I used to thing their numbers alone meant no story goes untold. They've lost my faith.

(3) I have learned about "stuff" -- big geo-political "stuff" -- in a way that I couldn't have learned in another context. Posing the right questions is 90% of learning. Y2K poses many excellent questions.

(4) Flint is not a "polly". He does, however, like to devil's advocate and he certainly doesn't like the doom-speak.

(5) If you want to make me feel silly, just keep up that "tinfoil hat" thingie going. The imagery it elicits is vivid.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), September 06, 1999.

Flint,

I believe that tomorrow will be a day of great disorder. There will be wars going on in which thousands will kill/be killed. There will be horrible storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornados. People will be slowly starving by the thousands. Governments will be brutally enforcing martial law upon their citizens. And there will be beautiful blue skies and a sunny day of blissful pleasure as well. Do you agree? Of course nobody really knows for sure, do they?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

Flint -

"The real economy has always demonstrated *negative* feedback, like an ordinary pendulum, where the further it gets off-center, the harder it tries to right itself."

Yes, the pendulum would be a good analogy for the way things have proceeded historically. Unfortunately, there is no historical precedence for y2k. In the past, business cycles, up and down, are largely dependent on buying trends that, in turn, are determined by innovations and simple human preferences manipulated by advertising.

In the case of y2k based disruptions a new visual must be drawn - like a hand reaching over to the pendulum and stopping it. It cannot restart itself.

My Dh's company is one of a few big players in a small but important industry. Some of their customers include names like Lucent and Southwestern Bell. Dh has been in this business nearly thirty years - if it goes down - others will also. Contingency, contingency. We always have plan B.

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), September 06, 1999.

Gordon:

I don't think the situation is quite so arbitrary, that any opinion is as good as any other in the total absence of reliable data. In reality, TPTB are putting up a pretty united front that the y2k problems are overblown for several reasons. Remediation has happened, test results are good, in most cases y2k bugs didn't pose problems as severe as they might have (they were rarely worst-case bugs), etc.

No, nobody will completely remediate. Most aren't even trying to do so completely. They're identifying the important stuff and nailing that, then testing it. Given limited time and budget, what's preferable -- another test of a critical system, or remediating a non- critical system at all? Most are doing the former, and as a result there's good indication that a lot isn't being remediated.

These reports that are being hailed so loundly in here (GAO, Lord's version of the Navy spreadsheet, etc.) in fact don't identify real, known problems. What they do instead, is identify cases where we have no reliable indication that problems *don't* exist, and we really wish we knew for sure. And the doomies here are building their high- number cases by assuming that (1) everything we don't know about must be worst case; and (2) Most of what we DO know about is really spin, and worse than anyone (else) realizes.

From a preparation standpoint, deliberately making improbable assumptions in the interest of maximum safety is very sensible. Extending these assumptions is not really sensible, however. Just because everyone is insured, doesn't mean everything will burn down. And many doomies are looking out there and seeing insurance penetration at the 90% level (or more), and assuming that the *danger* must match this level! And it ain't so.

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

Flint not a polly? Expecting a 2? Get real.

"By now, all that supports really pessimistic y2k outlooks is the lack of ironclad proof that things will be OK."

What an utter maroon. That is a breath-takingly dumb statement. Get a life.

Yet again, Flint has made a thread a referendum on himself. Flint, this thread is about whether people's opinions about Y2K have changed, not about how "brilliant" you are and how "dumb" everyone else is about (choose one): the world, the economy, computers, human psychology, metaphysics, religion.

You stated that your opinion has changed. Fine. No quarrel there. Go to some other thread and continue to debate yourself.

(Now wait for the obligatory trashing that poor Flint has been "attacked" while all the "doomers" get to say "whatever they want." So boring.)

-- BigDog (BigDog@Duffer.com), September 06, 1999.

Yeah, Gayla, I'm afraid you'll be bereft of "Lon -logic" for awhile. But it's just as well. I over- indulged yesterday, anyhow. I thought I'd join a serious discussion today, but when I'm confronted by economic optimism such as:

"If a company (like your husband's) cannot operate, many who can operate will be more than glad to scarf up the good people and the market share from the failures. When people are out of work, most look for new jobs and many find better jobs than their old ones. "

well, I'm just overwhelmed with relief. I mean, so what if the supply systems are disrupted, your company (and others) fail, and you're put out of work. You silly ninny, you- just go get a better job!

Dang, if you and I had thought of that, we wouldn't have to have second jobs peddling jiggle juice.

Sorry, Flint, but I knew you wouldn't mind if I stole your put- down. "Lon-logic", I LIKE IT. Kinda rolls right off your tongue. :)

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), September 06, 1999.

