I'm not a Doomer. I'm a Gloomer. (I say that to forestall the half-witted objections of Pollyannas incapable of making necessary distinctions.)

So, some Doomers made some predictions (actually, more often speculation than predictions) about 9/9/99 that didn't come true. And a lot of people have jumped on that as some kind of indication that Y2K is already a dud.

That is precisely what I predicted would happen. And I predicted it back in November 1998.

"The All-Nines Soothsayers are warning us to beware of havoc when we get to processing data for the ninth of April and the ninth of September, 1999. Unlike Shakespeare's Soothsayer, they are largely setting up false expectations; they will, by the fourth quarter of 1999, be justly characterized as having cried 'wolf'. And those who are quite rightly warning of possible havoc because of Y2K will be unjustly lumped in with the All-Nines Soothsayers."

(The Dreaded Nines)

So, the Doomers were wrong about 9/9/99. Maybe that does mean that we aren't looking at the Collapse of Civilization in a few months. Yippee! Hooray! We're saved! Nothing, absolutely nothing, can go wrong!!!!!!

Huh?

It's not an either/or choice between the extremes, folks.

Infinity. Do you know what infinity is? It's the number of possibilities between "Y2K will be a Bump in the Road" and "Y2K will be The Collapse of Civilization". Infinity. But Pollyannas dismiss the infinity of possibilities (as many bad possibilities as good possibilities) with a wave of the hand.

And they actually think they're being reasonable. Go figure.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 10, 1999

Answers

I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who said yesterday would be significant. Sure, a year ago, it was mentioned as a possible tripping point, but not recently. The focus has been rightly all along on the Y2K bug, not the Sept 9 bug.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), September 10, 1999.

You will always see an infinite number of possibilities if you place no limits on what is probable.

Also, your lower limit is in error as well. There is a very good chance that Y2K won't even result in a bump in the road.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 10, 1999.

Define "very".

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 10, 1999.

And define "very" better than you define "lying".

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 10, 1999.

Define "bump in the road".

We could see many Y2K glitches happen and still not have any of them affect the economy in any significant way.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 10, 1999.

Define "very", Buddy, and define it better than you define "lying". Then, I'll play your Polly games.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 10, 1999.

I'm not playing any game. I wonder about you though. Why is a guy who writes articles for a prominent Y2K web site posting here? What kind of game is that?

I assume you mean define "very good chance". Well, I'll give it a try.

Probability that Y2K will be less than a bump in the road = 50% Probability that Y2K will be a bump in the road = 50% Probability that Y2K will result in the collapse of civilization = 0%

Of course, that all depends on how you define "bump in the road".

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 10, 1999.

Buddy,

You are hanging out there in the wind with your very-good-chance theory that Y2k won't "even" result in a bump in the road. Virtually *no one* believes that. Even the bump in the road scenario is not high on the probability list of most who have researched this matter, except for Wall Street. But they have a vested interest, in fact a *big* one. Do you? Now, if you want to remove the "even" from your statement, I can go along with you.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 10, 1999.

"Bump in the road"......flips your shiny new SUV.

How significant would that be?

It's rather tiresome to get hung up on symantics.

karen

-- karen (karen@karen.karen), September 10, 1999.

Gordon,

I'm not sure what you mean by taking the "even" out.

Let's see...There is a very good chance that Y2K won't be a bump in the road. Oh, now I get it. That statement includes more than a bump in the road. OK, let's rephrase it again.

There is a very good chance that Y2K will be less than a bump in the road.

And you can't say that *no one* who has researched Y2K believes that. I have researched Y2K and I believe it. In fact, I have completed a Y2K project and my company has already had its bump in the road. I believe as a country the U.S. has already hit the bump.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 10, 1999.

Y2K has already removed lots and lots of money from the economy, and for nothing, if it wasn't a threat. Maybe some was used to upgrade old equipment under false pretences, but surely not most of it. What about all the code remediation? Some people are being paid to do it. That itself has made an economic BITR unavoidable, from what I can see.

Efficiency raises profits, and inefficiency lowers them. Y2K preparations of many kinds are very inefficient, and can only be justified if the threat is worse than the consequences of that inefficiency. Inefficient use of resources because of this issue is already a given, and the effects are already set in motion.

