What do two geezers, some Martians, and the streets of Peoria have in common with Y2KNEWSWIRE and bankruns? Click here to find out. Make sure you read my update as well.

Robin Messing

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), May 16, 1999

Answers

No one knows what will happen. Worldwide, the banking system is at risk. Money center banks are heavily invested in questionable overseas portfolios. To localise this issue to the United States is misleading.

"No one is going to lose money on the banks, even if their systems go kerblooey."

Right. I will not lose any money on the banks. The banks will not have my money. A simple and elegant solution that I trust more than your virtual guarentee.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 16, 1999.

Clever writing, but overall, I say "so what?"

Pretty much a big waste of time...

-- . (.@...), May 16, 1999.

(Yawwwwnnn)

Oh, and you need to pick your friends better, Robin.

-- Yawn (been.there.done.th@t.already), May 16, 1999.

Robin, you're mind is already made up. Why waste your time with us poor doomers? Go on, scat!

-- tired of pollys (leave@al.ready), May 16, 1999.

Mike,

I appreciate your response. You are correct. I can not guarantee that you will not lose money in the bank. I also can not guarantee that an asteroid won't collide with the earth and wipe out civilization. But that doesn't mean I'm going to build a shelter 20 feet underground and stock up on enough food to last me twenty years.

There are no guarantees in life--only probabilities. I believe the probability of being robbed of my money after withdrawing it from the bank is higher than the probability of losing it by keeping it in the bank.

Do people lose money from fires and robbery?

All the time!

Has anyone ever lost a cent in an FDIC insured account?

Never!

I'm not saying you should keep all your money in the bank. Withdrawing two or three hundred dollars extra might not be a bad idea (but don't wait untill the last minute to do so.) I am questioning why anyone who is properly prepared to be self-sufficient for a few weeks really needs large amounts of money. Gartner Group said that 90% of the critical software problems should be fixed within three days. There may be some screwups, but I have yet to see one convincing piece of evidence that it will take more than a week to get straightened out.

Mike, if you really want to take your money out of the bank, go ahead. You obviously assess the risks differently than I do and that is certainly your right. And it is also your right not to have money in the bank. But I would ask you at least to empty your account in a way that won't make things worse than they need to be. Write a check out to your friendly neighborhood bean merchant. Or buy lots of gold and silver coins. When you write a check out to the gold merchant it is a pretty safe bet that he will be depositing it in the bank. This will therefor not contribute to a cash crunch or bank runs. Of course, putting your money in gold coins is hardly a risk-free venture since central banks have tons of gold. They can sell their gold on the market at any time and thus cause its value to drop. In fact, they've been doing this for the past few years. Gold was $400/oz a few years ago. Now it is about $280/oz.

If you are looking for a totally risk-free way of keeping your money I'm afraid it just doesn't exist.

Robin Messing

To . . .@..., Been There, Done That and Leave@al.ready:

Feel free to ignore what I write. You won't hurt my feelings. Honest. But I am curious as to why Leave@al.ready wants so desparately for me to go away. You're not afraid that I might actually convince someone with logic, are you? If my writing is so obviously bogus than why worry about this?

Or is it your deep concern for your fellow Yourdonites that you make this request of me? Do you think their time is so valuable that you wish to spare them the danger of wasting it on my drivel? Such concern is touching, but may I suggest that your fellow Yourdonites are quite capable of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. If they think what I write is drivel than they can decide for themselves to skip my posts.

So why the vehemence to my post? It doesn't cost you anything.

Robin Messing

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), May 16, 1999.

Oops! Itallics Off!

-- Robin Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), May 16, 1999.

Oh by the way, the probability of dying from an asteroid collision with Earth is the same as dying in a plane crash. Doesn't happen often but when it does....

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), May 16, 1999.

Robin,

"99% is not good enough". I believe it was Alan Greeenspan who said that in regards to banking preparedness. I lean towards accepting his assessment of the situation. Perhaps that is because he has experience both in banking and in the systems that are the problem. If The Gartner Group claims that 90% will be fixed and the rest can be fixed in three days, why wait? Do it now. Please explain how these can be fixed in so short a period of time when these systems still have problems after years of remediation.

If you are afraid of being robbed then leave it in the bank. I am entitled to my decision.

There are ways of protecting money other than converting it to cash. I was a little disapointed that you sounded so condecending. None of the methods that you recomend are new. In fact you have refrained from mentioning shorting banking stocks or buying puts on some financial idexes. After this simply convert to T-Bills or certain bonds. Ah, but cash. How about renting a safe-deposit box and filling it with money. If, as you claim, there is no problem, then place it back in the account. Remember the Alamo....I mean Euro. Not so fast Robin. The probability that I will lose money in a safe-deposit box is low. If I take it out and someone tries to take it away the probability that they will lose their life is high. Don't you love probabilities!

