The current issue of Newsweek...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The cover story is "Economy At Risk: The Crash of '99? It doesn't have to happen - But here's why it might."

There are then five articles and various sidebars dealing with issues such as "The Domino Effect" (starting with Thailand, Asian Flu, the Ruble, Long-Term Capital, etc.) "Al's Worst Nightmare" (Gore will be the scapegoat in the 2000 election if the economy tanks) "What Goes Around - The big hedge-fund bailout helps some fat cats, but makes our case for free global markets look awfully thin" "Do You Gut It Out, Or Cut And Run - If a recession hits, the market storms could be violent. Here's how to batten down the hatches." And finally, "Washing Off The Red Ink - If it weren't for the budget surplus - and both parties - the future would be even cloudier."

The very last paragraph in the final article in this series (about the current $70billion federal budget surplus) includes the following lines:

"The Republicans want to start spending the surplus on tax cuts right now... The Democrats are talking about spending the money on Social Security, Bosnia and the Y2K computer bug. The last of these can't wait, but the first two can - at least until the global economic crisis has passed."

Of course this is the only mention of Y2K, I'm surprised it got even that.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), October 07, 1998

Answers

Amazing. I would expect more from Newsweek. They are the only major newsweekly to have a cover story on Y2K, in July of '97. With Y2K becoming more crucial as each week passes, I would have hoped that additional cover stories were merited, if not at least more than a brief mention in the above-referenced story.

I guess we'll have to wait until 1999. The global economic crisis will pale in comparison to what lies ahead.

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), October 07, 1998.


I think that this just illustrates how completely clueless the news media continues to be. Sure, you can find a Y2K article, maybe even a halfway decent article, but right next to it there might appear a different article whining about if trends continue, Americans will have x% less buying power in 2001. I mean, Y2K as a true "trend setter" never even registers!!!

-- Joe (shar@pei.com), October 07, 1998.

During city council meeting I attended last night it was state that "according to polls" 60% of US folks aware of Y2K...(which I find hard to believe),...AND that most of that 60% thinks it is no big deal or that THEY are fixing it. The media, with the exception of a few clear heads, are useless.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), October 07, 1998.

Hey Steve,

I want to comment on your line above: "I guess we'll have to wait until 1999. The global economic crisis will pale in comparison to what lies ahead."

I'm not quite sure what you mean, here, so I'm going to take it at face value. I personally don't see Y2K and the current global economic crisis as being disconected. They are first cousins; they have and will affect each other. Newsweek treated Y2K in this current issue as something to spend a little extra money on, if we choose to. They don't see it as part of the bigger economic picture. The current global economic crisis will not be something to COMPARE to what lies ahead, it is the FIRST RUMBLINGS of what lies ahead.

If Y2K were simply non-existant, the current crisis would eventually be solved the way these things have always been solved: throw more "funny money" at it.(fiat money, backed by nothing, fractional reserve banking, etc.) The current problems would go away for 5-10 years, and then come back even worse than before. Y2K throws and new and unique monkey-wrench in the works. There's so much more funny money now than ever before, and so much of it is just 1's and 0's stored in computers. I'm starting to view Y2K (at least the scenario that I envision)) less and less as a TECHNICAL and MANAGERIAL problem and more as a MONETARY problem. Our money is garbage. Credit is a fraud.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), October 07, 1998.


Oh, by the way folks, it's October, the traditional month for stock market crashes and the like...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), October 07, 1998.


Concerning y2k awareness, a little story: I was standing in the checkout line at my local supermarket last night, and the man ahead of me -- shirt, tie, young, overweight, looked like the assistant manager in the shoe section at Wal-Mart -- was having trouble getting the machine to accept his debit card. He finally had to give it to the clerk to punch in manually. She said they had been having problems with the computers all day. Sensing an educational opportunity here, I made a quip about maybe it was a y2k problem. I was stunned when both the clerk and the tie guy nodded in agreement, and the middle-aged, weather-beaten, flannel-shirted man behind me said "I was thinking exactly the same thing," and this guy looks like the foreman at the local fish factory. That's three for three in a small town in Maine.

-- J.D. Clark (yankeejdc@aol.com), October 07, 1998.

Y2K is the LEAST of our worries right now...IT IS HERE> Layoffs are begining already. Today just today, spouse got hours cut from a MAJOR company. It may be too late for us to fully prepare now, but a WARNING TO ALL>>>>>>the MONEY IS FUNNY>??? get what you can now, cuz ya never know...

-- meagain (nohours@aol.com), October 07, 1998.

