Anybody besides me notice a change in strategy by the DGIs, govt officials, and business leaders? Instead of denying that anything bad will happen, theyre now saying that IF anything bad happens it will be the result of irrational Y2K alarmists scaring the hell out of people. In other words, the panic, not the technology failures, is the real risk.

Yeah, panic stinks. And it could really screw up banks and the stock market. But it aint nuthin compared to having communications networks and supply chains crumble. Heres an excerpt from one of Bill Dunns editorials on Mike Hyatts site (http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/greatest.htm) which reminds us of whats REALLY at risk here:

"Y2K panic will not cause oil refinery production to grind to a halt

Y2K panic will not cause air traffic control radar screens to go blank

Y2K panic will not cause phone networks to go dead

Y2K panic will not cause medical devices to malfunction, putting patients lives at risk

Y2K panic will not cause trucks, trains, and ships to stand still

Y2K panic will not cause 911 emergency services to fail

Y2K panic will not cause water and sewer systems to malfunction

Y2K panic will not cause food processing plants to shut down

Y2K panic will not cause government services to be paralyzed

Y2K panic will not cause welfare and food stamps to be late, sparking riots

Y2K panic will not cause our high-tech Defense Department to suddenly become impotent

Y2K panic will not cause Communist Chinas WWII-vintage military to suddenly become the strongest force on earth

Y2K panic will not cause the electric power grid to fail

By far the most dangerous problem with Y2K is flawed computer code."

-- Mr. X (stocking@up.now), February 04, 1999

Answers

Don't forget the sub-spin I'm beginning to hear--that stockpiling will deprive "the poor" (whoever they are) because "the rich" (whoever THEY are) will buy up all the stuff, creating deprivation and unaffordable high prices. Nobody says stockpiling will help because it means fewer clients for the emergency aid agencies. They'd rather they had our money (and probably supplies too) so that they can "fairly" allocate resources. I happen to think I can more fairly allocate my resources than anyone else--there are some elderly and genuinely poor people I'd like to help take care of, and some fakers about whom I don't give a damn.

Does anyone really believe that most manufacturers can't gear up to provide the goods needed? Sure, the survival food companies are eight months behind, but what about regular canned and dried food bought at the supermarket? Can't the manufacturers add another shift? If the powers that be were honest with the public right now, there should be enough time to supply demand. Why IS there a shortage of KeroSuns and generators? Are the manufacturers working at full tilt? If not, why not? Are we so tied to what the Wal-Mart computers dictate? Anybody know?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 04, 1999.

Is no one held accountable for their actions anymore? SHEESH.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), February 04, 1999.

Mr. X, They have been saying for a long time that panic will cause problems. This is not a recent statement. Panic is a very very real risk, so don't downplay this possibility. Y2K problems can cause disruptions and this forum has pointed out some possibilities there also as well as debated the degree of these disruptions. But you were careful not to say that Y2K panic will not cause bank failure. I'll applaud you on that. Because that's the very thing that Y2K panic will do.

BTW, welfare checks have been late in the past and it didn't cause rioting. Do you have any knowledge of riots from late checks?

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 04, 1999.

Troll Maria,

Y2k "panic" (enlightened self-interest and personal responsibility for oneself and one's dependents) CANNOT cause "bank failure," anymore than passengers leaving a bus all at once can cause bus failure. If a system is DESIGNED so that it can be felled by a rumor, or by a free choice for non-participation that ever and always exists, then you cannot blame the participants. One thing that doesn't work about my bus analogy: a bus is usually a non-profit, public utility. All banks, even the "Federal" reserve, are private, profit-making ventures. Why should I be responsible for taking my money out of the bank? Am I responsible for the failure of a restaurant because I decide to eat at home? A store because I cease to shop there? Vast fortunes, obscene profits, are made in banking, which has been described, accurately, as "a license to print money." Bankers control economies, sap wealth from poor to rich nations, use their enormous power to interfere in public policy and "manage" the democratic process. Don't tell me I need to "have faith" in THAT.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 04, 1999.

