The optimist "camp" has produced a wide range of Y2K predictions. A few predict absolutely no impact. On the other end of the range, some anticipate serious economic consequences. Ed Yardeni is a good example of a "recession, possible depression" prediction.

While a diverse group, let me suggest some common optimist points:

1. Y2K is being addressed. The vast amount of money attributed to Y2K readiness is one clear indicator. There are also many positive reports. Optimists feel some of these reports can be believed.

2. While there may be incentives to exagerate Y2K remediation success, this does not prove ALL public and private entities are lying about Y2K. As the tobacco industry has discovering, lying can have serious economic and political impacts when discovered. It will be far more difficult to conceal Y2K failures than the dangers of smoking.

Firms that lie about Y2K and then experience failures will face serious legal and economic problems. We knows the lawyers will shift into attack mode, but noncompliant businesses will face customers who will take the "betrayal" seriously.

3. There are organizations checking Y2K compliance who have a strong interest in ensuring regulated firms are ready (FDIC, GAO, etc).

4. There have been remarkably few problems as compared to the predictions made by some pessimists in 1998.

5. The free market system has multiple redundancies. The "weak link in a chain" analogy is not appropriate for most business activities. The competitive marketplace encourages competing firms to provide similar goods and services.

6. One reason America is ahead of the rest of the world: our free market system generally allows the profit motive to function.

7. Foreign problems will impact the U.S., however, these impacts will be primarily economic. If we cannot buy cheap imports, we will begin looking for subsitute goods provided by domestic firms. The disruption in trade will cause economic hardships... perhaps even another great depression. A depression, however, is quite different than a complete collapse of society.

8. Fixing Y2K problems are not the same as developing new software. Some systems have been easier to fix than anticipated. Some systems have been completely replaced. The "metrics" argument has not proven valid with regard to Y2K as based on reports from IT industry publications. Firms specializing in Y2K remediation have been lackluster performers. Much remediation has been accomplished in house.

9. Some government services, if ended, might actually increase domestic productivity.

10. Markets work because no single entity controls them. A central-command economy is not a market economy. The few remaining command economies have much greater challenges because they do not have the profit motive or risk of failure. (They also use stolen software.)

11. Some firms and government agencies are actually finished with Y2K preparation through testing.

12. Some Y2K problems will be fixed on failure.

13. Some companies will take hits due to Y2K problems... and some of these will fail. Businesses failures, however, are part of the economic system.

14. There are credible experts who feel Y2K will be a catastrophe. Some of these experts are biased, however, the end of the world is not in very many people's interest.

15. There are far fewer experts who feel Y2K will result in the end of civilization. Some of the Y2K pessimists have a profit motive for encouraging a negative outlook (Y2Knewswire). Others have a religious motive (North).

16. The "iron triangle" arguments have diminished. Few individuals feel there will be nationwide power, communications and financial system failures.

17. Public awareness of the problem is very high.

18. There have been very few Y2K "whistleblowers" who have provided verifiable evidence of "coverups."

19. Price indicators have remained stable. Preparation supplies are still available. The stock of remediation firms is low and COBOL programmers are not making NBA salaries. Gold prices are low and the market is still overvalued.

20. While late in gathering steam, the Y2K effort made by the IT pros in the field has been herioc. While we may see problems on rollover, the "meltdown" scenario seems unlikely.

21. There is no way to effectively prepare for the end of civilization. A personal supply of water, food, fuel, weapons may increase one's odds in the short term. In the long run, a devolution of social order decreases the odds of survival for everyone. One can, however, prepare effectively for a recession or depression.

I have to thank "Spain" for providing inspiration for this thread. He clearly misstated the most common optimist arguments... and I felt compelled to weigh in. By the way, this list is provided for informational purposes only. Please feel free to add additional "Polly" arguments.

By the way, these are not 'my' arguments, per se. I'm just giving them as a general list.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), September 16, 1999

Answers

SHOW ME THE GODDAMN SQUIRREl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thursday, September 16, 1999

Nutty squirrel shocks residents, CBC staff

By CAROLINE MURRAY, Ottawa Sun An ill-fated squirrel who got the shock of his life last night left thousands of people in Ottawa's west end in the dark.

The power outage, which lasted more than 90 minutes in some areas, also prevented CBC from airing its local 6 p.m. news.

"I thought maybe it was budget cuts that would knock CBC off the air -- not a squirrel," joked Paula Waddell, executive producer of CBC's NewsDay.

At about 5:30 p.m., the squirrel likely bridged, then shorted high- voltage power lines, tripping a hydro circuit breaker, said Ottawa Hydro spokesman Henry Jaques.

"Every once in awhile animals like that can cause a problem," Jaques said.

Hydro crews responded quickly to the situation and about 2,000 people had to wait 15 to 20 minutes until power was restored. At least two apartment buildings and the CBC didn't get power back until 7:10 p.m.

http://www.canoe.ca/OttawaNews/OS.OS-09-16-0028.html

-- Homer Beanfang (Bats@inbellfry.com), September 16, 1999.

More on the Invasion of The Electrically Prone Squirrels!

Expect one to short out *your* power soon!

We would have asked the Cyclops to start a new Squirrel category if we had known this excuse would continue widespread ...

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 16, 1999.

Decker's take on Y2K: Don't do anything. Stay calm. Keep your money in the bank. Be a good sheep!

-- It Figures (itfigures@obvious.com), September 16, 1999.

I have this fantasy that Homer Beanfang is Dave Barry. Would that be a cool anon regular to have or what?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 16, 1999.

The squirrel stories do sounds a little suspicious all coming around the same time like this, but I remember a power outage at a factory I once worked at that really was caused by a squirrel!

I saw him with my own eyes, too. The poor little feller had all his hair cooked off - looked like a big squirrel fetus or something.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), September 16, 1999.

If I told him once, I told them all a thousand times, BE GROUNDED! How can I train a replacement in time? Damned Squirrel...

-- The Squirrel King (Just Nutz@in.a tree), September 16, 1999.

Red,

While I don't have a moment to reflect properly on your propositions, I'm planning to return later and make comments before the day is over.

For now, here is my knee-jerk response:

(1) Your so-called points seem generally to be "opinions" and not hard facts. Let's be honest about this from the very start. I'm not saying that as such, your opinions do not deserve our attention and further consideration. Indeed, I will consider them further and be self-honest in doing so. I do appreciate this opportunity to consider optimistic assumptions and evaluate them. As I have written elsewhere, it's not impossible for me to change my mind about Y2K and its associated risks and issues-- if a profound reconsideration of my own assumptions is thoughtfully provoked.

(2) Having some feel for the optimists that are active on this forum and operate elsewhere, you and I both know that your intellectual ability to arrive at these opinions and express them well is not matched by the likes of Super Polly or most other optimists. This won't stop them from rallying around your opinions and accepting them without intellectual consideration and the caution appropriate to free thinking. Indeed, educating them as you do here may help your moody associates to understand Y2K-- and become less shrill, more honest, and increasingly thoughtful.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 16, 1999.

Anyone catch the story CNN did last night about the Russian Y2K problem? Some guy from MOD said that chances of Russian nuclear missles launching themselves on New Year's Eve was like 'virtually impossible'. Shouldn't it be like totally impossible for nuclear missles to launch themselves? Then some other Russian offical promised that there would be no large scale catastrophes in regards to their electric grid and Y2K.

-- Mr. Blond (favors@f/f.yum), September 16, 1999.

Mr. Decker: A couple of items in your essay indicate that the pollies are not satisfied that all will be well. All you argue against is a total meltdown, but you do indicate that a depression is possible. That is a pretty serious effect, don't you think?

Further, you say that the pollies don't advocating prepping because what might happen might be way too severe to prep for. What kind of argument is that? That seems rather defeatist. While most of us may only have a few months preps, many are prepared to be totally self- sufficient over time. Therefore, they have already surrmounted the so- called impossibility of prepping for whatever may come that the pollies cite.

Moverover, why must you determine an all-or-nothing scenario? It's entirely possible that supplies won't be available for periods of time and that survival will be helped by having food to get through those periods. Since NO ONE KNOWS what is going to happen, there's no reason NOT to prepare for a few months of interim security. While preparing is a lot of work and costly, in life we must sometimes spend both energy and money. It happens, as do disasters.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWAyne@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Another "hot-wired" CA squirrel...