Flint, thanks for your well reasoned response to my questions. I'll admit that it is easy to confuse contingency planning with the need to excercise that planning. However, I was trying to focus on the apparent conflict between the power industry as a whole's having repeatedly stated that it will be "business as usual" on 1/1/2000, and that they are totatlly prepared now, and the statement by Orange County, Calif. which follows, which certainly seems to indicate that they have been given a bleaker outlook by So Cal Edison.

This apparent discrepancy tends to give me concern about the veracity of the power companies' normal positive statements.

Maybe I'll go look at SoCalEd's y2k announcements on their website, assuming that there is one.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 06, 1999.

Flint,

Not all doomies equate risk with certainties. It may sound like it to you, but you may be reading much more into our risk assessments than is there. Obvioulsy, a clear expression of one's position is not always possible. On the other hand, it works the other way too. I have met many DWGIs that think that making 14 Days of Preparations somehow equates with a certain and terrifying show stopping catastrophe that means nothing less than the end of the world.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.

Flint,

I did go to SoCal Ed's site, and found the following statements:

< SCE is proud to say that as of July 1, 1999, Year 2000 readiness work has been completed on 100% of our "mission critical" systems.>

They continue:

< While we are confident that we will be ready for the advent of the Year 2000, we also are creating contingency plans>

While they do cover their butts by stating that they are creating contingency plans, their statements as a whole, especially the one about all their critical system work being 100% completed, seem fairly incompatible with the statements made by Orange County about their expectations of brownouts and rolling blackouts.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 06, 1999.

Flint.

You write:

"When people are out of work, most look for new jobs and many find better jobs than their old ones."

I have seen no statistics to back this up. Could you cite your source? I think we may have something here that will, once and for all, put an end to the civil rights establishment. Not.

"By now, all that supports really pessimistic y2k outlooks is the lack of ironclad proof that things will be OK.

Your arguments must be driven, therefore, by an insincere arrogance. You got ESP, right?! I, for one, do not demand iron clad proof. I would have welcomed a candid and serious dialogue of the risks in an adult, thoughtful, intelligent manner led by government, business, and community activists. In the absence of such a dialogue, I pay special heed to Eric Hoffer's insight into the nature of responsibility:

"There are many who find a good alibi far more attractive than an achievement. For an achievement does not settle anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day: we have to prove that we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a valid alibi for not achieving anything we are fixed, so to speak, for life."

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.

Al: If your systems are fully functioning, you don't need a contingency plan. Contingency plans are for situations in which your sytems are not functioning properly. If an organization has a contingency plan, it reveals that the organization is not fully confident about its ability to function. In other words, they're lying to us.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 06, 1999.

Bill --

Upon beginning to seriously explore Y2K in early 1998, I quickly came to regard it as a 9 or 10. My expectation hasn't changed since then, probably because it's rooted in what I see as the fundamentals, of which here are some (in random order):

o The interdependence among banking, power, transportation and other subsystems within the entire System.

o The interdependence among banks in the banking system, utilities in the power system, etc.

o Having to determine whether a variable in a piece of code that has not been looked at or touched in years, represents an absolute date (in contrast to a delta between dates, or having nothing whatever to do with a date). I cannot conceive how this could ever be completely solved, since it requires understanding not what a program does, but what it's for.

o Having to fix elements of a computing environment (operating system, database manager, etc.) that are decades old and never intended for anyone but the vendor to alter.

o Having a year or two to fix code that took many times that to build.

o The tendency for institutions and upper managers to optimize for the next quarterly report and put aside anything else.

o The incentives for institutions and managers to present good news.

o That managers are unaccustomed to programming projects that cannot be feasibly deferred or reduced in scope.

When I contemplate these things, I cannot help but conclude that it would take a miracle to prevent catastrophe.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 06, 1999.

I might need a little help here folks. Alphabetically speaking, I think "Lon's Logic" should come after "Feminine Reasoning" in Flint's expanding list of oxymorons.

-- flora (***@__._), September 06, 1999.

Stan:

I'm not trying to confuse you, honest. I can see that when someone swims against the current here, very little they say will be interpreted as intended, no matter how carefully it's said. But I'll try again to be clear, and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. After all, just because I know what I meant, doesn't necessarily mean I said it well.

["When people are out of work, most look for new jobs and many find better jobs than their old ones."

I have seen no statistics to back this up. Could you cite your source? I think we may have something here that will, once and for all, put an end to the civil rights establishment. Not.]

OK, I'm not referring to an economic downturn here, I'm referring to individual companies that shoot themselves in the foot and go under. Most of these are small companies. I forget how many startup companies there are each year (SBA statistics), but I know that 90% of them have failed within 2 years. And this isn't necessarily because the people involved were incompetent (though it could be). I believe the most common reason is inadequate funding. And these people (remember, we're talking half the economy with the small businesses) get other jobs. And if those jobs are permanent, in some sense they're better, I'd say.

