Differences between effects in different countries?

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

When discussing the implications of Y2K with my husband he always says that America will suffer more than the UK because of the distances involved, for example in transporting food around the country. Does anyone else think this? What about the remediation? Does anyone have any idea whether the UK is ahead or behind the US? I know a lot of the third world is not doing too well, and Italy is causing concern but noone seems to compare the countries said to be "ahead". Got whisky? (For trade purposes, obviously!!)

-- liz (thehalletts@bigfoot.com), September 11, 1999


One other factor: How DEPENDENT is the country on computers? I mean, a technologically backward 3rd world country may be only 0.001% done with Y2K fixes, but if hardly anyone really depends on computers, who cares?

Meanwhile, "advanced" countries that are 98% done (yeah, right, LOL) may find that a single satellite failure may wreak havoc (remember Galaxy IV last year that shutdown cell phones, pagers, etc.?).

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 11, 1999.

Yes, and isn't it true the United States is the country most dependent on computers?

-- Nana (drac@mediaone.net), September 11, 1999.

Does that mean that after New Year we will no longer be the top power in the world?

-- CD (CDOKeefe@aol.com), September 11, 1999.


That's a tough one to call. I've read reports that the U.K. is among the nations that have complained that the U.S. is contributing to a "brain-drain", because we're willing to pay more than other industrialized nations for Y2K remediation work. I read these reports way back in the early spring, when I wasn't taking Y2K all that seriously, so I regret to say I don't have a link.

I think KoS's point is well taken about third world nations. It won't really be a boon for them, but it won't be as much of a slam.

CD, I don't know if we'll lose the "top spot", but I think it's a safe bet that the gap will be narrowed by a good bit. We'll be limping with a badly savaged infrastructure, while third world nations will be moving along as they always have, with whatever they have that passes for an infrastructure now.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 11, 1999.

Third world will limp along because they're not computer dependent? How many of those have artificially high populations due to food and medicine aid from those technologicaly dependant countries such as the US? How many of those third world countries are ready to explode in ethnic hatred held off at least a little bit because they fear drawing too much attention to themselves from the UN, NATO, US, et al?

How long will it take till die-back to sustainable population levels begins without the food and medicine supplements, not to mention economic infastructure support, don't arrive because we are deep in the shit trying to take care of our own?

We stumble, they fall... hard...

-- c (c@c.com), September 12, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