What is the main reason the Y2K alarm isnt ringing? I think it has been concern over public panic. But panic from what?

Follow the money. Specifically, the financial and banking sectors, which rest on a fragile confidence, are threatened. If people believed that their hard-earned money was safe, would this be enough for our leaders and the media to start ringing the Y2K alarm bells without being so concerned about a panic? I think this is a possibility that cannot be ignored.

There has been discussion revolving around the question: Why is it that the American people tolerate this President who continues to enjoy widespread popularity in the polls? It is because the economy has been and continues to be good. People have jobs and money. There is also the wealth effect from a stock market that passed irrational exuberance at DOW 6000 or so and now sits about 5000 points higher. More Americans have money in stocks at this time than any other period in the history of the Republic. People who are feeling good, who have money, who are showing huge paper profits, are willing to overlook a lot.

The world financial markets have seen continuing turmoil and crises and are still in precarious condition. The U.S. remains the only stable and thriving economy in the world. Could this be holding the tongues of the politicians and media? Banks hold a very small percentage of depositors money in actual physical cash. We are talking single digits here. So to me, a panic in this industry could well ruin the party well before the champagne corks start to pop on the rollover. There is evidence for valid concern here, which to some extent explains why Koskinen has stated that preception management is job number one. Ringing the Y2K alarm bells may itself precipitate a panic.

I have talked to so many people about Y2K, trying to get them to understand the potential threats and take the subject seriously. They do not express concern about the domino effect or unremediated embedded systems. If they are concerned at all, it is concern about their money, almost without exception.

If people were to be told that their money is safe, even if this is a lie, would it actually do more good than harm? Would it reduce the threat of a financial collapse and banking panic for example, and subsequently enable the masses to at least start being told to prepare by the powers that be? If you do not think that panic is the main reason the alarm bells are still silent, then what do you think the main reason is?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), May 20, 1999

Answers

I don't know what factors are responsible for this "void" of Y2K awareness (and Rob, I would think that your conjecture is probably as good an explanation as any), but I think that it needs to be recognized for what it is: a godsend. If, suddenly, even a small percentage of people woke up to what is going to happen, then NOBODY could do anything! The ship is sinking, there are not enough lifeboats -- very, very few in fact.

Don't waste a precious minute of this time -- prepare!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), May 20, 1999.

Well, preventing panic is the main reason, but that may or may not have anything to do with financial calamity. True, public and financial panic will crush the market regardless of Y2K effects. Similarly, no panic and the worst Y2K effects will have the same result, even if the public is overdosing on Prozac.

My guess? The government doesn't know any more than we do whether Y2K will kill us all or will be a blip. But they do know that a panic will kill the good times for all. That's why this is being soft-pedaled.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 20, 1999.

Rob,

You have hit on the all time BIG question. And it isn't just here in the US that this is being downplayed or ignored. It's all over the world. Look at the information coming from Italy about this. Or the Russian denial of the problem until just recently. It's the main reaction everywhere. Or look at the reaction of the majority of people when a hurricane warning is issued, where they do nothing until it's just about to hit, then rush as a group to buy whatever they can for survival. Happens everytime. Personally, I think what we are seeing, or sensing, is an aspect of human nature that we have no comfortable way to describe. It doesn't make us look too hot, does it?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 21, 1999.

Um, does anybody see the double-talking mulecrap here besides me?

"If people believed that their hard-earned money was safe, would this be enough for our leaders and the media to start ringing the Y2K alarm bells without being so concerned about a panic?"

That's like the old question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" So full of assumptions, there's no right answer.

I certainly hope there are other folks with brains who can see thru this fluff. If not...drink your hemlock. Far be it from me to stop you.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 21, 1999.

Chicken Little

Your input is never constructive, informative, nor appreciated. I'm guessing that you get some thrill from being disruptive. Sort of like being a high school shooter...

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 21, 1999.

Doug: You wrote The government doesn't know any more than we do whether Y2K will kill us all or will be a blip. But they do know that a panic will kill the good times for all. That's why this is being soft-pedaled. I agree that this is definitely within the realm of possibility.

In answer to the title question, perhaps what we are looking at is a combination of your idea together with the clear intention to avoid panic, regardless of if the avoidance of panic is related to money or not.

Gordon: You have made a valid point that human nature certainly comes into play here. Youre hurricane example where the majority of people do nothing until the last minute has important implications. It begs the question: Even if the alarm bells are rung, how many will hear them but ignore the warning versus how many will stop, think, and prepare. Also, how many will hear but be unable to respond though they want to?

The answer to this has a direct relation to the idea expressed that if the alarm rings then prep time is over since nobody will be able to prepare. I think this depends on the percentage of people that hear and prepare and the corresponding supply of whatever it is they are getting for their preparations.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), May 21, 1999.