Even during the depression, the maximum 25% out of work weren't the same people throughout. Never have been. Over the last decade, the bottom 5% has experienced 90% turnover yearly in terms of individuals (Labor Department statistics).

"By now, all that supports really pessimistic y2k outlooks is the lack of ironclad proof that things will be OK."

OK, this statement is the tip of a very large iceberg. Robert Cook continues to state that unless HE has seen a press release saying otherwise, nothing will work at all. Whatsoever. So GM on one story mentioned 3 assembly lines tested? Therefore (says Cook) none of their thousands of other lines have been tested, so they probably haven't been remediated, etc. FAA has installed stuff and tested it in Denver? Therefore, they haven't done so anywhere else. But FAA *says* they're ready elsewhere? Oh yeah, where's your press release?

I don't know what the current remediation/testing status is of my own municipal water supply. There hasn't been any press release on it. Should I assume things will be OK or that there won't be drinkable water? Yes, yes, there's never been either a water problem OR a press release before, but y2k is special. For safety reasons, everything should be assumed bad until proven otherwise. But what I'm trying to say is that this is an *assumption*, made as a matter of policy. It's not a reflection of reality in any way.

Until fairly recently, we were assured that by now, problems and concerns would really have snowballed. We'd see signs of panic if the problems were really that bad, and signs of complacency if they weren't. And when we see complacency (which we are), we change the rules in mindstream and use complacency as proof of disaster. Of course, lack of complacency would be proof as well. When disaster is the given, then real evidence must be interpreted as an indication of disaster, if only we interpret it correctly.

If you take everything we know about y2k from all sources (including the fact that y2k gets little coverage at all), it's most consistent with the image of y2k as a fairly small problem relatively speaking -- perhaps like a hurricane or flu epidemic. Not insignificant, but not earth-shaking either. And efforts to force what we know to be consistent with a much larger problem involves placing strange or nonsensical interpretations on the material we have, at least from my reading. Just like Infomagic making all those dire predictions and giving dates. And when absolutely none of it happened, he declared *victory* ("worse than I thought") and vanished. Uh, Stan, I don't think so. You shouldn't either. IMHO.

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

Bill,

Excellent question. Personally, I started out around an 8 or so two years ago. Within a few months, however, I discovered the fallacy of the logic being employed by the "experts." And, watching the recent back-peddling by doomers (no self-respecting doomer will even claim the power will fail 000101 nowadays...), and the recent failures of predicted doom to actually come to pass (or, if you prefer, to have come to pass but been "covered-up" by the government and corporations and the media working together for the first time ever to pull off such an informational coup...)...I apologise, I began laughing and lost my train of thought...

I am now down to a 0.1, though I could be mistaken, and reality could turn out to be a 0.2 or a 0.3...perhaps I should buy some more Crackers, just in case!

Humorous Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

To return to the question - I've vacillated from a severe recession (4?) to infomagic (11?). I don't usually think about anything over a 7 because there's so little I can do to prepare for that. I will do my best to insure that it will not cost my family their lives. However, at an 8+, my best guess at odds goes random. I really can't see less than a severe recession because I think that the market will have a large correction regardless of Y2K, any surprises on top of that just make it worse.

What Ashton and Leska said resonates so clearly with me. It's why I call 1999 the year of living schizophrenically. Life is good now, I enjoy it all I can, maybe even more because I see the shadows lengthening.

As for food supplies, an inside source leads me to believe that a major food wholesaler is in baaad shape for Y2K, and we get almost all our fresh green groceries from California or third world countries. Ugh.

-- T the C (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

Let's keep it simple (KISS).

What percent of...

1) Global layoffs
2) Rising prices due to shortages

Added to...

3) Cash flow problems

...Does it take to cause a global depression?

Now add a dash of Y2K potential disruptions... and another dash... and then make it local.

Will your life shift somewhat? Are you prepared to lose your job for... 1 month? 2 months? 3 months? 6 months? Longer?

Only YOU... and your family... know for sure. (Flint doesn't KNOW your personal and local community situation either. But he'll pretend he does).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 06, 1999.

Andy: anyone who uses a teal green font color and a special font on a message board like this is not someone to be taken seriously. Didn't your mother pay any attention to you when you were small? Is that why you're so hungry for attention? I do hope she'll take care of you in 2000; otherwise you'll be dead.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 06, 1999.

cody, I am sure that our forum participants named Andy and Ray would appreciate it if you referred to Andy Ray by his "full" name....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

Cody wrote:

"If your systems are fully functioning, you don't need a contingency plan. Contingency plans are for situations in which your sytems are not functioning properly..."