Electricity Power Out--A Dead Squirrel Teaches Y2K Lessons In Fragility & Connectedness

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0012gP

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

Decker,

Here you go again, wasting space on our forum with all of your pre-conceived assumptions about those you refer to as "pessimists" because they are pragmatic enough to face reality.

"There are far fewer experts who feel Y2K will result in the end of civilization."

You seem to think that most of us on this forum think that this is going to be the end of civilization, and I say your statistics are all screwed up. From what I see posted here, it might be 1 out of 100 that take that extreme view.

"Some of the Y2K pessimists have a profit motive for encouraging a negative outlook."

Like who??? I assume you are referring to Ed Yourdon, and I'll grant you that as a possibility, though I think it a sadly cynical view of a generous man. He has all but completely broken his association with this forum because of accusatory asswipes like yourself (thanks a lot!). Who else are you referring to? Gary North? Ed Yardeni? I doubt they are making any money on Y2K and are more likely losing money from all of their own time they have voluntarily contributed to awareness.

"Firms that lie about Y2K and then experience failures will face serious legal and economic problems."

Oh, really? Perhaps you haven't heard about the legislation our Congress passed allowing business an additional 90 days AFTER FAILURES to fix their problems before they can be held liable. The SEC requires (only of public companies with $10 mill+ revenues), that they send a statement saying "We are working on fixing Y2K and our goal is to be done by Dec. 31, 1999".

Finally you say:

"By the way, these are not 'my' arguments, per se. I'm just giving them as a general list."

Do us a favor, quit putting words in other people's mouths. Take your hypothetical presumptous crap and post it to the "debunkers" forum. I'm getting tired of pressing the reload button because our server is having trouble digesting your long-winded garbage.

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

Ken

Interesting arguments, I seen how responsive the Tobacco Corps were to facts about smoking, years in court to discuss the obvious. And you think Y2K maybe the same.

Unfortunately you have not backed up your reasoning with HARD EVIDENCE.

So maybe we can take one industry as an example. Health.

The health industry has been seriously troubled by the Y2K problem.

Senate Y2K TRANSCRIPT of NATIONAL PRESS CLUB EVENT of SEPT 8

The scope

Sen. Dodd

"The health care industry is no small industry, as all of you know. This
is the -- the health care is the largest single industry in the United
States -- some 800,000 physicians; more than 5,000 hospitals; annual expenditures
of $1.5 trillion; 3.8 million people daily are in-patient in hospitals;"

And the problem

"In too many instances, however,
the independent assessment of this equipment has proved that it is not
compliant. And so I'd urge today, utilizing the forum here, for those
hospitals and doctors to double check to see -- to make sure that the
medical devices, even though they've been labeled as compliant, that they
ought to check those devices between now and the millennium date change
to make sure they're going to perform the function that they have been
designed to perform."

So Ken in an industry the size and importance of the health industry as of Sept. 8 there are big concerns regarding the suppliers of critical equipment. If the compliance statements can't be believed in this case why should they be believed in business that do not have lives on the line?

It would seem to be a matter of trust. While the above is not "Hard evidence" I am sure that Senator Dodd is not inclined to issue "fear mongering" statements to the national press without good reason. Alot of the information from business has been second and third hand, often watched by the eagle eyes of lawyers and management looking at the bottom line.

And this is "informed" compared to the Chemical Industry, there isn't the knowledge about that situation compared to the Health Industry specially concerning the S&MEs. They have a potential of causing real problems because of the power they need to operate. If some of the non compliant plants have problems then they can trip the power suppliers in their area as indicated in the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Report.

(HTML) Report to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem& nbsp;

CSB - Governors Urged to Prepare for Possible Y2K-related Hazardous Materials Problems

So unfortunately in just two of the largest industries there is no reason to claim to have a comfort level with Y2K repairs in the big picture. And of course this is just the tip of the iceberg. You know I can provide alot more information about the current risks. This is of course not an indication of TEOTWAWKI but some of the problems that we will possibly face.

Thank you for trying to put on a happy polly face none the less. PS Loved the squirrel bit :o)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), September 16, 1999.

I appreciate the civil tone of Ken's post. It sets the state for communication. What is presented in the realm of "opinion" is open for debate.

I'm also too tired to ponder in depth, but have one parting thought. If Pollys will concede to the strong possibility/probability of a depression, then that should be reason enough to be making serious preparations. Both of my parents grew up during the Depression, and food was a critical issue. My father went to bed hungry as a child (often). If people begin now to get themselves off the JIT lifestyle, and develop gardening, canning, and animal husbandry skills, it can only be of benefit to themselves and possibly their neighbors in a depression.

Also, if a potential depression causes them to reduce/eliminate debt, save, invest in precious metals or items of barter, this will also be of great benefit in a depression.

That was two thoughts, so I'll add one more and finally quit.

Anything that wakes people up, causes them to follow and analyze current and political events, evaluate national leadership, and causes them to develop an awareness of community, is IMHO, a good thing. Why would one ever want to lull and soothe them back to sleeping complacency?

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Rabbit to Tigger:"I've got to many things to do to be sitting around wasting time"

Tigger responded:"I've got too much time to waste to be sitting around here doin things"

You are a bore!

Get over yourself

-- (winniw@the.pooh), September 16, 1999.

Good post. My biggest point of disagreement is that I believe it is quite possible to be a "doomer" but also an "optimist" about life post-Y2K. As you yourself frequently point out AND I AGREE, even a depression is NOT the end of the world. Now .....

Decker said [I respond]

1. Y2K is being addressed. The vast amount of money attributed to Y2K readiness is one clear indicator. There are also many positive reports. Optimists feel some of these reports can be believed.

[Agreed. Many of these reports are credible.]

2. While there may be incentives to exagerate Y2K remediation success, this does not prove ALL public and private entities are lying about Y2K. As the tobacco industry has discovering, lying can have serious economic and political impacts when discovered. It will be far more difficult to conceal Y2K failures than the dangers of smoking.

[Agree that not all are lying by any means. Disagree that it will be difficult to conceal Y2K failures. Many can be easily misdirected and ascribed to other "technical" and "marketplace" causes.]

Firms that lie about Y2K and then experience failures will face serious legal and economic problems. We knows the lawyers will shift into attack mode, but noncompliant businesses will face customers who will take the "betrayal" seriously.

[I believe risk is small and that all the gov signals are that "we're in it together" on the legal front. Difficult to prove in court, because few judges and juries understand technology and other entities can be blamed with some justification.]

3. There are organizations checking Y2K compliance who have a strong interest in ensuring regulated firms are ready (FDIC, GAO, etc).

[Agree but self-reporting is subject to self-deception (cf NERC) so I consider this point a wash on both sides of the equation.]

4. There have been remarkably few problems as compared to the predictions made by some pessimists in 1998.

[Agree. If I were a polly, especially non-technical, I would find this very damning. Given my IT expertise and my NOT having joined that chorus because it was dumb, I don't consider those predictions germane to the real problem of Y2K.]

5. The free market system has multiple redundancies. The "weak link in a chain" analogy is not appropriate for most business activities. The competitive marketplace encourages competing firms to provide similar goods and services.

[Unknown whether current redundancy levels can withstand a "Category 4" Y2K impact or "Category 2" for that matter. We'll soon know.]

6. One reason America is ahead of the rest of the world: our free market system generally allows the profit motive to function.

[Agree. Even in Europe, where I worked, it is amazing how many profit disincentives are built into the culture.]

7. Foreign problems will impact the U.S., however, these impacts will be primarily economic. If we cannot buy cheap imports, we will begin looking for subsitute goods provided by domestic firms. The disruption in trade will cause economic hardships... perhaps even another great depression. A depression, however, is quite different than a complete collapse of society.

[Weak. Unknown whether problems will be primarily economic (though such effects are inevitable, by definition). Terrorism, war, unavailable commodities, etc., are all possible. Many substitute goods are not available domestically and/or would take a year or two to supply, providing supply chain prerequisites are available to companies who want to manufacture them. A depression is COMPLETELY other than a complete collapse of society, though a circa 2000 depression could feel like a collapse to many (as the one in the 1930s did to many).]