Mentioning astroids, shelters and a twenty year food supply to try and tag me as irrational is quite amusing. That would be as bad as if I said that I thought you worked for the ABA.

One more thing. You mentioned taking out two or three hundred dollars. Just what the hell good is that? I thought only Jimmy Carter dealt in peanuts.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 16, 1999.

I think Robin's just Messing with us :)

Thanks Rob, haven't had such a good laugh in ages...:)

asteroids....BWAAAAHAHHAHAhhhahahahah ha hah ha...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 16, 1999.

Nut,

Thanks for your usual helpful addition to the discussion at hand.

Kozak,

Oh by the way, the probability of dying from an asteroid collision with Earth is the same as dying in a plane crash.

I assume you're speaking in hyperbole.

Since the last asteroid collision was approximately 65 billion years ago (the infamous Yucatan strike that probably wiped out Dino and his buddies), I'd say those were pretty decent odds. :)

For that matter, you're far more likely to suffer from an auto accident this year than a plane crash.

Meteorites, now ... we get several of those per hour. Virtually all of them burn up before reaching the ground.

To everyone in general:

I don't know if Robin's glad to associate with me, but I do know that I'm inordinately proud to have posted his material at my site. It's one of the most carefully-thought-out essays I've seen in a while. Anyone else here who wants to write an equally-well-done essay can submit it to me.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

poole CrETin,

"Since the last asteroid collision was approximately 65 billion years ago (the infamous Yucatan strike that probably wiped out Dino and his buddies), I'd say those were pretty decent odds. :)"

Unless you were a Russian herdsman in the early part of this century.

I suppose you'll say it was just a big meteorite.

maroon.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

Robin, you sound cute. (Assuming the female version of "Robin" pertains.)

Cute, pert, and intolerably optimistic?

Do you have red hair?

Do you still have your pom-poms (well, just one) from high school?

Do you date semi-retired geeks who have stashes of gold coins? (Never mind. You will.)

What are you, about 19 years old? Just learned "persuasive writing" in ENG 111? Or are you a grad student?

Since the most you've had in a bank account is about $850 (next month's rent), you're not really qualified to advise people who face losing their life's savings, about 100 times that amount, are you?

I'm sure you're a very nice person in real life.

-- your_father_figure (said_I_wasn't_gonna@do.this), May 17, 1999.

No, Robin's a guy.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), May 17, 1999.

Andy,

Uh ... there aren't very many "herdsmen" up in Siberia. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

Uhhhh.... uhhhh......... poole, there were in 1908, when an meteor set millions of acres of ?forest? on fire. They were the only ones who "witnessed" the event.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), May 17, 1999.

For those who care:

The Tunguska "Meteorite" struck in the remote forests of Siberia on June 30, 1908 with a force equivalent to 15 megatons of TNT.

There have been several attempts to explain the event, but the original "meteorite/asteroid" theory has been sharply questioned over the years because of the nature of the damage (it looks more like an airburst than a ground impact, for one thing).

The Nevada Aerial Research Group thinks it was caused by aerial combat between the Federation of Planets and the Markab Confederacy.

(You know how it goes, Cap'tun, ya THINK ya got th' blamed phasorrr' beam aimed right, ya presses th' button, an' WHOOPS ...)

One physicist has suggested that it was a quantam black hole. Who knows?

(I shudder in anticipation of Andy's theory.)

(But what the heck, it beats the Black Helicopter stuff I've seen here lately. Next, we'll discuss Murky the Magic Meteorite, coherent light, homochirality and panspermia! After that, Spontaneous Human Combustion ... bring a friend, but make sure they're wearing flame-retardant drawers!)

(PS: there aren't that many _herdsmen_ in Siberian forests. The Herded keep smacking into the trees, causing untold frustration for those attempting to act as Herders. You'll find the odd hunter or trapper, maybe, but you're not likely to find an herdsman.)

(PSS: The Russians have an old saying: being exiled to Siberia is to be sent to "count trees" ... because there's very little else to do.)

(PSSS: Those who were present on June 30, 1908 were BRIEFLY astonished at the sudden change of pace. BRIEFLY.)

(PSSSS: Shows what good THEIR Y2K-92 preparations did for THEM, huh?)

-- Dr. "Wuuhhh" McPoole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

If The Gartner Group claims that 90% will be fixed and the rest can be fixed in three days, why wait? Do it now. Please explain how these can be fixed in so short a period of time when these systems still have problems after years of remediation.

Actually, that is not quite what the Gartner Group said. It said that in the U.S. the problem will be sufficiently fixed so that 90% of the remaining mission critical bugs will be fixed within the next three days. How can this be so?