This is the fundamental doomer fallacy in a nutshell. It says, fire insurance (for example) is something you DON'T NEED unless your house is actually burning. THEREFORE, if you see anyone buying fire insurance, you can be GUARANTEED that their house is NOW in the process of burning down.

Now, Cody could have picked up a dictionary and looked up "contingency" to see what it is, before posting this. And maybe he'll use words he understands someday. In the meantime, suffice it to say that cody is 100% flat dead wrong, by definition and in reality.

And directly to cody: Please, sir, your cause, however sincere, is not well supported by such flagrant mistakes. You'll have to make your mistakes far more subtle if you hope to preach beyond your choir.

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

Cody:

Y2k contingency planning is an expected part of ANY remediation effort. Many regulatory firms will not pass a utility, for instance, unless they have these plans in place.

David L:

If you've worked on, or ARE working on remediation efforts, I'll double my fear quotient that remediation will be ANYWHERE near complete.

KOS:

Did you look at the latest Navy report at all?

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 06, 1999.

I believe there will be a world wide depression by the end of next year. I have held this view for about a year. The depression will be caused by y2k, the collapse of the most overvalued stock market in US history, and problems caused by defaults on record amounts of household debt.

Someone mentioned that recessions tend to be self correcting and I would probably agree as far as the average recession is concerned. However, when huge amounts of wealth are destroyed by collapsing stock markets and declining real estate prices, that correction can take many years. Look at what has happened in Japan in the last 8 or 9 years and what happened in the US in the 1930's.

There is absolutely no way to predict the final outcome, but the economic situation is going to be extremely unpleasant for the next few years.

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), September 06, 1999.

Well, Flint, I see I've hit a nerve. Perhaps I didn't make myself perfectly clear so I'll try it again so that even people who walk around with blindfolds on can see it.

I was referring to the unqualified level of confidence that many organizations are presenting to the public, who are telling us that Y2K is no big problem. If it's no big problem, really no big problem, then you don't need a contingency plan. For example, there have been no earthquakes where I live for thousands of years, apparently, so I don't have an earthquake contingency plan. There have been hurricanes in this area so I have considered this to be a possible threat.

The point is that Y2K is a real threat to people's lives and the fact that contingency plans are necessary only proves this.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 06, 1999.

To answer the question as put ... no, my opinion has not changed.

Market CRASH / Bank Runs no later than 12/99, major Oil problems by 1/00.

* Y2K is Real. * Y2K is only a sub-set of the Millenium Problem.

-- Dan G (thepcguru@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

Cody:

OK, I'll go along with that. Y2k is a threat, and we should have contingency plans against threats, to the degree that we can identify what those threats really are.

But threats are not at all the same thing as guarantees. What any organization creates contingency plans against, in no way reflects what they think will happen or what they expect to happen, anymore than buying fire insurance means that you expect your house to burn down.

Companies should properly have contingency plans in place at all times against unlikely possibilities that can't be ruled out. They have all kinds of insurance, both for the company and for the key individuals in that company. Most large companies have backup power supplies and big UPSs. They have big wads of cash put aside just in case -- they have LOTS of stuff just in case. But this does nothing to alter the probability of these contingencies, which remains low.

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

Flint,

Well, I must not be a doomer in your eyes since I make a distinction between risk and certainty. So what I am? Of course, Bardou has as answer for that. [Yikes!]

I did enjoy your response to my questions: reasonably back peddled. I still think you need a smoke. You've been under a lot of pressure lately and it it showing.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 06, 1999.

Stan:

You can say that again. It's been over a month, and I'm still crabby and impatient with everyone, myself mostly. And I talked to a couple people last night who quit for 10 years each. One of them still craves one every day, the other gave up (after 10 years) and is happily smoking again. Just wasn't worth the aggravation, which NEVER lets up.

Apparently, there isn't much I can do about this. Sorry.

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

Flint: I gave up smoking around 25 years ago and have been glad ever since. It wasn't an easy thing to do, but the general craving does go away after a few months, returning at odd moments now and then for the next few years, and then goes away completely. At least that was my experience.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 06, 1999.

Hang in there, Flint. I was just funnin' with you above .

-- flora (***@__._), September 06, 1999.

Stan--I do have an answer for that, every man for himself and the big white bus is waiting on the corner for those that haven't prepared for themselves and family.

Bill--Been at it for over 18 months and my opinion has changed from a 5 to a 9. Corporations and governments are having a hard time covering up their lies and intentional twisting of the facts. It's the spinning of words and the reports that one should not overlook. I believe there are a lot of people out there that are quietly and methodically preparing. I too hate the "nobody knows game," but that's why we have insurance.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 06, 1999.