8. Fixing Y2K problems are not the same as developing new software. Some systems have been easier to fix than anticipated. Some systems have been completely replaced. The "metrics" argument has not proven valid with regard to Y2K as based on reports from IT industry publications. Firms specializing in Y2K remediation have been lackluster performers. Much remediation has been accomplished in house.

[Good description of polly position but I disagree with the implications and some of the accuracy of almost every point. Will skip for now.]

9. Some government services, if ended, might actually increase domestic productivity.

[Which? Can't comment without knowing. Theoretically, definitely. But the dislocation along the way, societal and economic (for instance, if Medicare/Medicaid failes) would be colossal. IRS likewise.]

10. Markets work because no single entity controls them. A central- command economy is not a market economy. The few remaining command economies have much greater challenges because they do not have the profit motive or risk of failure. (They also use stolen software.)

[Agree. If I understand George's Latin American experience, he would argue that this is one of the prime reasons South America is profoundly exposed. What is left out of this paragraph is the impact on U.S. from this, but you already postulate a depression as a possibility, so I would accept this as stated.]

11. Some firms and government agencies are actually finished with Y2K preparation through testing.

[No doubt.]

12. Some Y2K problems will be fixed on failure.

[No doubt.]

13. Some companies will take hits due to Y2K problems... and some of these will fail. Businesses failures, however, are part of the economic system.

[No doubt. Y2K-induced failures happening more-or-less simultaneously and in excess of the normal percentage could have unpredictable economic impact for 'x' period of time until a new "balance of power" is established by survivors. This is why some of us believe a five- year depression is likely, others, ten-year.]

14. There are credible experts who feel Y2K will be a catastrophe. Some of these experts are biased, however, the end of the world is not in very many people's interest.

[Not sure why this is here?!! TEOTWAWKI is in NO ONE'S interest.]

15. There are far fewer experts who feel Y2K will result in the end of civilization. Some of the Y2K pessimists have a profit motive for encouraging a negative outlook (Y2Knewswire). Others have a religious motive (North).

[Agreed. Not relevant, IMO, to issues of Y2K impact, since their biases are known and can be factored. More difficult by far is understanding how the biases of gov/biz are affecting Y2K remediation status.]

16. The "iron triangle" arguments have diminished. Few individuals feel there will be nationwide power, communications and financial system failures.

[Few individuals EVER felt that! I am more optimistic about iron triangle than I was 12 months ago, but I do not consider the risk to have vanished. Any measurable Y2K-unique risk is too much. Also, sustained local triangle breakdown (e.g., water) could still be catastrophic for millions of people. I am more concerned about catastrophes elsewhere around the world than here.]

17. Public awareness of the problem is very high.

[Crude awareness, yes. Intelligent awareness barely registers.]

18. There have been very few Y2K "whistleblowers" who have provided verifiable evidence of "coverups."

[Agree. This is not evidentiary, given the risks in our current culture to whistle-blowers.]

19. Price indicators have remained stable. Preparation supplies are still available. The stock of remediation firms is low and COBOL programmers are not making NBA salaries. Gold prices are low and the market is still overvalued.

[All mixed up in one paragraph, can't comment on each one. These are unpersuasive one way or the other about Y2K impacts. If Y2K is "Category 4 or 5", the lack of preparation could be fatal to many people.]

20. While late in gathering steam, the Y2K effort made by the IT pros in the field has been herioc. While we may see problems on rollover, the "meltdown" scenario seems unlikely.

[Speculative. We don't yet know whether the effort was "heroic" or whether it succeeded. There WAS a heroic and top-notch PR effort launched however. Best I've seen in my IT lifetime.]

21. There is no way to effectively prepare for the end of civilization. A personal supply of water, food, fuel, weapons may increase one's odds in the short term. In the long run, a devolution of social order decreases the odds of survival for everyone. One can, however, prepare effectively for a recession or depression.

[Agree 100%. However, all preparation tends to give peace of mind, which is perhaps one of the most important bases for long-term survival. Many on this forum have stated that it is fruitless to "prepare for Infomagic" so they are preparing against supply chain breakdowns, Iron Triangle breakdowns and a depression.]

I feel this is one of the best posts I've seen on the mindset of pollies. As I said, I am a doomer-optimist so I don't want to sign-up for your use of the word "optimist".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 16, 1999.

RRRrrrufff!!! That's a copy/paste and keeper Big Dog!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Decker said [I respond]

1. Y2K is being addressed. The vast amount of money attributed to Y2K readiness is one clear indicator. There are also many positive reports. Optimists feel some of these reports can be believed.

[Agreed. Many of these reports are credible.]

2. While there may be incentives to exagerate Y2K remediation success, this does not prove ALL public and private entities are lying about Y2K. As the tobacco industry has discovering, lying can have serious economic and political impacts when discovered. It will be far more difficult to conceal Y2K failures than the dangers of smoking.

[Agree that not all are lying by any means. Disagree that it will be difficult to conceal Y2K failures. Many can be easily misdirected and ascribed to other "technical" and "marketplace" causes.]

< This administration has not uttered ANY public statement that cannot be traced to keeping Clinton in power. No public statement made in the past 4 years can be shown to be truthful. The administration remains in power through its hold on the news media, and the news media's strangehold on publicity/propaganda (negative and positive) being issued. Thus, the correct question is: what is the true status of y2k remediation at the federal, state, and local levels? What preparations are being skipped in vital areas, and what preparations are being made at the wrong places or to the wrong level, based on missinfomration being spread by this administration?>

Firms that lie about Y2K and then experience failures will face serious legal and economic problems. We knows the lawyers will shift into attack mode, but noncompliant businesses will face customers who will take the "betrayal" seriously.

[I believe risk is small and that all the gov signals are that "we're in it together" on the legal front. Difficult to prove in court, because few judges and juries understand technology and other entities can be blamed with some justification.]

< The government is a powerful monopoly, accountable to no one apparently. Their is no competition, but instead forced compliance to their desires - witness the mandatory evacuations, and forceful resistance to letting people back in their homes.>

3. There are organizations checking Y2K compliance who have a strong interest in ensuring regulated firms are ready (FDIC, GAO, etc).

[Agree but self-reporting is subject to self-deception (cf NERC) so I consider this point a wash on both sides of the equation.]

4. There have been remarkably few problems as compared to the predictions made by some pessimists in 1998.

[Agree. If I were a polly, especially non-technical, I would find this very damning. Given my IT expertise and my NOT having joined that chorus because it was dumb, I don't consider those predictions germane to the real problem of Y2K.]

< This is good news.>

5. The free market system has multiple redundancies. The "weak link in a chain" analogy is not appropriate for most business activities. The competitive marketplace encourages competing firms to provide similar goods and services.

[Unknown whether current redundancy levels can withstand a "Category 4" Y2K impact or "Category 2" for that matter. We'll soon know.]

< No results yet - you are simply assuming "not enough will fail" to avoid significant problems. For example, Publix supermarkets is compliant, but then they bought two store chains that are not compliant. result? The corporation at large now has three systems problems to solve.>

6. One reason America is ahead of the rest of the world: our free market system generally allows the profit motive to function.

[Agree. Even in Europe, where I worked, it is amazing how many profit disincentives are built into the culture.]

7. Foreign problems will impact the U.S., however, these impacts will be primarily economic. If we cannot buy cheap imports, we will begin looking for subsitute goods provided by domestic firms. The disruption in trade will cause economic hardships... perhaps even another great depression. A depression, however, is quite different than a complete collapse of society.

[Weak. Unknown whether problems will be primarily economic (though such effects are inevitable, by definition). Terrorism, war, unavailable commodities, etc., are all possible. Many substitute goods are not available domestically and/or would take a year or two to supply, providing supply chain prerequisites are available to companies who want to manufacture them. A depression is COMPLETELY other than a complete collapse of society, though a circa 2000 depression could feel like a collapse to many (as the one in the 1930s did to many).]

< So what? If true, then a long-lasting recession/depression are assured because we cannot provide enough fast enough to prevent problems.>

8. Fixing Y2K problems are not the same as developing new software. Some systems have been easier to fix than anticipated. Some systems have been completely replaced. The "metrics" argument has not proven valid with regard to Y2K as based on reports from IT industry publications. Firms specializing in Y2K remediation have been lackluster performers. Much remediation has been accomplished in house.

