It is now January 4. I am satisfied that there is just enough information and enough positive indications about the outcome of the Y2k rollover and about the first couple of business days that now I can scale my expectations down to a much smaller range of possibilities. I had thought it would take a few more days to get the picture this clear.

I am operating on the assumption that large-scale disasters cannot be hidden for long. Basic utilities are operating in all the parts of the world into which the US news media have a view. Phones work. There is sufficient electricity and water. Stock exchanges have settled accounts at the end of their first day and no one is reporting problems. Banks have settled, too, and there are not even rumors that they failed to settle correctly. To me this means there will not be massive failures in these sectors. Period. Lingering problems, perhaps, but not massive failures.

All indications are that the number and the severity of the Y2K problems that are emerging are not overwhelming the resources available to cope with them. Fixes are being made in a timely fashion, because IT departments have the luxury of dealing with a spike in minor problems, not a flood of simultaneous major failures.

I think it is too soon to tell how much bad data is being generated, transferred and stored. Or how many accounting programs will go tits up at the end of this week or this month. I imagine there will be thousands of incidents that will annoy and exasperate, but it seems there will not be enough to cause a critical mass of economic failures.

As of today I am willing to believe that, however many hidden problems there may be, that collectively they could not possibly drive society to a outcome higher than a 7. That means no martial law, no devolution, no governmental collapse, none of the paraphermalia of a Milne-or-Infomagic-style meltdown. I didn't think them likely before rollover. I think they are totally out of the picture now. Kaput. Zero probability.

I think the chances of a *Y2K* outcome higher than mild recession (about a 5) are also slim. I do think we could get *plenty* of economic fallout and grief starting some time in the next six months, up to and including the start of a depression. But at this point I think Y2K could only be a *tangential* cause for anything over a 5.

So, now that it seems evident to me that nothing over a 5 is more than a marginal possibility, it is time for me to stop tracking Y2K news so closely. That is why I'll be posting rarely, if at all to this forum in the future -- unless things change drastically.

I want to say that TB2000 has proved to attract the participation of a very stimulating crew of folks and it has been a pleasure to rub shoulders with you all (with a few exceptions not to be named).

If nothing else, the archives of TB2000 will show the anyone who cares to look that the art of rhetoric is still ably practised in the age of the Internet, if not by all, at least by some. Typos notwithstanding, there were moments of eloquence to savor here. Sometimes in the service of some very wrong-headed opinions, but eloquently stated wrong opinions for all that.

I am sure I'll dip back in from time to time. This remains the best source of comprehensive Y2K news I know of -- thanks in large measure to the tireless efforts of Homer Beanfang. I'd also like to thank Ken Decker for writing a good 5% of the most memorable prose I read here.

Thanks, all.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), January 04, 2000

Answers

I think you are right Rrian. However, I started out at a 5, so where do I go now? I guess a 3 or 4. Yes, it has been interesting. This forum has been adicting. I would like to move on myself, but I find myself coming back again and again to see what my friends here have to say. God bless and may you have a blessed and properous year 2000.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 04, 2000.

Brian,

Thank you for the generous compliment. This forum will miss you. Your writing, particularly on economics, has been articulate and sound. You are a gentleman, Brian, moreso than I. You have an open invitation to stop for economics debate and cold beer anytime.

Warm regards,

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 04, 2000.

I too think that, even though we are just 4 days into 2000, the lack of any significant problems sure looks encouraging.

Hoffmeister was always claiming that the lack of Y2K type problems in 1999 implied there would not be many in 2000, which I always regarded as ill founded. However, the lack of Y2K problems in 2000 is a horse of an entirely different color. Each day that goes by without visible signs is another indication that Y2K is innocuous (I hope!).

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 04, 2000.

Brian: Good luck, dude!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 04, 2000.

Thank God the transition was a gentle one! However, (and ya knew that was coming, right?)

However, I'm still waiting to see that petroleum gets pumped, delivered and refined. I have a hard time with the O&G reports telling us that *EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE* is humming along just fine!

Just being overly cautious I suppose...but...blah, blah...(smile)

No, KOS...I don't mud wrestle...do you do pottery? (grin)

-- Birdlady (Birdlady@nest.home), January 04, 2000.

worth repeating over and over.......

...THE GLOBAL IT INDUSTRY RESEARCH FIRM, THE GARTNER GROUP, EXPECTS THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM TO CAUSE COMPUTER FAILURES AROUND THE WORLD THROUGHOUT THIS YEAR AND POSSIBLY INTO 2001 AS WELL.