Wow, what a thread! Seventy something posts already. Must be Flint, our own lovable, unflappable Mr. Spock. No one can prolong an argument better.

I started as an "Oh my God" GI who was convinced of a 10, and have since backed off to about a 6 or 7. The big variables will be the banking system, oil, the stock market and financial markets in general, and the degree to which the media exploits Y2K near the end of the year.

I believe that the seeds of doubt have already been planted in enough people's minds that they will soon begin to act in what they perceive to be their own best interests financially. This will include moving 401K and investment money around, if not attempting to bail out altogether. If the common perception is that you have nothing to lose by cashing out and sitting on the sidelines for awhile -- just in case -- most people will attempt to do so.

One thing that may be overlooked here is terrorism. I have not seen it addressed in any other posts. If one of the many groups interested in seeing the demise of the U.S. decides to exploit the uncertainty and confusion, all bets are off.

-- ariZONEa (server@busy.doh!), September 06, 1999.

I began an 8 to 10 and haven't seen anything in the past year to make me feel differently. Just far more 'creative' lies than those being told last year! ariZONEa is correct. There are other variables that must be considered. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of continuously addressing the innerconnected nature of this problem and sometimes feel like telling people who refuse to acknowledge it or simply can't see it to go home and watch some TV. You'll 'Get It' in the next 6 months or so......

Flint. If I wasn't so darn tired I'd write a book about you. Go home and watch some TV you numb-skull.

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

Anita S: Have you looked at the calendar at all???

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

KOS:

Yes, indeed. I have TWO of them on my desk right now. Your point would be?

Let's cut to the chase. If I'm not incorrect, YOU brought up the Navy report on this thread. The report you LIKED (just a guess) was from June, but contained lots of errors. The August report STILL contained lots of errors (that *I* noticed), and the September report STILL contains some errors, although only ONE that I can easily identify by a scan.

It's MY belief that this Naval report was NEVER meant for public consumption, but my belief aside, there ARE errors in it. I pointed out that the Navy was slowly fixing the errors IN THE REPORT, presented a link to the LATEST report, and now *I*'m supposed to be looking at my calendar for some reason. Um...WHY?

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 06, 1999.

Anita....

gosh! i've heard of people using two sets of BOOKS before.....but two calendars?? (does one of them show the year 2000 set WAY in the future so there will be plenty of time to get everything fixed?)

and are the "errors" in the navy reports being fixed by the same method that the amount of mission critical systems were changed to a lower number?

hmmmmm

btw, Bill.....my opinion hasn't changed in the last three months or so.....still at least an 8......i think that the economics of this whole thing are what's gonna hit hardest (unless the embeddeds kick up their heels on 1-1-00.......and from all my searching that is truly one area where "nobody knows")

if we have a depression.....it sure won't be like the last one.......there are so many more of us now......and what supports those increased numbers comes from too many places that haven't done a whole lot of remediation, from what i see

-- andrea (mebsmebs@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

andrea: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

A year and a half ago when I woke up to y2k, I thought that we'd be in for some serious problems. Initially my reaction was emotional, eg., that we'd all die. Then, as time went on, people began to announce that they "were working on it" instead of "we haven't heard about it" or "we don't care about it."

I breathed a sigh of relief, expecting an imapct of 5-7. This is still bad, but not TEOTW. That was a year ago.

Now I see that there is clearly lots of spin and smokescreening going on. It is impossible to know, really, who is genuninely prepared and who is not. I am not the only one who believes this. Most upper level management also faces the same dilemma. Most are going to act as though an event of great uncertainty is going to sweep through the economy and infrastructure. This anticipatory activity--whether it be stockpiling supplies, hoarding cash, or redirecting investments to greener pastures in a "flight to quality"--is going to burst the bubble of confidence and potentially collapse the world's economy.

Confidence is the key word here. It is all going to vanish precipitously in the next few months, like a snake eating his tail. At this point, there is nothing in the world which can change this fact. The psychological aspect of y2k alone means a deep recession.

In the public, we can anticipate 1-2% to go absolutely batty when y2k hits. We can expect poor souls to be jumping off bridges because aliens have put "y2k bugs" in their brains. We can expect more than a few domestic terror incidents, or perhaps a few violent incidents that had been deliberately incited by the feds so as to demonize any non- conformist fringe elements. We can expect hackers and anarchists to maliciously sabotage whatever they can get away with, and we can expect the growing number of foreign enemies to exploit y2k as their moment to strike at American interests or domestic infrastructure.

Folks, even if there ARE NO computer problems (i really doubt this) we can expect a rough ride. This is because some of us EXPECT it (with good reason).