[Good description of polly position but I disagree with the implications and some of the accuracy of almost every point. Will skip for now.]

9. Some government services, if ended, might actually increase domestic productivity.

[Which? Can't comment without knowing. Theoretically, definitely. But the dislocation along the way, societal and economic (for instance, if Medicare/Medicaid failes) would be colossal. IRS likewise.]

< Yes - but the government bureacrats are still legally and emotionally bound to "prevent" by-passing the "rules" - and by-passing the rules is technically illegal, unethical, and fattening. Each time a rule is by-passed by an official, there could be repercussions and future "stops" - or criminal action. Most will simply "sit on their hands" and wait until the computer is up: and deny any alternative until legislatively mandated by the governor or executive order. thus standard and routine economic progress will be liekly stopped or slowed by government inaction - never "helped" because the "help" will be (is actually) only temporary, and at worst, illegal.>

10. Markets work because no single entity controls them. A central- command economy is not a market economy. The few remaining command economies have much greater challenges because they do not have the profit motive or risk of failure. (They also use stolen software.)

[Agree. If I understand George's Latin American experience, he would argue that this is one of the prime reasons South America is profoundly exposed. What is left out of this paragraph is the impact on U.S. from this, but you already postulate a depression as a possibility, so I would accept this as stated.]

11. Some firms and government agencies are actually finished with Y2K preparation through testing.

[No doubt.]

12. Some Y2K problems will be fixed on failure.

[No doubt.]

13. Some companies will take hits due to Y2K problems... and some of these will fail. Businesses failures, however, are part of the economic system.

[No doubt. Y2K-induced failures happening more-or-less simultaneously and in excess of the normal percentage could have unpredictable economic impact for 'x' period of time until a new "balance of power" is established by survivors. This is why some of us believe a five- year depression is likely, others, ten-year.]

14. There are credible experts who feel Y2K will be a catastrophe. Some of these experts are biased, however, the end of the world is not in very many people's interest.

[Not sure why this is here?!! TEOTWAWKI is in NO ONE'S interest.]

15. There are far fewer experts who feel Y2K will result in the end of civilization. Some of the Y2K pessimists have a profit motive for encouraging a negative outlook (Y2Knewswire). Others have a religious motive (North).

[Agreed. Not relevant, IMO, to issues of Y2K impact, since their biases are known and can be factored. More difficult by far is understanding how the biases of gov/biz are affecting Y2K remediation status.]

16. The "iron triangle" arguments have diminished. Few individuals feel there will be nationwide power, communications and financial system failures.

[Few individuals EVER felt that! I am more optimistic about iron triangle than I was 12 months ago, but I do not consider the risk to have vanished. Any measurable Y2K-unique risk is too much. Also, sustained local triangle breakdown (e.g., water) could still be catastrophic for millions of people. I am more concerned about catastrophes elsewhere around the world than here.]

17. Public awareness of the problem is very high.

[Crude awareness, yes. Intelligent awareness barely registers.]

18. There have been very few Y2K "whistleblowers" who have provided verifiable evidence of "coverups."

[Agree. This is not evidentiary, given the risks in our current culture to whistle-blowers.]

19. Price indicators have remained stable. Preparation supplies are still available. The stock of remediation firms is low and COBOL programmers are not making NBA salaries. Gold prices are low and the market is still overvalued.

[All mixed up in one paragraph, can't comment on each one. These are unpersuasive one way or the other about Y2K impacts. If Y2K is "Category 4 or 5", the lack of preparation could be fatal to many people.]

20. While late in gathering steam, the Y2K effort made by the IT pros in the field has been herioc. While we may see problems on rollover, the "meltdown" scenario seems unlikely.

[Speculative. We don't yet know whether the effort was "heroic" or whether it succeeded. There WAS a heroic and top-notch PR effort launched however. Best I've seen in my IT lifetime.]

21. There is no way to effectively prepare for the end of civilization. A personal supply of water, food, fuel, weapons may increase one's odds in the short term. In the long run, a devolution of social order decreases the odds of survival for everyone. One can, however, prepare effectively for a recession or depression.

[Agree 100%. However, all preparation tends to give peace of mind, which is perhaps one of the most important bases for long-term survival. Many on this forum have stated that it is fruitless to "prepare for Infomagic" so they are preparing against supply chain breakdowns, Iron Triangle breakdowns and a depression.]

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 16, 1999.

Decker said [I (BD) respond] < Reply from RA Cook, second try - let us see if these comments "stick" >

1. Y2K is being addressed. The vast amount of money attributed to Y2K readiness is one clear indicator. There are also many positive reports. Optimists feel some of these reports can be believed.

[Agreed. Many of these reports are credible.]

< Immaterial, the true questioin is: Has enough been spent in the right systems? Has enough been tested to weed-out problems? remember, to date, NO ONE in NO company, agency, or business who has spent money on remediation and testing has ever said they wasted time money or effort. THus, we can conclude that eevry business, agancy, or industry who has NOT spent enough money will face severe problems, some/many/most of which will be catastrophic.

2. While there may be incentives to exagerate Y2K remediation success, this does not prove ALL public and private entities are lying about Y2K. As the tobacco industry has discovering, lying can have serious economic and political impacts when discovered. It will be far more difficult to conceal Y2K failures than the dangers of smoking.

[Agree that not all are lying by any means. Disagree that it will be difficult to conceal Y2K failures. Many can be easily misdirected and ascribed to other "technical" and "marketplace" causes.]

< This administration has not uttered ANY public statement that cannot be traced to keeping Clinton in power. No public statement made in the past 4 years can be shown to be truthful. The administration remains in power through its hold on the news media, and the news media's strangehold on publicity/propaganda (negative and positive) being issued. Thus, the correct question is: what is the true status of y2k remediation at the federal, state, and local levels? What preparations are being skipped in vital areas, and what preparations are being made at the wrong places or to the wrong level, based on missinfomration being spread by this administration?>

Firms that lie about Y2K and then experience failures will face serious legal and economic problems. We knows the lawyers will shift into attack mode, but noncompliant businesses will face customers who will take the "betrayal" seriously.

[I believe risk is small and that all the gov signals are that "we're in it together" on the legal front. Difficult to prove in court, because few judges and juries understand technology and other entities can be blamed with some justification.]

< The government is a powerful monopoly, accountable to no one apparently. Their is no competition, but instead forced compliance to their desires - witness the mandatory evacuations, and forceful resistance to letting people back in their homes.>

3. There are organizations checking Y2K compliance who have a strong interest in ensuring regulated firms are ready (FDIC, GAO, etc).

[Agree but self-reporting is subject to self-deception (cf NERC) so I consider this point a wash on both sides of the equation.]

< Not enough has been reviewed and audited for this to be a credible "positive" point - for example, the NRC has 100% audit and verification for 120 power plants in the US - it reports 26 (21%) are behind remediation efforts for the original timetable of 30 June 1999. However, we are to believe that 99% of the fossil plants - which have less reigorous designs, poorer maintenance records, no dedicated design teams, no past in-plant training or backup plans, no mandated design history or design drawings of past changes, worst vender support and no vender legacy drawings mandated to be in "better condition" and more thoroughly remediated? On this point, I would say 21% (or more) of the utilities will face failure that are not found yet by unsupervised voluntary compliance self-reported data from NERC.

FAA - for example, even if remediated and verified, we find no credible, unconfused reports of what was tested in what systems, where, in how many systems, and by which organization. >

4. There have been remarkably few problems as compared to the predictions made by some pessimists in 1998.

[Agree. If I were a polly, especially non-technical, I would find this very damning. Given my IT expertise and my NOT having joined that chorus because it was dumb, I don't consider those predictions germane to the real problem of Y2K.]

< This is good news.>

5. The free market system has multiple redundancies. The "weak link in a chain" analogy is not appropriate for most business activities. The competitive marketplace encourages competing firms to provide similar goods and services.

[Unknown whether current redundancy levels can withstand a "Category 4" Y2K impact or "Category 2" for that matter. We'll soon know.]