Good point, E.C. If the set-up is fundamentally flawed from the git go, 'taint my fault if I choose to retrieve my own money. Last I looked, private property was still a legal concept.

-- Q-ball (q@q.q), February 04, 1999.

Troll Maria ref: welfare riots

If I remember correctly there were some pretty dissatisfied "social aid" customers at a french post office just after the intro of the Euro in early January. The couldn't get their free dough due to computer problems. I don't have the link. Maybe someone else can refresh your memory.

MoVe Immediate.

-- MVI (vtoc@aol.com), February 04, 1999.

E coli, let me extend your anology just a little further. Just because you don't patronize a particular business does not mean the business will fail. This happens throughout the globe and is the foundation for free enterprise. But a panic could cause a business to fail whether the panic was founded or not. Let me go back to the bus example. If you do something to cause people to panic and exit the bus at the same time, then you may if fact cause a "bus failure". The panic may cause people to break the glass, then turn over the bus or set the bus on fire and do some other kinds of damage.

You're right banks are a business and you alone can't cause them to fail. But, a panic will cause a run on the banks and we know that not all funds for all accounts remain at your local bank. Panic may cause more chaos then any Y2K failure.

BTW, Mr X, Y2K will not cause the phones to go dead.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 04, 1999.

TM, the reason there might be bank runs is because the public doesn't believe that their hard-earned money will be available if bank computers fail. If I were a bank I think I'd be pulling out all stops right about now to make sure my computers and ATMs were Y2K compliant and that I had enough generator power and fuel for a good while. Rather than try to fix their problems, whether it's the perception or reality that their computers will go awry, the banks seem to prefer some sort of regulation controlling the amount of money people can withdraw. That's treating a symptom, not curing the disease.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 04, 1999.

They, the Bankers, shouldn't have tilted the board so that all of the marbles roll into their corner. If the banks fail it is their own greedy damned fault. To hell with the Bankers.

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), February 04, 1999.

Maria Commented:

"You're right banks are a business and you alone can't cause them to fail. But, a panic will cause a run on the banks and we know that not all funds for all accounts remain at your local bank. Panic may cause more chaos then any Y2K failure. "

Maria we have ALL been shammed into the current Fractional Reserve Banking system currently in play. At one time we actually had gold backing our paper currency and a 90% silver content in our dimes, quarters and half dollars. This was all done away with so that hte politicians could really rev up the credit bubble. At the same time the requirements for bank reserves were lowered. Some say they only have about 2% of the total deposits on hand. The piper must now be paid on the backs of the average citizen.

These credit bubbles is by far and large the biggest in the history of our world. Japan has been deflating for nine years. Ours will be much quicker. When the people find out what kind of sham has been foist upon them they will not be happy. It may be y2k or it may be a multitude of other things waiting in the wings. It will be something.

BTW I like Maria better than Troll Maria.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 04, 1999.

In an economics course, cir. 1975, it was pointed out to me that banks can lend a dollar out up to fifteen times. The idiots don't have the money in their damned banks yet they lend it out and collect obscene interest on something that does not exist. I think this and deficit spending are all or part of Keynes Dipshit Theory of Economics. It's been a few years since I've studied this but I think I got it right. Any economists out there.

This is the main reason, IMHO, that, y2k or not, the system is going to hell and ain't coming back.

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), February 04, 1999.

>> If you do something to cause people to panic and exit the bus at the same time, then you may if fact cause a "bus failure".

Like TELL THE TRUTH? ME: "I say, people: we're going down this long, winding 30% grade, on the edge of this towering cliff here, and I have it on good authority that the brakes are out. The driver can prove there's no problem by tapping his breaks for us. Driver?" DRIVER(intercom cranked full-blast): "EVERYTHING'S UNDER CONTROL. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! BESIDES, I ALREADY TAPPED MY BRAKES. THAT MAN DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. HE'S A RELIGIOUS NUT! HE'S ANTI-BUS, AND WANTS US TO CRASH! THE BRAKES AREN'T OUT, AND WHAT'S MORE, I'M WORKING ON THE PROBLEM. THAT IS, THERE IS NO PROBLEM, AND IT WILL BE SOLVED SHORTLY. 'NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND WE CAN'T GUARANTEE ANYTHING. THE BUS COMPANY ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR.' THANK YOU. . TROLL MARIA: "Now, see what you've done? People are getting nervous! I think that driver is right. Besides, he signs my paycheck, and I think he's kind of cute...