I am no computer expert, but I fully expect lots of errors and problems in critical nodes of international commerce, government, industry, and transportation. It seems reasonable that much of the repair work already been done. However, it seems impossible that ALL of it's going to be done. It's likely that many of the large system errors will be worked around. However, the workarounds will be far less efficient, and this fact will drive a nail in the coffin of JIT. JIT plus lots of debt plus an overinflated stock market is why we had the 90's expansion. These will all crash in the months beyond 00.

Recovery? I am optimistic that recovery will be rapid (1-3 years) in any scenario short of apocalyptic. However, I will not be terribly happy with the nature of this recovery as it will likely be a victory in favor of Statism at the expense of Liberty. The dynamism and flexiblily of todays' economy, with all its faults, will be sorely missed amidst the bureaucractic tangles that will shakcle us within 5 years.

In a nutshell, I still expect 5-7. But I don't rule out an 8-9, which is prudent to prepare for in any case, even if The Big One is not y2k.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 06, 1999.

Andrea:

ONE calendar shows only the current date, and the other shows the entire month.

Regarding the Navy report, I know that there is no longer a base in Dallas....yet the September report STILL shows one there. Earlier reports reflected some unknown to anyone gas company for the Fort Worth base. One of the two errors were corrected in the September report. If you'd prefer to believe that Lord's secret Naval report was correct, I have no problem with that. For myself, if there's information in a report that I can verify or can find in error, I do so.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 06, 1999.

Anita,

To answer your implied question, I have not been involved with Y2K remediation efforts. And I realize that my assessment rests a lot more on principle than on hard evidence, which makes it hard for folks to resonate with it.

Regarding the hot topic of contingency plans, I'm bothered by two things: 1) Institutions claim on the one hand that they are fully compliant, but on the other that they have a contingency plan, and that looks contradictory to me. 2) They imply that their operation under the contingency plan will result in no loss of efficiency, which I just don't find credible.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 06, 1999.

David L:

Thank you so much for NOT being involved in Y2k remediation.

Regarding contingencies actually being used, I would personally think that there would be SOME loss of efficiency involved. Contingency plans are NOT designed to REPLACE remediation efforts at the front end, but NO remediation is considered complete without these plans being in place.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 06, 1999.

KOS.....

of COURSE i do!!

Anita....

the calendar remark was a joke......sorry....forgot to apply the "don wenger tongue in cheek" warning : )

i don't believe in some great conspiracy that "the gvt was responsible for Y2K"......but i sure wish they'd be more forthcoming with info....and not keep getting caught in outright lies (ie....social security was 100% compliant many moons ago)

till then i'll at least LISTEN to what jim lord and others have said......along with what the gvt says.......until we see here very shortly which "side" was right and which was wrong

-- andrea (mebsmebs@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

KoS,

Do you like to needlepoint?

-- flora (***@__._), September 06, 1999.

Bill, I learned about Y2K a year ago, or more, when my Mother-in-law gave me a pamphlet. It has been a great and growing source of concern to me and my best friend. I'm at an 8. With a growing fever when I become overwhelmed by fear that I am ill prepared. Most of the people around me find it freakish to speak about and most of my family think I'm nuts or fanatical. They revel in not preparing for anything. In the middle of March when the sewage or water has been lost or ComEd has hit the wall and all the food in their refrigerators is gone, they will be knocking on my door and find me playing possum. I'll do whatever it takes to keep my children fed and healthy and safe. As a Mother it is all I can think about.

-- Sheila P (Sheilamars@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

My wife & I have been GI since this Jan. We believe in a 7.0 and haven't changed our minds yet. Throw into the matrix the possibility of terrorist activities and a very shakey financial market and anything less than 7.0 would be unrealistic IMHO. We garner our info from a variety of sources and try to screen them as best as we are able. This site provides some of that input but by no means all of it.Yes we would like to see someone come to the rescue but don't believe it will happen especially under the present regime.

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), September 07, 1999.

flora: I did try to do a needlepoint design once, but unfortunately was watching a juicy mudwrestling video at the same time. The result was not pretty (me, not the design, though that didn't look good either), and it took many days for my recovery. Feeling that I could not do justice to both endeavors, I sadly but firmly vowed to never needlepoint again. But I appreciate the inquiry.

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

Gene Kantor

I find it hard to buy arguments that brokerage firms, financial consultants or leading economists of the world (with very few exceptions, wherein Edwars Yardeni is the most notable)know or think about potential Y2K crisis less than, say, people on this forum. After all if they go wrong by overlooking the obvious there will be no future for these people.