< No results yet - you are simply assuming "not enough will fail" to avoid significant problems. For example, Publix supermarkets is compliant, but then they bought two store chains that are not compliant. result? The corporation at large now has three systems problems to solve.>

6. One reason America is ahead of the rest of the world: our free market system generally allows the profit motive to function.

[Agree. Even in Europe, where I worked, it is amazing how many profit disincentives are built into the culture.]

< Irrelevent. Our governments today are complete monoplies, which have a proven record of mandatory and exclusive access to the press and the publicity they want distributed, particularly at the national level. >

7. Foreign problems will impact the U.S., however, these impacts will be primarily economic. If we cannot buy cheap imports, we will begin looking for subsitute goods provided by domestic firms. The disruption in trade will cause economic hardships... perhaps even another great depression. A depression, however, is quite different than a complete collapse of society.

[Weak. Unknown whether problems will be primarily economic (though such effects are inevitable, by definition). Terrorism, war, unavailable commodities, etc., are all possible. Many substitute goods are not available domestically and/or would take a year or two to supply, providing supply chain prerequisites are available to companies who want to manufacture them. A depression is COMPLETELY other than a complete collapse of society, though a circa 2000 depression could feel like a collapse to many (as the one in the 1930s did to many).]

< So what? If true, then a long-lasting recession/depression are assured because we cannot provide enough fast enough to prevent problems.>

8. Fixing Y2K problems are not the same as developing new software. Some systems have been easier to fix than anticipated. Some systems have been completely replaced. The "metrics" argument has not proven valid with regard to Y2K as based on reports from IT industry publications. Firms specializing in Y2K remediation have been lackluster performers. Much remediation has been accomplished in house.

[Good description of polly position but I disagree with the implications and some of the accuracy of almost every point. Will skip for now.]

< These are perception-based trends and the metric argument cannot be made,since theresults are not available. Until we know what the success rate is, this argument cannot be made. >

9. Some government services, if ended, might actually increase domestic productivity.

[Which? Can't comment without knowing. Theoretically, definitely. But the dislocation along the way, societal and economic (for instance, if Medicare/Medicaid failes) would be colossal. IRS likewise.]

< Yes - but the government bureacrats are still legally and emotionally bound to "prevent" by-passing the "rules" - and by-passing the rules is technically illegal, unethical, and fattening. Each time a rule is by-passed by an official, there could be repercussions and future "stops" - or criminal action. Most will simply "sit on their hands" and wait until the computer is up: and deny any alternative until legislatively mandated by the governor or executive order. thus standard and routine economic progress will be liekly stopped or slowed by government inaction - never "helped" because the "help" will be (is actually) only temporary, and at worst, illegal.>

10. Markets work because no single entity controls them. A central- command economy is not a market economy. The few remaining command economies have much greater challenges because they do not have the profit motive or risk of failure. (They also use stolen software.)

[Agree. If I understand George's Latin American experience, he would argue that this is one of the prime reasons South America is profoundly exposed. What is left out of this paragraph is the impact on U.S. from this, but you already postulate a depression as a possibility, so I would accept this as stated.]

< This point indicates a more cautious view should be taken towards the international econmy - it indicates that depression/recession is more likely in all BUT the poorest nations. >

11. Some firms and government agencies are actually finished with Y2K preparation through testing.

[No doubt.]

< But which ones? We cannot rely on public information. Nor has testing been adequate to ensure success. At best, one can say "Some firms who have remediated will not experience as many failures as others who have remediated their systems." >

12. Some Y2K problems will be fixed on failure.

[No doubt.]

< Again, which ones? How can the company survive without its previously operating systems? How many companies will be able to survive? What is the impact of simultaneoud multiple failures of critical and non-critical systems? How much harder is remediation and repair and re-testing on failed systems?

That this argument is seen as "pro-administration" is even telling.This arguement indicates an even greater likelihood of recession/depression.>

13. Some companies will take hits due to Y2K problems... and some of these will fail. Businesses failures, however, are part of the economic system.

[No doubt. Y2K-induced failures happening more-or-less simultaneously and in excess of the normal percentage could have unpredictable economic impact for 'x' period of time until a new "balance of power" is established by survivors. This is why some of us believe a five- year depression is likely, others, ten-year.]

< Again, what is the impact of failure? How many will fail? How long before others can take up the remaining slack?

14. There are credible experts who feel Y2K will be a catastrophe. Some of these experts are biased, however, the end of the world is not in very many people's interest.

[Not sure why this is here?!! TEOTWAWKI is in NO ONE'S interest.]

< And you are assuming that the government is not biased? >

15. There are far fewer experts who feel Y2K will result in the end of civilization. Some of the Y2K pessimists have a profit motive for encouraging a negative outlook (Y2Knewswire). Others have a religious motive (North).

[Agreed. Not relevant, IMO, to issues of Y2K impact, since their biases are known and can be factored. More difficult by far is understanding how the biases of gov/biz are affecting Y2K remediation status.]

< There are unbelieveable "experts" in the government who have an even bigger reason to present a pro-administration spin (before the fact) which tremendous political and profit motives to conceal the "likelihood of failure." To argue that any government "expert" is simultenously unbiased, knowledgeable, or presenting the truth cannot be assumed. >

16. The "iron triangle" arguments have diminished. Few individuals feel there will be nationwide power, communications and financial system failures.

[Few individuals EVER felt that! I am more optimistic about iron triangle than I was 12 months ago, but I do not consider the risk to have vanished. Any measurable Y2K-unique risk is too much. Also, sustained local triangle breakdown (e.g., water) could still be catastrophic for millions of people. I am more concerned about catastrophes elsewhere around the world than here.]

< Your arguements have only justified the reason to believe a serious recession is likely. Like stories about "planes falling from the sky" - this is only an example of public perception, not reality. No y2k expert has ever said "planes may fall from the sky" - yet the media is using this phrase to discredit opposing opinions. >

17. Public awareness of the problem is very high.

[Crude awareness, yes. Intelligent awareness barely registers.]

< Such Public perception has been biased by an incredible propaganda campaign. But perception doesn't matter - the problems will occur regardless of what the public believes - polls are useless in this regard. >

18. There have been very few Y2K "whistleblowers" who have provided verifiable evidence of "coverups."

[Agree. This is not evidentiary, given the risks in our current culture to whistle-blowers.]

< Given the reaction by the press and this administration to verifiable cases of treason, bribery, lies, rape, drugs, media manipulation, and cover-ups, is there any doubt that the whistleblowers are silenced? >

19. Price indicators have remained stable. Preparation supplies are still available. The stock of remediation firms is low and COBOL programmers are not making NBA salaries. Gold prices are low and the market is still overvalued.

[All mixed up in one paragraph, can't comment on each one. These are unpersuasive one way or the other about Y2K impacts. If Y2K is "Category 4 or 5", the lack of preparation could be fatal to many people.]

< All these are all based on public perceptions, perceptions which are being biased by people and industries who have a vested interest in the status quo: the banks inparticular, the federal governmetn, the states, and the finace and air/travel industries. The wonder is that things have been so easily manipulated by the media and the administration. >

20. While late in gathering steam, the Y2K effort made by the IT pros in the field has been herioc. While we may see problems on rollover, the "meltdown" scenario seems unlikely.

[Speculative. We don't yet know whether the effort was "heroic" or whether it succeeded. There WAS a heroic and top-notch PR effort launched however. Best I've seen in my IT lifetime.]

< This effort is larger, but we do not yet know if it has been successfull. >

21. There is no way to effectively prepare for the end of civilization. A personal supply of water, food, fuel, weapons may increase one's odds in the short term. In the long run, a devolution of social order decreases the odds of survival for everyone. One can, however, prepare effectively for a recession or depression.

[Agree 100%. However, all preparation tends to give peace of mind, which is perhaps one of the most important bases for long-term survival. Many on this forum have stated that it is fruitless to "prepare for Infomagic" so they are preparing against supply chain breakdowns, Iron Triangle breakdowns and a depression.]

< And so you would have no one prepare? Those who have prepared for some disruptions will NOT be the ones panicing at the slightest sign of problems....but those who have believed the government will have no choice but to panic. >

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 16, 1999.