IT HAS FORECAST THAT 50 PER CENT OF Y2K FAILURES WILL BE SPREAD OUT OVER 2000.

THE UNITED NATIONS-SPONSORED Y2K DATA CLEARING HOUSE HAS ALSO WARNED THAT FULL IMPACT OF ANY YEAR 2000 PROBLEMS WILL BE LARGELY HIDDEN UNTIL MID-TO-LATE JANUARY.

THE DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL Y2K COOPERATION CENTER, MR. BRUCE MCCONNELL, SAID Y2K ERRORS WILL BECOME EVIDENT DAYS AND WEEKS AFTER THE ROLLOVER. (end of quote)

-- Patrick Lastella (Lastella1@aol.com), January 04, 2000.

YES, PATRICK, BUT ... (gawd!) ... having lots of problems occur over a reasonably long period of time is mucho different than having them all blitz us at once -- the "classic" Y2K disaster scenario that most of us here have been VERY worried about.

Birdlady: Do you think that you might be interested in claywrestling?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 04, 2000.

"Banks have settled, too"

Have you forgotten that the Fed lock-down on international currency transfers continues in effect until January 10th?

We may well get some financial and banking surprises then!

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), January 05, 2000.

>> We may well get some financial and banking surprises then! <<

I guess my position today is that, just as I was prepared to be wrong prior to rollover, I am still prepared to be wrong now. I never was infallible.

But, if Y2K has important new developments that will threaten to bring disaster down on my head, I suppose I will hear about them without having to come to TB2000 to find out. They'll come knocking on my front door, so to speak.

The preps will be just as good next month as today. No reason to ditch something that makes the family stronger in the face of adversity. I'm just pegging my expectations to a smaller range of possibilities and retiring from the affray so I can spend more time and worry on issues nearer to home. Believe me, there are plenty of those at all times!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), January 05, 2000.

RE:

"YES, PATRICK, BUT ... (gawd!) ... having lots of problems occur over a reasonably long period of time is mucho different than having them all blitz us at once -- the "classic" Y2K disaster scenario that most of us here have been VERY worried about."

*********************************************************************

Yes, it is quite different to have ones blood drained drop by drop from their veins and be forced to live through the experience (death by 1000 drips) then to be stabbed in the back and die a sudden, cruel death initially. To each his own, I guess; but considering the similar ultimate outcomes, such "choices" are, regretfully, nothing more then "meltdown semantics"--much like playing "Y2k Russian Roulette": though all are truly grateful that the rollover seemed innocuous, at least temporarily (but look at the myriad of grassroot posts streaming in!), it matters very little consequencially which bullet fires in the end... forget the "classic" scenario, but speaking of classic(s), watch for my post, "THE GHOST OF TOM JOAD". Perhaps it will paint a clearer picture of the possible future. A word to the wise might still be: "REPLACE WORRY WITH PREPARATION". January 1st was a warning shot. One, I'm afraid, few will heed.

-- Patrick Lastella (Lastella1@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

"IT HAS FORECAST THAT 50 PER CENT OF Y2K FAILURES WILL BE SPREAD OUT OVER 2000. "

Meaning, of course, that nearly 50 per cent of Y2K failures have ALREADY HAPPENED.

-- Craig Kenneth Bryant (ckbryant@mindspring.com), January 05, 2000.

[a past post of mine]

>>only 5 per cent of difficulties would reveal themselves immediately. There may be more than a hint of disappointment beneath the expressions of relief from the bug-catchers. But, they insist, the worst is still to come. Around 80 per cent of all the glitches will probably come in the next three months as payments and transactions fall due.<<

Another excellent article [posted by John Whitley] ascribing the delayed effects of technological snafus as yet "under the carpet". If only skeptics would have the courage to lift it and see what squirms out. Mainstream malfunction reports may not yet be surfacing, but there is plenty of presaging information such as this coming forth nontheless which should be concentrated on until such a time. I feel that might not be long.

New comment: Actually, up to 80% have not "happened" yet, which is a very misleading and ambiguous term to describe the net effects of Y2K, since: many of these occurences have not officially been reported yet, reported as something other than Y2K, or will happen as a delayed reaction at certain times, such as the end of the month or other crucial dates when they become "activated".

-- Patrick Lastella (Lastella1@aol.com), January 05, 2000.