And if they don't overlook the crisis, then there will be no present for them. They are in business to sell paper investments. If the paper investment industry evaporates, as it appears that it will in a severe Y2K crisis, they will be out of business next year. However, if they warn their customers of this, they will be out of business this year. Therefore, their only hope is that nothing serious happens.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), September 07, 1999.

Steve Heller, If one knows that the stock market is bound to go down than one should assume a short position. You should know what it means. Liquidate long positions which are bets on raising stock prices and purchase short positions betting on prices going down. It is very simple and if Y2K is going to hit us a full swing then this strategy should prove to be phenomenally successful. The fact that we don't see it wide spread tells me that stock market does not believe in Y2K.

-- Gene Kantor (gkane@netcom.ca), September 07, 1999.

Gene,

You've obviously never put on market shorts. Shorts are "not even close" to being as easy to execute as long positions. One has to have not only a lot of conviction to "short" a market but also extreme confidence that he can execute a short option "on cue." (Stops don't necessarily get exercised in a timely manner.) Why? Short options can be tricky to execute in liquidation. You can be short in a market option and have the prices shoot in your direction and pass you by and still not be able to get out. It can be a nightmare, and simply too much of a hastle. I know a lot of fellows who would never, never, ever short a market even if they got a direct communique from God, Himself to take a short position. Some just don't like the nature of that beast. Besides you can really get (sun)"burned" wearing your "market shorts"...not to mention the mosquito bites. :-)

So, why bother?

Also, IF one believes in Y2K being something that serious, one would want to pull out into complete liquidity. They don't call "CASH" ... "King" for nothing.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), September 07, 1999.

Opinion of y2k direct and indirect consequences is stronger on the pessimistic side. I totally rule out 1-4.

C'mon people. What evidence is there that the infrastructures of Russia, Europe, Asia, and Latin America is going to be ok? Look at North's site where the latest Navy Report is posted for September. Asia is toast. What do you think that will do for banking and the markets?

What are the chances of war or terrorism due to y2k? What affects will this have on fuel supplies and water supplies?

How many corps and businesses plan to FOF?

And finally, the longer we go in this country that y2k is ignored, the greater the panic. Yeah my concerns are stronger and more pessimistic. Especially when I read Flint's logic.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 07, 1999.

Bill S.,

And I apologize for misreading your post. I stand corrected.

Flint

Careful. Logic can be a trap.

In mathematics, it's pretty much an infallible tool. If one is given the equation 2 + x=5, then it is an easy exercise in logic to know that x=3. However, when you apply logic to people, perceptions color what you see as the given numbers. In the above equation, you may see a 2, I may see a 4 and someone else may see a 1. The same well thought out reasoning will yeild an entirely different value for x, to each individual. The "trap" with logic, is that everyone proceeds from the assumption that their perception of the given numbers, is the correct one.

I often appreciate your posts, because you have a gift for exposing the logical flaws in the arguments of others. However, you seem to miss that you may have a "numbers" problem, yourself. Most of the logical assumptions on this board, are based upon the perceptions of the truthfulness of government and business spokespersons. You seem to ignore the mryiad reasons a spokesperson would have to shade or distort the truth, or even to outright lie. My take of your logic is as follows: They would only lie, if their was an evil conspiracy afoot. I do not believe in the "conspiracy theory" point of view. Therefore, they are telling the truth.

I don't buy into 99.999% of the conspiracy theories floated about either (I won't take up thread space by elaborating on why, but if interested, you can check the old threads. I don't remember the exact title, but my name was featured in the thread title, and it was posted by Gordon about a week and a half ago.), but that doesn't mean I rest assured that I have gotten my daily Cup O' Truth, from the professional spin-doctors, either. There are lots of reasons to lie, and my experience (with county and municipal gov'ts and MY particular assumption is that it is the same on up the chain.) has been that CYA, is the most common one. CYA does not require that you are conspiring to bring a Fascist NWO to the world. It only requires that your regard your own booty as worth more than everyone elses.

This by the way, is also an answer to your post directed to me, in the thread that asks you to take the gov'ts point of view, and the answer to why your name shows up in so many thread titles.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 07, 1999.