Just to clear something up. Small animals such as squirrels are one of the leading causes of electrical outages. I believe the number one cause in the US is Lightning but small animals such as squirrels, birds, etc is very close. They are attracted to Transformers because of the heat, especially in the fall when it starts to get cool at night. They tend to climb up and get across the insulators or between the insulators and the (grounded) tanks.

There is quite a market in companies selling preventive measures. Everything from repellent paints to plastic guards. Birds have been know to build large nests on the tops of towers and cause outages by defecating on insulators till it builds up enough to track across and arc.

So all the stories about squirrels are probably true.

-- The Engineer (The Engineer@tech.com), September 16, 1999.

[My comments about this list]

1. Y2K is being addressed. The vast amount of money attributed to Y2K readiness is one clear indicator. There are also many positive reports. Optimists feel some of these reports can be believed.

[While I find it easy to believe that many organizations are less than fully satisfied with the bang for their remediation buck, it's hard to accept that these huge dollar amounts went entirely to waste. So rather than say that optimists feel some of these reports can be believed, I'd say that optimists fell that these reports are largely believable, with some grains of salt on each as with any reports.]

2. While there may be incentives to exaggerate Y2K remediation success, this does not prove ALL public and private entities are lying about Y2K. As the tobacco industry has discovering, lying can have serious economic and political impacts when discovered. It will be far more difficult to conceal Y2K failures than the dangers of smoking.

Firms that lie about Y2K and then experience failures will face serious legal and economic problems. We knows the lawyers will shift into attack mode, but noncompliant businesses will face customers who will take the "betrayal" seriously.

[Good point except for the presumably universal nature of y2k. If a customer is unhappy with the discrepancy between assurances and performance, will that customer be able to select a competitor with a better track record, or will they all look pretty dismal? I think the emphasis on concealing y2k problems is misplaced. Of course there will be problems. Efforts to keep such problems from the awareness of the outside world isn't concealment, it's maintenance and damage control. In this sense, "exaggerated" reports of success amount to predictions of effective damage control that prove optimistic. Whether "y2k disease" will be contained within the firewall or spread to the community of commerce remains a tough call right now.]

3. There are organizations checking Y2K compliance who have a strong interest in ensuring regulated firms are ready (FDIC, GAO, etc).

[As a fire lit under such firms, this is good. Unfortunately, the regulators lack the mechanisms and expertise for actual code review, nor are there any traditional tests for y2k. The result is reports of varying reliability and content, all of which are subject to valid questions and doubts, both good and bad. In a nutshell, the compliance checkers lack the expertise to check compliance to a very comfortable degree.]

4. There have been remarkably few problems as compared to the predictions made by some pessimists in 1998.

[This point becomes especially persuasive in light of Hoffmeister's observation that we're undergoing massive levels of code stirring, upgrades, patches, and replacements. It's implementation time bursting out all over. The earlier predictions concerned code look- aheads, which didn't prove to be as bad as we had feared. This might be because there aren't many lookaheads, or because lookaheads were remediated first, or because y2k bugs as a class aren't as virulent as originally thought (or some combination of things). But switching to SAP is a Big Deal at any time, and a lot of that has been going on. Each time I read about some glitch happening this year, I check if it's a big switch or upgrade (often it is). In essence, these are y2k problems shifted back in time to the present.]

5. The free market system has multiple redundancies. The "weak link in a chain" analogy is not appropriate for most business activities. The competitive marketplace encourages competing firms to provide similar goods and services.

[This point hasn't been made clear enough, apparently. The "domino theory" pessimists (everything is connected to everything, and the pollies simply can't seem to grasp this! Must be an organic brain defect!) don't understand this economic redundency. Someone asked on the EUY2K forum, What percentage of a utility's suppliers would have to go out of business before the utility couldn't continue. The answer (from several engineers) was: At LEAST 200%! Every single item had at least two suppliers, and most had more. There are very few places you *couldn't* get to if a single road was blocked. Most places could be reached if *most* roads were blocked. The economy simply isn't a chain of dominos.]

6. One reason America is ahead of the rest of the world: our free market system generally allows the profit motive to function.

[There seems to be little understanding of the profit motive here. Most of that "understanding" seems to consist of the notion that companies aren't fixing their y2k bugs because it's more profitable to lie instead, it's so much cheaper that way! Perhaps it's sheer good luck that so many companies are so successful for so long, when everyone knows that all of our corporate leaders couldn't see past End of Quarter if their lives depended on it. But we should also observe that America is also more computerized than the rest of the world for that same motive, and has further to go and is perhaps more vulnerable if we don't get far enough.]

7. Foreign problems will impact the U.S., however, these impacts will be primarily economic. If we cannot buy cheap imports, we will begin looking for subsitute goods provided by domestic firms. The disruption in trade will cause economic hardships... perhaps even another great depression. A depression, however, is quite different than a complete collapse of society.

[For the most part, bug-induced inefficiency will show up economically, rather than as the need to live on stockpiled supplies because of infrastructure breakdowns. But economic analysis is a lot harder than storytelling, and much less entertaining when the stories are about such captivating topics as riots, starvation, diebacks, and then the Remnant starting over and rebuilding the way it should have been done in the first place.]

8. Fixing Y2K problems is not the same as developing new software. Some systems have been easier to fix than anticipated. Some systems have been completely replaced. The "metrics" argument has not proven valid with regard to Y2K as based on reports from IT industry publications. Firms specializing in Y2K remediation have been lackluster performers. Much remediation has been accomplished in house.

[A puzzle here, on the evidence. Some indications are that remediation metrics are very different from development metrics, other indications are that they're very similar. And while it's true that 5-guy-COBOL remediation houses have fared poorly, the reason why remains unclear. Some say companies were too cheap to spend the money, not knowing the real dangers they faced. Others claim companies have given up altogether, and are taking the money and running, letting the old business die come rollover. Faced with poor business for remediation houses, few problems from the upgrades and code stirring, and fractions of remediation budgets being spent, it's equally logical to conclude (with the pollies) that y2k wasn't as bad as we thought and we've handled it more easily than expected. Or you can argue (with the doomies) that The Work Isn't Being Done, and we're all doomed (The Hamasaki/Infomagic interpretation). Either one explains the evidence equally well. In a few months, we'll know which was more nearly the case.]

9. Some government services, if ended, might actually increase domestic productivity.

[An amusingly conservative understatement. Many government services make no pretense of increasing productivity. They exist to make life less visibly harsh for the unproductive. If we hardened our hearts and let the unfortunate suffer and die, we could become much more productive. But productivity isn't everything.]

10. Markets work because no single entity controls them. A central- command economy is not a market economy. The few remaining command economies have much greater challenges because they do not have the profit motive or risk of failure. (They also use stolen software.)

[This is a polly argument? Best we hope we can do without some imports from some command economies.]

11. Some firms and government agencies are actually finished with Y2K preparation through testing.

[In the US. Outside the US, we lack data. But there is a confusion about what it means to say "Venezuela isn't compliant." Most of the time, when we read that a whole country isn't compliant, it means the government departments and functions in those countries aren't compliant. It tells us little or nothing about private industry in that country, especially the compliance level of multinational corporations.]

12. Some Y2K problems will be fixed on failure.

[Not a joke. I'm really tired of people writing "If they couldn't fix it in three years, how are they going to fix it in three days when everything else is going wrong around them?" In reality, even doomie programmers concede that the y2k problem would be manageable if we only fixed 5% of the bugs, provided we fixed precisely the right 5%. But before they bite, we can't know which ones are important. AFTER they bite, we know precisely which ones to attack. And hopefully, remediation has fixed the vast majority of bugs before they bite. Time machine testing, while not absolutely bulletproof, has helped keep the residal bugs to a minimum. So Fix on Failure is referring to fixing 5% of the remainder. Yes, it can easily be done. It will be done. It will leave the pessimists wondering what happened to all the disaster.]

13. Some companies will take hits due to Y2K problems... and some of these will fail. Businesses failures, however, are part of the economic system.

[Another point apparently too subtle for some. If existing businesses can't do the job, new businesses start that can, and other businesses expand into the vacuum. The strongest pessimist argument is that business failures will be too thick and fast, not allowing time for replacement of essential economic functionality. This is Infomagic's argument. While this can't be ruled out, so far nobody who should be "in the know" is acting like this is what they know. CEO's everywere are acting just like they always have, and y2k has never been top priority even within big IT departments. Just another job on the list. It's hard to believe that a few outsiders have the inside track, and all the insiders will be taken totally by surprise.]