>>You're right banks are a business and you alone can't cause them to fail. But, a panic will cause a run on the banks and we know that not all funds for all accounts remain at your local bank.

Thank you for that incisive probe of the fractional reserve banking system. May I build upon your analysis somewhat? Approximately 4% of the money in circulation is real, paper money. The rest is electronic. If the banking system's information technology becomes non-viable, what will happen to that 96% of purely fictional, electronic money? How much will you cash in hand be worth, if 96% of the money supply goes up in smoke? Do you have to be in a "panic" to do this math? Banks take in one dollar and loan out 11, and CHARGE INTEREST ON THAT FICTIONAL MONEY. They CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR. That's what a bank IS. The system is vulnerable to collapse because it is poorly conceived and poorly operated. It serves the interests of a wealthy and powerful elite and leaves the rest of us to beg for high interest mortgages that have us routinely paying for our homes THREE TIMES OVER. International banks loan money to the corrupt elites of foreign countries, who squander and embezzle it; then the IMF forces "austerity measures" on the PEOPLE of those countries via the same, corrupt shills who took the money in the first place. "Austerity measures" means growing exports for us, like coffee and bananas, instead of beans and rice to feed the people. Banking is WEALTH EXTRACTION.

As in most cases, panic is avoided by knowing what the hell is going on in the first place, not rolling over and going back to sleep when you smell smoke. E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 04, 1999.

Old git, I hope you're right about the reasons for a panic. But I do believe that the banks are fixing their Y2K problems and putting in the controls if there is a run. I think they are doing both: treating a symptom and curing the disease at the same time. (But I know few of you here think the way I do).

Ray, I agree. Gold no longer backs any of this paper stuff we have. Maybe Y2K will be the genesis of a different way of economics.

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 04, 1999.

The sooner that the market gets signals of increasing demand from those who choose to advance their self reliance, the sooner most producers will increase production.to serve the late comers. No one is deprived by this free market process of serving human action and needs.

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), February 04, 1999.

E: that was a good post and I think you are right on. But I hope like hell your're wrong about the NWO theory.

-- a (a@a.a), February 04, 1999.

Troll Maria,

You said, "BTW, Mr X, Y2K will not cause the phones to go dead." How can you be so certain? This quote from the Kansas City Star leads me to believe the government considers it a possibility:

http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/business.pat,business/30dab190.122,.h tml

"On May 1-2, the nationwide COMEX/MOBEX drill will assume it is New Year's Day 2000 and the telephones are not working. The test is to see if Guard units can be notified to mobilize during what is known as a "COMM-Out" period."

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 04, 1999.

I just read my post, and I apologize for "shouting" so much with those caps. But the fact that the victims are being blamed here really gets my goat. And I'm concerned that it's going to get worse as more people get aware, and government and industry get more panicked.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 04, 1999.

Miss T. Maria,

Phones failing" Seems a rather black and white statement there - but the is no evidence to show that any given phone company has repaired its circuits, programs, billing systems (last time I tried, with no credit card number or other way-to-pay, the phone system refused to connect me.) satellite interconnections, routing networks, or switchgear.

The closest declaration of "testing" success was one "claim" referenced from a user in about Sept that showed one executive from one telephone company claiming "none of our tests to date has interuppted service to our clients." Good - their tests should not interupt service o clients, but that doesn't mean they have tested anything or everything. Also, there is no declared integrated test by any phone system - power, lights, heat, HVAC, controls, etc. are affected and could be affected by random and/or widespread Y2K problems.

Bottom line, I'm see no reason for any firm declaration. I'm not pessimestic about phones, just skeptical.

Also, a running phone system does not imply a working useable 911 dispatch system.

Separately, you repeated that damaging phrase "panic is the biggest threat...." Can you give me any reason why the government should not work to give people enough information so they are informed, and thus will not panic? Why should anyone trust what the government says about Y2K?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 04, 1999.

