Has anyone read the latest Wall Street Journal op-ed piece on Y2K (July 20, "To Figure Out Y2K Hype, Follow the Money" by Paul Kedrosky)? There's really no need to, because the title says it all. But for those of you out there who wonder why the stock market is still climbing and people are basically ignoring Y2K, let me quote a few choice lines from the article.

"...Fixing the problem is well under way at most organizations; it is already fixed in others. Even the usually glacial U.S. government has done speedy work squashing Y2K bugs in many systems."

"So if real progress is being made, then why is the Y2K drumbeat getting louder rather than quieter?"

"Who wins financially if Y2K remains a big problem? The answer: consultants, software vendors and lawyers."

"An unholy alliance of companies, from information-systems consultancies... to major accounting firms... to software companies... and hot software startups... all see the Y2K problem as a money-making opportunity."

"None of this is to say that there won't be some irritations. Some problems will cross the line from irritating to embarrassing; some may even cause damage. But the likelihood of catastrophe, of global recession--let alone a return to preindustrial society--is slim to none. People who say otherwise are selling something."

In this article, Mr. Kedrosky (an assistant professor of commerce at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver) has flippantly and without evidence dismissed the Y2K problem as overblown hype. Unfortunately, that is exactly what most people want to hear, regardless of the facts.

At this point in time, articles such as this one are much more detrimental than gloom-and-doom articles about the seriousness of Y2K. "No problem" articles keep many people blissfully ignorant of the true scope of Y2K. When the full magnitude of the problem begins to sink in during 1999, articles such as this one will have contributed to the mass panic which will ensue.

So who's really a bigger threat to the stability of our society: Gary North or Paul Kedrosky?

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), July 21, 1998

Answers

(This is not a 'religious' post, but I would like to use a biblical example.) Y2K is a lot like Noah and the ark. The people laughed at him for building it, and were banging on the door to get in when it started raining.

Even though God told Noah to build the ark, I'm certain that Noah didn't have a clue as to how big the eventual flood would be. I think the same is true of Y2K. I don't think anyone really has a grasp at how big this thing is really going to be. And, that's the problem. Reporters are generally cynics by nature; they want real answers before they go to print (unless you're CNN :). No real answers, no serious concern. No real answers and you get either silence or scorn, or both, in print.

The same is true of leaders in business & industry, pastors, teachers, professors, etc. No one wants to look like an alarmist or an idiot. At present, the conclusions about potential damage from Y2K are all over the board. This hampers getting a clear message to the public. The problem is that with every tick of the clock the time is running out. When we all finally "have the answers" the rain will have already started.

So, I suggest you all listen to your gut and do what it's saying and not wait for the "experts" to guide you and lead you by the hand. They're the ones that will be banging on the door to get in.

Blessings!

-Pastor Chris http://www.lifetel.com/y2k2000.htm

-- Pastor Chris (pastorchris@lifetel.com), July 21, 1998.

Good thread Nabi. Coincidentally, I was going to start a post concerning the same issue. The main argument the skeptics and naysayers use to minimize y2k is that the consultants are creating a bigger problem to make money. Well, if this is true and we are all being duped, (BTW,there are some pretty smart people being duped), those y2k scammer consultants are going to have a lot to answer to come D-day when nothing happens. Are Ed Yourdon or Peter Dejager really that stupid to perpetuate a problem that doesn't exist just to make money, with fingerprints and a smoking gun left behind? Have all the fortune 500 companies been sneaked into spending billions of dollars on a non-existant problem by these ingenious y2k tricksters?

I think you're right Nabi that these kinds of articles have and will have a detrimental effect on how this is going to play out. I did not panic when I discovered the truth 6 months ago, if I were to discover it 6 months from now I'm not so sure I could say the same.

-- Tom Scully (2scully@concentric.net), July 21, 1998.

If I'm not mistaken, a number of the Y2k consulting firms are refusing any new work. So how would that fit in with the theory that they are trying to make more money off of it?

-- Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com), July 22, 1998.