14. There are credible experts who feel Y2K will be a catastrophe. Some of these experts are biased, however, the end of the world is not in very many people's interest.

[Bias is pervasive. Russ Kelly put together a team of "experts". But Kelly himself expects disaster. What kind of experts would you expect him to select? Can you picture Decker and Andy selecting one another as an expert on anything? The most pessimistic economist out there expects a temporary recession, followed by a continued boom for years to come. Other economists expect a big correction based on technicals, fundamentals or both. But y2k doesn't enter into their thinking. Are they ALL so clueless?]

15. There are far fewer experts who feel Y2K will result in the end of civilization. Some of the Y2K pessimists have a profit motive for encouraging a negative outlook (Y2Knewswire). Others have a religious motive (North).

[Relatively few pessimistic "experts" are wandering far out of character. Most serious warnings by now are coming from those with something to sell, whether it be products, religion, or reputation. GAO is critical because they're the investigative arm of a Republican Congress evaluating a Democratic administration. While nobody is totally pure, the optimism or pessimism of any given individual can be predicted based on what that individual has to gain or lose by taking any given position. The "evidence" is clearly irrelevant, since wildly different positions are based on the same "evidence."]

16. The "iron triangle" arguments have diminished. Few individuals feel there will be nationwide power, communications and financial system failures.

[Very important, obviously. 18 months ago, the doomies' case was based on valid problems and a real information void. Today, the doomies' case is based mostly on the logical impossibility of proving a negative. No, nobody can PROVE that power, communications and finance will work. All they can say is that all of these have been examined and remediated in great detail and are passing every test we can dream up. At some point, you are either comfortable with this, or must admit that your discomfort is a POLICY POSITION, not a matter of evidence or facts in any way.]

17. Public awareness of the problem is very high.

[A good point. Again, 18 months ago my neighbors had no idea what I was talking about. They didn't understand how thoroughly computers controlled their lives, nor what the bug was. Today, you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone in the US who couldn't give a pretty accurate thumbnail sketch of what y2k is all about. But still, few people have any good means of assessing the threat, only describing it.]

18. There have been very few Y2K "whistleblowers" who have provided verifiable evidence of "coverups."

[Despite Big Dog's binary mindset, this kind of whistleblowing remains problematical. Positive reports remain necessarily hazy, along the line of "we expect no significant problems as we enter the new millennium" or some such. Is this a lie? If you're a programmer, can you prove otherwise? You could be staring at almost any bug, and not be able to predict just how serious a problem it might cause (if any). You might sincerely expect significant problems, but you might also be wrong about it. You have to admit it. There really isn't much to blow the whistle about, because whistleblowing requires unambiguous clarity. If someone certifies a system as compliant and you can prove it was never even looked at, you might have a case. But you can't even know if it *is* compliant -- it might be and you haven't looked at it either. You can't blow the whistle because you suspect that your organization hasn't assigned y2k a high enough priority, or enough resources. You can only hope you're wrong. This isn't a whistleblower kind of project, I think.]

19. Price indicators have remained stable. Preparation supplies are still available. The stock of remediation firms is low and COBOL programmers are not making NBA salaries. Gold prices are low and the market is still overvalued.

[Of course, this could be clear evidence of vast, hopeless cluelessness on the part of the non-congnoscenti (that is, everyone else). Or evidence that the work isn't being done, guaranteeing Big Trouble Later. If the market has indeed discounted y2k effects, it gives every indication of having written off those effects as trivial. Maybe those people got rich just by ignoring overwhelming and obvious problems?]

20. While late in gathering steam, the Y2K effort made by the IT pros in the field has been herioc. While we may see problems on rollover, the "meltdown" scenario seems unlikely.

[I don't accept this heroism stuff. No death marches yet, and they've caught up without them (though there might be a few later). Either all of those remediation efforts have been wildly mismanaged and nobody knows it yet, or else y2k problems were pretty accurately assessed, the resource levels assigned to fixing them were mostly appropriate, and the projects were mostly started on time, given the scope of the project. While I don't expect anyone to get it perfect by the deadline, I expect most to come close enough, so that inconveniences will be minimal. Again, the evidence more easily leads to this conclusion than to the conclusion that everyone in the world is just WAY wrong about y2k except for a few inarticulate pessimists.]

21. There is no way to effectively prepare for the end of civilization. A personal supply of water, food, fuel, weapons may increase one's odds in the short term. In the long run, a devolution of social order decreases the odds of survival for everyone. One can, however, prepare effectively for a recession or depression.

[An observation, perhaps, but not an argument one way or another. Most of us are preparing for possible problems of a very short term nature anyway.]

All in all, a very good list. None of these statements is unreasonable. But I can see it now -- you haven't presented FACTS! And this is a real difficulty of the polly position -- you're defending a negative. You can prove a program has a bug, but you can't prove it doesn't. The big picture is compelling, though. A big problem, massive resources allocated, remediation performed, testing conducted, this is software so we don't expect (and can't get) perfection. We come close enough, we establish that we're close enough to the satisfaction of anyone who is satisfiable at all, and we carry on. And despite some screeching by a tiny subset, there's no real recognition of the problem (in the form of any visible reaction) on the part of government priorities, business activity, market direction, etc.

The major concerns in the real world right now are (1) that the computer/semiconductor industry is seeing an artificial activity level as a result of new y2k-inspired purchases, which will in turn cause a dip the first half of next year before spending in this sector returns to normal rates; and (2) that the paranoia brigade might succeed in triggering a public stampede of some sort, creating a serious y2k problem where none would have otherwise existed.

But it won't be long now. We'll see how this all plays out. If nothing much happens, this list provides an excellent explanation.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 16, 1999.

Decker, Big Dog, Flint & Robert: Good article and good responses from both sides. I appreciate you young guys bringing up the salient points without the mindless flaming that is getting to be prevalent.

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

This is indeed a terrific discussion with great points made on both sides. It ought to be a model for all threads.

(Note to "lil ol' me", who posted a request for "What do pollies believe?" on a thread yesterday: You won't see better than what Ken Decker has presented here. Also, if you are a girl, do you mudwrestle?)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

To get back to reality, this is what the BIS in Europe is saying,

pay attention now ddecker.

Y2K really annoys the insiders, the establishment, the Tri Lats-- because it's the only thing they can't control, & it threatens to cripple or destroy all their controls. They firmly control the mega- banks, global money system, mega-media, all major political parties (on both sides in every nation), & the multi-nationals. But Y2K snuck up on them, & they're mad & scared. They're desperately spending billions to try to "fix" it but they know it can't be totally fixed, perhaps not ever. It will also be a major setback for Big Brother, in all its aspects, from tax collection to bank rule to centralized bureaucracy & monitoring. As a result, the average person will get a lot of unexpected benefits from Y2K. Some are hoping for a worst-case scenario. "However painful, it's a worthwhile cost to regain individual freedom" they say, in essence. Freedom has never been free. If U don't really feel Y2K is going to be a BIG DEAL, & if therefore it annoys or upsets U to read data reports from people who say it probably IS going to be a big deal, then don't bother to read this article. Skip on to the next one. Mostly, people aren't changing their minds, are decided re Y2K. If U are a new subscriber, U should read this so U see what we consider the critical/updated facts. Unless U get heavy/daily Y2K updated hard data (as we do) then it would be puzzling how U can decide either way--without all the new daily facts. But most people are deciding emotionally, not objectively, not factually. That's their option, even if subconscious. So, read on or not, as U choose.

For those few who are still reading (:-), here's the latest: Many are comforted to hear that govt & biz have Y2K "contingency plans." Instead, that glib phrase should scare them. Think about it! If all govt depts, banks, biz, military, airports, hospitals who claim they are Y2K- compliant (as most now claim) were really bug-resistant, why would they need vast contingency plans? "Contingency" isn't just a throwaway word; it means something, ie, what we'll do if our individual company/bureau/system breaks down.