Also, significant stockpiles have already been gathered by many people. Why do you think the savings rate has dropped so much, so suddenly? Why do you think the economy is so red hot? Foreign investment accounts for some of it, but they have an aweful exchange rate, so I think the Americans vastly lowering the amounts in their at-risk savings accounts has undue weight in the economy.

By the way, most people I know who aren't preparing also have little money saved in their accounts, and have a lot of debt too. So they could do little even if they wanted to. What is the percentage of erstwhile savers preparing? Wouldn't that be interesting to find out?

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), September 10, 1999.

Hey, c'mon, Lane! You know that this whole 9's thing was not as much a doomer-polly debate issue, as a media feeding frenzy issue.

As a fellow Gloomer (I like that!) I was easily convinced that 9/9/99 was going to be a non-event. (largely from your writings.) The relative ease with which we got through the previous "trigger dates" also made it easier to believe that the 9's were a nothing.

However, anyone who's paid any attention knows that, like the GPS rollover, the 9's are a separate issue from '00. The PRESS however, made a big deal of making sure that the connection was made in people's minds. Post Labor Day, people getting back into the swing of things, Y2K awareness on the rise, it was the perfect opportunity to "reassure" the public that computer problems would not bring about TEOTWAWKI.

Today, I think that a more interesting subject of discussion would be an examination of the way the press and TPTB used the 9's for propaganda purposes, rather than whipping up another round of Doomer (or Gloomer :-) - Polly debate.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), September 10, 1999.

I never said Y2K wasn't a threat. Of course it was. But the threat is being managed.

More on the thought that *no one* believes that Y2K could be less than a bump in the road...from the WDCY2K.ORG web site:

http://www.wdcy2k.org/survey/

"The Economy. About one-third of the respondents believe Y2K will have no impact on the economy or, at worst, will cause a 10% adjustment in the stock market indexes, and even that will recover within 6 months. The other two-thirds believe that the impact will be more significant, ranging from (at best) a 20% correction and no growth during 2000 to (at worst) a collapse in the economy. A large minority, 45%, sees the impact as including at least a mild recession and rising unemployment. A small minority, 11%, sees a depression or worse."

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 10, 1999.

Yes, many had backed of 9/9/99 as a problem date.

To be honest, though, this "backing off" only occurred following the failure of the previous "trigger dates" to produce any measurable effects.

Remember the Euro and Jan 1, 1999? Didn't see a whole lot of "backing off" then, did we?

I think y'all miss the most important point about these "trigger date".

I won't bother to cite the list again; most know who said what.

In my opinion, the most important point is these people were guilty of:

1) Over-exaggeration of the potential effects of the problems;

2) Under-estimation of the IT industry to address and correct potential problems; AND/OR

3) Under-estimation of the IT industry to address and deal with problems that DID occur.

Now, does that have any bearing on the "Y2k Issue"?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 10, 1999.

Well, b-u-d-d-y... You just keep thinking them good thoughts, and you continue to keep that happy face, and continue fixing those computers, ok? We are all counting on you. ; )

Also, make sure you listen to what they tell you on the TV and radio... The government only wants the best for you, and would NEVER intentionally lie to you. Tom Brokaw and company are your friends. Friends never lie...

yeah right.

growlin' at the human...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), September 10, 1999.

The bumps in the road are happening NOW. It will only become bumpier. How many bumps before the road is impassable? How many times are we going to use this inadequate analogy?

OK, common sense, non-techie, real life education from School of Hard Knocks speaking here:

- The folks who spend the money, and make the decisions to spend the money (i.e the REAL bosses in the company) have already issued their assesment of y2k. It is very serious, or QUITE serious if you can't define 'very'. Billions of dollars level serious.

- The appointment of Koskinen, the Community Conversations mickey-mouse stuff, the Executive Orders, the bunkers, the martial law plans, the nuclear rollover watch, etc. etc. shows that the government within itself agrees with the bosses. The fact that they have made these plans with unheard of speed in a bereaucratic environment verfies how seriously they take it.