The money has always been funny. Why do you think gold was selected as a medium of exchange? It keeps well, is easy to recycle, and has little or no practical use - thus is ideal as a monetary item of exchange as it is worth whatever you set its value to be. Paper works OK but has the problems of being easily destroyed by fire or accident - also has an intrinsic use - therefore paper money has a real value besides its fictional value - and this will cause problems in times of inflation due to the value of the paper exceeding the face value of the cash. This can't happen with gold, its really pretty useless. BTW do you know who put the world on the gold standard in modern times? Issac Newton - yep - same guy.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), October 07, 1998.

The line that struck me was something like "Sorry, folks, it looks like a recession." (I could go downstairs and get it to be exact but please...) Please, please, please prepare now - please. You may not have the money to do so later, and you may need emergency stores to get you through economic hardship unrelated to Y2K (OK - no such thing but you get the idea.)

-- Melissa (financed@forbin.com), October 08, 1998.

I find it interesting that J.D.Clark judges people on the way they look. An overweight manager would not have a clue about Y2K or a fish monger is an idiot. It is not your IQ, your weight, your education or your underwear size...ALL YOU NEED IS THE ABILITY TO READ!! The price of beans is not going to change because you have an IQ of 140. My brother-in-law is a professor at Princeton and can not change the batteries in a smoke detector. IQ does not mean shit!

-- Sereotype (politically@correct.com), October 08, 1998.


Sereotype, I think you might have hit the nail on the head. Low IQ, those nails, but watch out for the hammers!

J.D.: Hey, man, like, relax! Life is way too short to go around measuring yourself against everyone you meet. Don't let yourself get caught up in the mindset that says IQ is the most important measure of a man. There will always be someone "smarter" than you are, even if they don't necessarily reveal it to you.

In the end, when you're gone, what would you have your survivors remember about you? That you were really smart, but you made everyone around you feel uncomfortable and inferior? How about that you were smart, and you made everyone around you feel smart and valuable? Which legacy will make people remember you will a smile that is touched with sorrow at your passing?

Try bending your mighty mind toward thinking about it. You might be surprised.

Sorry to preach, just BTDT in a manner of speaking. Wasted a lot of years.

-- Arewyn (nordic@northnet.net), October 08, 1998.


Whoa guys, relax and reread my post. You're confusing description with prejudice. Thank God I didn't mention race. For those of you who are more eager to find fault than to find the message, I was saying that three ordinary joes and janes, not computer techs, not internet mavens, but three folks from a small town on the coast of Maine all knew about and recognized a problem that people in this forum only two months ago were saying was virtually unknown to the general public. Remind me not to try to set a scene anymore. And I don't think I mentioned a word about IQ. Wasn't that someone else boasting about his 140 IQ on another thread?

-- J.D. Clark (yankeejdc@aol.com), October 08, 1998.

I see where Paul Davis said that gold has little or no practical use, and that is one of the reasons it is used as a medium of exchange. Sorry Paul, but gold has many practical uses and in fact is very valuable.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), October 08, 1998.

But in Newton's time (assuming that statement was correct) it really didn't. It was only after electricity (electronics, really) became common and it was found to be a good conductor that gold became a useful industrial metal. Before that, it was only ornamental.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 08, 1998.

Excuse me...Time Magazine your predjudice is showing "The Democrats are talking about spending the money on....Y2K...!" So the nasty little republicans only want to give the american public their money back, but the good ole dems want to spend the money to fix the problem...HA!

I agree with Stevenson when he said "there's not a dimes worth of difference [between dems and reps]"

You can't possibly spend enough money to fix this--y2k takes time, something we are quickly running out of...

-- Okum (ws000@aol.com), October 08, 1998.



Referring to J.D.'s comment about ordinary folks being aware; I too found out recently, in line at a convenience store, that "ordinary folks" new of Y2K as the counter clerk made a comment that started the discussion, but it was evident that these folks only saw it as just some other technical glitch the government and banks are fixing and nothing to worry about. That has also been my experience with every body in my entourage when I mention Y2K.

It seems the only ones who can grasp the magnitude of the problem are to be found only on the internet. The people I personally know, family and friends, are baffled by their computers and VCR's. When I try to discuss Y2K with them, they shrug it off as nothing to worry about, and if I insist, they look at me as if I've lost a few screws (except for my 3 kids, but all 3 are gifted and my youngest 12 year old son can program pretty good in basic. He knows at least how time consuming it is to write a bug free program.) It seems to me one has to have at least a techie streak or an ability to quickly grasp concepts, as well as the mental ability to view whole pictures and not only the individual trees, to begin to understand the magnitude of the problem facing us with Y2K and the finite amount of time left to fix it all, so that one can take a pro-active stance and develop contingency plans for one's family.

The old saying "one can lead a horse to water, but one can't force it to drink" seems appropriate here.

Reporters' talent as a group is writing/reporting. The problem with wanting to get the media involved to warn the public is that reporters are as diverse as the public in their ability to grasp the problem. There is also the fact that their editors have to approve the articles...

-- Chris (Catsy@pond.com), October 08, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