11 jan 2000 AP. Reports reaching the west of the meltdown of 2 chernobyl era unremediated nuclear plants brings the total number of meltdowns since newyears to 5. Experts fear that the China Syndrome may already be a reality for 2 Russian and one French nuclear facility Wide spread communications failures and Panic as European refugees pour into Airports seeking immediate passage to destinations south of the equator.Pentagon spokespersons report the 30,000 US troops have fallen back to prepared positions near Pusan. North Korean Army forces fleeing starvation and Pyongyang's military nuclear disaster are forcing hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee for the safety of the south,meanwhile sources from the Middle East report massive deathtolls as a result of nuclear detination by terrorists 15 km west of Jerusalem. Chinese military taking advantage of y2kaos have conducted a massive naval invasion of Taiwan. On the home front American investors are reeling from a 7000pt drop of the Dow.The White House has urged Americans to remain calm and stay in their homes as reports of massive looting and fires that are burning out of control in 9 major cities including our nations capital.FEMA reports that temporary refugee camps are being constructed outside Los Angeles to house the 2.5 million California homeless, a result of the Black out riots! On the sports page Australian Gov't officals have announced the 2000 Olympics have been canceled. A late breaking news report has Roman authorities pleading for UN food shipments to feed the 20 million religious pilgrims trapped by transportation deadlocks in Rome. (this could be a 10 scenerio) how about a report for a possible 5-8 Have a good day--Fats

-- Fats Kissinger (draconionsolutions@uselesseaters.com), September 07, 1999.

Bokonon:

There's been plenty of analysis here (high quality, in my opinion) that boils down to the proposition that widespread heightened public concern is at best a net negative. Bank runs, however sensible they may seem in the face of uncertainty about banking software, are sufficient to cripple the banking system even in the absence of a single software bug. Runs on stores for specific items can snowball, especially because they become self-fulfilling prophesies. As I've written often enough, our systems are designed to handle the normal range of variation within the scope of those systems. And this applies basically to ALL systems, from retail inventories to error handling in software to highway capacities, to everything else. News (as defined by news media) is very often an account of what happens when one system or another faces conditions (error rates, customer demands, traffic levels, weather patterns, on and on) beyond their designed limits.

MY theory as to why Koskinen et. al. are being careful to keep us unconcerned and pacified, is that doing otherwise will make many things worse and few things better. Just as a microcosm, those who manage to withdraw all their money just before the banking system collapses aren't a whole lot better off than those who didn't make it, and are MUCH worse off than anyone would have been without the bank run. This kind of reasoning applies across the board -- highly unusual public behavior, however appealing it may be to individuals, ends up stressing systems to the point where everyone loses, even the individuals who "beat" the system while it lasted.

I admit I'm distressed by the general tenor I read here, spiced with cheerleaders (cheered in turn themselves) telling all of us to be as selfish and short-sighted as possible NOW, use it or lose it. A Big Case of I got mine, Jack, you shoulda lissened, you didn't, tough shit, I sure wish I could find work but at least I got out first!

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

While certain pieces of information have injected optimism into my assessment of Y2K, the continuing lack of awareness by the general public and continuing lack of cojones by leaders have more than cancelled out the gains.

I believe, as I have for quite some time, that the biggest problem will come from disruptions in supplies of imports, including and especially pharmaceuticals.

In my own local area I fear most for water and sewer services, which work badly at the best of times.

My assessmenr has become more pessimistic, ranging from a 6 to an 8, depending on news and mood, from what was formerly a 4 to a 6.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 07, 1999.

Since I started this whole thing yesterday, it seems I should say thank you to all who have responded. I appreciate all the input (or most of it anyway). You all don't generally sound like a bunch of millenium "nuts" (well, a couple maybe).

I'll go back to lurking now. If, however, I can think of another question that will generate so much dialogue, I'll post.

Thanks again

Bill

-- Bill (schlieder@prodigy.net), September 07, 1999.

R.C.

Yes, you are right. I had never put on a market's short. I just know that it exists. Your comment was undoubtfully valuable but it seems to me that you were talking about first of all, shorting straignt stock and not any other "shorting" instrument like option or future. Secondly, you were talking about a regular situation wherein one is trying to catch a magic moment, not when there is a crisis-like free fall of a stock market. In a latter case, if I only undestand you correctly, one does not have to be exact. Say, stock A is falling from $120/share to $50. By buying a short position at $80 simply means that I have a "customer" who will buy it from me for $120 when stock reached $80 and lower. Or if I bought a call option with a striking price of $80 how can I miss and not excercise it if stock did fall to $50? It is hard to buy options in the initial stage when they might simply not be available at the price I am looking for and in sufficient volume...but once I bought it just becomes a matter of excercising or not. As for liquidating positions now and waiting out for stocks to bottom out I personally would not do it because if Y2K strikes we don't know if stocks could continue being a desireable investment. But this is noy the issue here. My original post was a question of why "the market" does not respond to Y2K threat if it really is so highly probable. Investors watching particular stocks frequently act upon much less pronounced threats by either implementing some form of short strategy or liquidating. We just don't see it here. Again my question is: HOW REAL Y2K THREAT IS IF THE STOCK MARKET DOES NOT RESPOND TO IT? Gene

-- Gene (gkane@netcom.ca), September 08, 1999.