They're spending massive money on contingency plans, which means they've little confidence in their claims they're fully Y2K- compliant. Some have thrown in the towel, admit they can't get compliant in time, & will rely mainly on contingency plans. At least they're honest. That can't be said for the blowhard bluffers who are hoping to con people they're foolproof. Fools, yes. Foolproof: unlikely. Only a minority submit to audits of their repair/test/compliance claims.

Many insiders admit they're far behind schedule & will be on a "fix- on-fault" basis in 2000, ie they'll fix/repair embedded chip/computer/system breakdowns if/as they occur. That means after trouble. The catch is: how do they get back up if the whole system is down? Bottom line: the world is one big web of contingency plans & fix-on-fault. Nobody is 100% safe/compliant, because it's impossible to attain. And that is fact, spoken by the world's leading engineering group. US Senate Y2K Report: "Y2K is not going to be just another 'bump in the road.' No, it's going to be one of the most serious & potentially devastating events the US has ever encountered." Govts tend to soft-pedal bad news, so that statement should be a wake-up call to many. Turn up your hearing aid!

The BIS (Bank for Int'l Settlements, Basel, Switzerland) is the central bank for all other central banks. Their Y2K view is not cheerful. In a fat report they say "some problems will be missed; new problems will be inadvertently introduced via the remediation process; even the best test programs may not detect all potential errors; uncertainty will remain up to & after Jan 1. In other words, it is inevitable there will be Y2K disruption, athough it's not possible to predict how serious or widespread this disruption will be."

So there U have it. Central banks will go into 2000 not knowing if these systems are fixed. They know most are not fixed, worldwide. Compare BIS language to your local bank's PR rubbish. The BIS report goes on in great detail. If U read it all U lose any shred of optimism. The general threat is a breakdown of the inter-bank payments system. And once down, how to get it back up? BIS says: Y2K is "unlike any other disruption problem where identical backup sites can be activated. But any uncorrected Y2K problem is likely to affect both sites so the backup would not be a contingency."

It gets worse. BIS, who says what neither private banks nor govt banks dare to say, reveals: "The inability of a major payment & settlement system to function smoothly, or have procedures for isolating problems, will intensify uncertainty/concern. In the extreme case, this could have repercussions throughout the global & domestic systems." Conclusion: the world economy is at acute risk. This is not some "doom/gloom" offbeat writer's view; it's the bluest of the blue chip banks. If your hair hasn't turned grey so far, read the following:

The BIS advises banks to get the home phone numbers of regulators & govt officials so they can be contacted at night or on weekends to discuss the prudence of "closing markets & declaring an emergency financial bank holiday." This is scarier than any Y2K newsletter writer (except Gary North) has dared to say. And it's the real thing! U see, if banks go down, there can be no stock/bond/property mkt, or any other mkt, except black mkts of course, using cash. And all this is separate from equal risks from no power, oil, water, & no phones/fax/e-mail. U don't like this? Does that mean it can't happen? Or can it happen even if U don't like it? Try to separate wish from reality. Author Dr.Edward Yardeni, chief economist/global investmnt strategist at Deutsche Banc-Alex Brown has come back from Y2K retirement & says: "Y2K summary: Most have eyes wide shut....My prediction for a global recession in 2000, at 70% odds remains...Stock mkt down 10-30% (that's 1-3000 DJIA pts). Recession major causes: breakdown in just-in-time manufacturing system, & in global oil industry. Y2K could cause another energy crisis." (I'm virtually sure of it--HS)

EY notes Y2K press coverage is childish, reports the good news press releases, make no comment, ask no questions. "Some frame Y2K as an all-or-nothing story. Either planes fall out of sky or nothing happens. None consider in between. Anyone who talks in between is lumped into the doomsday category & dismissed as far-fetched..Public is led to believe the casual assurances of the few means everyone will be ready. EY says: "Y2K will turn out to be the greatest story never told--- properly." Reporters squeeze answers out of politicians thought to be in hanky-panky, but never ask ONE question about any Y2K report by anyone in banks/govt/biz.

Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, US Inspector General,testified in Senate: Half of 161 nations assessed are reported at medium-to high- risk re Y2K failures in telecommunications, energy &/or transport. Her strong conclusion: "The global community is likely to experience varying degrees of Y2K-related failures in every sector, in every region, & at every economic level. The risk of disruption will likely extend to int'l trade, where a breakdown in any part of the global supply chain would have a serious impact on the US & world economies." Now, tell me dear readers, WHY doesn't TV & the press tell U this? My answer: the banks won't let them. Maybe U have a different answer?

As I reported before, the US State Dept will issue Y2K travel advice in Sept. 3 cheers to USSD for integrity in this regard. But it will shock a lot of people. The penny will finally drop. US govt Y2K topdog Koskinen says the US is considering evacuating US citizens from nations with widespread Y2K failures. Each ambassador will make that decision. More than a penny is dropping now. More like a silver dollar. I've only scratched the surface of all there is to report. What bothers me most is the nuclear power plant risks, a global risk, at least in the northern hemisphere. But I can't cover it all. And most people don't even want to hear it.

I'm optimistic that Y2K will paralyze most tax collecting computer systems to such an extent that govts will quickly switch from the income tax to a sales tax (the only fair system), which isn't computer complex & will allow govt to function, ie, bring in money, their 1st concern, 1 of the Holy Trinity of govts (the other 2: power & control).

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

Here's some more reality.

The problem is worldwide, systemic, interconnected.

aAs a net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this world is connected by a series of ties. If anyone thinks that the mesh of a net is an independent, isolated thing, he is mistaken....

Buddha

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net ), June 06, 1999.

"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Sufi Prophet Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan's prophecy (Complete Works, 1922 I, p. 158-9)

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

Well, it was interesting and informative while it lasted.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 16, 1999.

I'll just throw a few comments in here, as quite a bit was said. I have only one point specifically directed to Robert. The rest of what I post is in general about the whole thread. Robert: I don't get into political discussions in general, but I AM curious as to why one would think that the administration is somehow responsible for the shortcomings of LOCAL services. Having worked at the City of Fort Worth, I saw absolutely NO interference nor impetus that trickled down from Washington.

I haven't seen metrics applicable at all on remediation projects, and I really don't understand why one would think they would be. A line- by-line evaluation of all programs in one system I checked resulted in 5 changes being required for Y2k. I believe that system had 150 programs. I'm not at all setting this up as exemplary, but think about this from the standpoint of a transaction-based (CICS, for instance) application. All the screens that the user now sees have 2 digit centuries. All the screens that the user sees after 2000 will ALSO have 2 digit centuries. They'd scream bloody murder if companies asked them to now key in 4 digits when they understand quite well that 00 means 2000, 01 means 2001, etc. The only changes required are in the INTERNAL processing of these dates. I'm oversimplifying here, by addressing only the applications, in that the operating systems involved certainly DID require changes as well. I've been fortunate in my capabilities to bounce back and forth between applications and systems work. I think it made the total picture much clearer in my mind.

Regarding recession/depression possibilities, I've grown quite fond of Yardeni throughout the last year. I have NO skills as an economist, yet I've watched his concerns dwindle from those presented in T-500 to the update provided on September 9th. T-100 will be coming up on September 23rd, BTW, for those with audio capabilities. Perhaps the main reason I like him is that he's pessimistic, yet doesn't try to choke his opinions down anyone's throat. He presented his thoughts on a 70% chance of worldwide recession in T-500 and graciously accepted the opinions of numerous other economists that stated figures more like 2-4% at that time.

Overall, I agree with the philosophy stated herein that the marketplace indeed tends to pick up the slack created by businesses that go under due to lack of business sense. I guess I have one other thought to address to Robert: I've worked on mergers. There are NOT three systems to remediate in your example. The job consists of incorporating the data from the companies acquired into the existing remediated system. Dates aren't even an issue in these mergers. The real problems occur when the merging companies have used a method of tracking their products that's outside the scheme of the company acquiring them. This is rare (although not nonexistent) in grocery-supply companies. Gee, Big Dog, there's ANOTHER client that gave me some insight (thinking back to another thread.) General Mills, for example, would provide some problems if they merged with DelMonte. Their tracking systems are VERY different.

I feel as though I had a few more thoughts to present, but I don't remember them right now. I may/may not present them in this thread as they pop back onto the front burner.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 16, 1999.