I encourage you to read this article. I used to be a real doomer at one point myself, but it has been one of a few key articles that has changed my thinking.

The Laggers-Are-Losers Bug

Not everyone is checking their systems for the Y2k bug. When people are busy, they don't usually go looking for trouble. Small businesses, those struggling to survive, and companies in countries with recessions aren't as likely to be concerned with the Y2k bug. When you don't have resources to spare you do the things which are immediately essential. Given that the extent of the Y2k bug is controversial, the tendency is naturally to postpone action.

But there is another reason for not rushing in to fix things. It's much easier to assess and locate a bug when it appears during actual operations. Simulations just aren't the same. Once it manifests proof of its existence, you can probably devise a temporary workaround to finish the immediate task. Then, by observing its effects in the output, you can often locate the bug immediately (without the tedious and incredibly time-consuming task of combing through the code). This is the way that bugs are ordinarily handled in mature software.

Besides being far more efficient, it's far safer. If a program has a Y2k problem that is not easily fixed, the program is probably poorly structured. If so, fixes of any kind can have surprising side effects. To make more than one change in such a program without real-life testing between each change is to risk causing other problems.

By searching the code for date calculations you might be able to make the program Y2k compliant, but you will not be sure that you have not caused other serious problems in the process (chances are good that you have). Those who don't have the luxury of looking for Y2k bugs now may actually come out ahead in the end!

We don't have to tell you that this is a drastically different picture from what you get in many Y2k stories that look at only one side.

If you are afraid of being robbed then leave it in the bank. I am entitled to my decision.

Agreed. And just as Gary North has the right to accuse Pollies of engaging in the selfishness of not preparing, I am entitled to accuse doomers who pull excessive amounts of money out of the bank as engaging in the selfishness of overpreparing.

There are ways of protecting money other than converting it to cash. I was a little disapointed that you sounded so condecending. None of the methods that you recomend are new. In fact you have refrained from mentioning shorting banking stocks or buying puts on some financial idexes. After this simply convert to T-Bills or certain bonds. Ah, but cash. How about renting a safe-deposit box and filling it with money.

I didn't intend to sound condescending and I never claimed my suggestions were new. However, shorting bank stocks or buying puts on financial indices are a very different type of investment than putting money in the bank. Keeping money in an FDIC insured account is a relatively low risk but low yield investment. You may end up making a hell of a lot more money by shorting bank stocks or buying puts on financial indices, but it is also a much riskier investment. Timing is everything in these investments, and not everyone is savvy enough to have good timing. If you are good at this sort of thing, then go for it. But if your timing is off you can easily lose your shirt.

As a reminder of how risky this can be, let me remind you that there were all sorts of predictions of market collapses after April 1st due to problems with the Japanese, Canadian, and New York State governments entering their fiscal year 2000. I was thinking about buying some puts myself, and if I had not stumbled across the information at BIFFY, I probably would have. Thankfully, I didn't. I would have been a big loser.

As far as T-Bills or Bonds being safe investments--if the fallout from y2k is so severe that people will lose their money in FDIC insured accounts, what makes you think that these will be safe investments? I don't think the fallout will be nearly that bad, but if it is then I don't see any reason for having faith in T-Bills or Bonds.

If you insist on taking large amounts of money out then using a safe-deposit box is a good idea. As to the probability of whether or not someone who tries to rob you when you take your money from the box will die--well that all depends on whether he has his gun drawn first or not.

One more thing. You mentioned taking out two or three hundred dollars. Just what the hell good is that? I thought only Jimmy Carter dealt in peanuts.

Let me clarify that. I should have said two or three hundred dollars over and above what you normally would have out at a given time. Seems to me that this should be plenty of money to tide you over for a few weeks. You will undoubtedly have prepaid your rent by check. You will have all the supplies you will need for a while. Why would you need large sums of money to spend? Do you think the economic scenario will be so bad that a) no one will take your checks and b) that none of your charge cards will work and c) if you divide your money amongst several banks you won't be able to get your money out of any of them for more than a week or two and d) The FDIC will go belly up from lack of funds to insure bank failures. If things get this bad, what makes you think people are going to accept your cash for payments? If things really get bad then maybe Gary North is right and you should buy gold and toilet paper to use as barter.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), May 17, 1999.

Oh, by the way, Yawn. I'm happy to have Stephen on my side. It helps when I need someone to Poole resources with.

Hey Andy--You don't want to get me in a Bad Pun competition. Trust me on that one.

-- Robin Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), May 17, 1999.

Robin,

Stop Messing around with my name.

(When I was younger, I dreamed of naming my first kid "Seth." Or maybe "Les Shoesum." Or "Sven Ing.")

(I'm just a vast Poole of puns.)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CEt (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.