- Despite our rhetoric and self-delusion, our government doesn't represent "the People." Our government is there to serve the interests of the wealthy upper classes who put them there, pay for their campaigns. You and I have no power. The CEO of a multibillion dollar bank or company has power. Clinton will return his phone calls, or any other politician, because he knows full well that if he snubs Mr. Billions he's outta there. How much congressman can YOU afford?

- Government is there to protect THEM, not us. People seem shocked at government lying. Why? Governments have always lied. That's what they do. Politicians have always lied. So have corporations. Why do you think it might somehow be different now, with us, than it has always been throughout history in every nation, race, time and place?

- When bankers and government officials chime in unison DO NOT PANIC, it is because there is a good objective reason to panic. But don't panic yourself. Think. Act.

- When the same crew says LEAVE YOUR MONEY IN THE BANK, it is time to take your money out of the bank.

- If you are unwise enough in life to trust your life and well-being to what other people, even well-intentioned ones, tell you, than you can only blame yourself when something goes terribly wrong, as it eventually will in life.

- Most horses will stay in a burning barn and burn to death, even when escape is easy, because they are horses, which are ultimate creatures of habit. They feel safe in the barn, so they stay, going by feeling not by thinking. Minimal observation of people reveals more similarity to horses than is comforting. To lead a horse out of the burning barn, you must blindfold him.

- Of guns and preps, this is ever true: It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

- This is also ever true: Whatever you think the future will be, it won't quite, or at all.

- Money lost is just money. Life lost is life.

Stir this into some bean and rice soup, and the rising odor brings to the nose:

Y2K will be more serious than governments or buisnesses will tell you. Count on it.

Y2K will be less serious than the fanatics and paranoids are telling you. Count on that, too.

As far as the governments and the corporations are concerned, you're here to feed them money. If Y2K gives them an opportunity to screw you, they will. If it gives them a reason to increase their own power, they will.

If you prepare and don't need it, all you've lost is money. If you don't prepare and need it, well........

If you prepare and don't need it, but the guy down the street does, it only costs you money to give him life.

And the NRA corollary to this theory is: The only reason to take another man's gun away is so you can rule over him with yours.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), September 10, 1999.

Oustanding rhetoric and thoughts Forrest!

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 10, 1999.

Regardless of how small those of us involved with Y2K issues thought the 9s problem would be, I have definitely noticed that on a grass roots level more people were aware of the 9/9/99 date than anything else thus far. Local papers carried stories on it when they have been almost completely silent about Y2K heretofore.

This morning I went out to a diner for breakfast and overheard and old lady saying to her granddaughter, "Well, it doesn't look like there were any of those 9s problems like the paper had said there might be.." It's a completely rotten shame that the public attention finally got focused by the media on the one area where most experts expected the least impact. It's almost enough to make me think it was deliberate, but I don't credit the media with that much intelligence.

-- Bonnie Camp (bonniec@mail.odyssey.net), September 10, 1999.

One small point...

Y2K doesn't care WHAT the SURVEYS AND POLLS say, or WHAT anyone THINKS, or HOW anyone FEELS. All that matters is WHAT LEVEL OF REMEDIATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, BOTH IN THE U.S. AND WORLDWIDE.

Was it enough? Yes - then we're all cool. No - then we're all HOSED.

And what you pollys think and say makes not one ounce of PISS worth of difference. An' dat's da name a dat tune....

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 10, 1999.

Actually, Bonnie, John Rendon gets the credit here. Brilliant and ingenious.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 10, 1999.

OK, Dennis, I'll go with that. My position is that the level of remediation and contingency planning will be sufficient to keep Y2K from becoming anything close to a catastrophe.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 10, 1999.

Right Dennis, and Y2K doesn't care about people wishing for the government to collapse, either. It will come, and it will go, and the government will not fall apart, the banks won't fail,the United States economy won't collapse and Gary North will move on to his next LOOMING DISASTER.

LOT of room between the above and no problems at all. But you can't see that, can you?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), September 10, 1999.

Forest:

There is an old adage in politics that "you get the government you deserve". I believe that the turnout in the 98 elections was somewhat south of 50%. Has a vicious circle developed whereby the electorate feels disenfranchised and thus does not bother to vote? In the end, though, one can only change the system by operating from within (i.e. voting / participating) or from without (revolution etc.) - doing nothing will change nothing.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.