I have no guilt about withdrawing money from a bank. It is perfectly reasonable course of action in the circumstances. Those who should feel guilt are those who perpetuate this frail fractional banking system upon us.

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), February 04, 1999.

Robert, Last I looked at the NRIC site, they were planning (or indicated the possibility) of including banks on their interoperability test this spring. Don't remember if any other industry was included. The test was mainly for the major companies and bells. I work for one of the major companies and I know for a fact we're done with Y2K of critical systems and are currently in integration test. We have UPS for the key facilites, so we can continue to operate with a power outage. That may not be public and I'm not sure it will ever be public. Knowing what I know about telecommunciations and I researched the stuff from the other companies, I believe Y2K will present few (very few) problems. (Never say never).

Dave, E Coli, and others, you have every right to take all your money out of the banks. I don't think I ever said you couldn't. But the main point of the thread was that panic won't cause problems. I say panic will cause problems; it always has.

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 05, 1999.

"Those who should feel guilt are those who perpetuate this frail fractional banking system upon us."

This might have been a very different country if Aaron Burr had won that duel. But he died, Hamilton lived, and here we are.

But hey-- we're in better shape than Russia, right? So far. Knock wood.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 05, 1999.

One comment for Mr. Coli --

You said, "As in most cases, panic is avoided by knowing what the hell is going on in the first place, not rolling over and going back to sleep when you smell smoke."

Granted, and good point. However, in this case, the smoke has turned out to be caused by a fire of much smaller proportions than originally anticipated, by any sane measure. At first it seemed that we were going to have a fire to rival the one caused by Mrs. O'Leary's Chi-town cow in 1871; now it seems evident that a local volunteer fire department can handle the job. No need to call out the fire departments from half the state to put out a ten-acre brush fire.

Or, another analogy -- if Lake Michigan should dry up, it won't take all the water in the Pacific Ocean to fill it back up.

Panic isn't the only issue here; there's also unnecessary overreaction, and the unnecessary costs involved, both financial and emotional.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), February 05, 1999.

My analogy:

The farther away I stand from my mirror, the smaller my butt looks.

Mr. K

stay far enough away from the problem and it won't seem so big

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 05, 1999.

TM, you said,

". . .But the main point of the thread was that panic won't cause problems. I say panic will cause problems; it always has."

But what causes the panic? Whatever it is, THAT's what gives rise to problems. Panic doesn't come out of nowhere; it has a cause, it's a result of appropriate action not taken. Pretend the banking system is a decayed tooth. You don't just take a handful of painkillers and render yourself mostly inoperable, you get the tooth fixed.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 05, 1999.

This "Little Chicken" troll sure doesn't know many tunes, does he?

"Say something often enough, and it doesn't matter if it's true or not, people will start to believe it." That's a great idea "LC". Keep it up, it'll go over great here.

"Use lots of extreme analogies and act as if they were relevant. Try to make others feel stupid." That'll work well too, "LC". Do a lot of that here.

"Tell someone, 'Granted, and good point'. Then tell them they're wrong." Attacks such as these will really go over here. Do a lot of this too.

"Never refer to any concrete facts; then you don't have to later eat your words. Continually accuse others of never referring to any concrete facts." Another winner! You'll do very well here, "LC".

"Speak to others with authority, as if you know what you're talking about. Talk down to them and try to make them feel small. This is a sure fire way to make your points." I have to hand it to you, "LC", you're a masterful persuader.

Any bets on whether this troll will come back with a personal attack and continue the same tactics described above?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 05, 1999.

Hardliner,

LC or Chicken Little is Gerald the disimformation troll. He is also Y2K My @ss, The troll@troll.troll, Obione, Linda lmorrisno@eicn.com and probably 50 new names this goverment spinster will be over the next year. He will continue until he realizes he cant get over on this forum.

-- (no@spaam.com), February 05, 1999.

Little Chicken -

If Lake Michigan empties, it will be bit hard on the fish won't it? Do you mind if the fish decide to get an aquarium so they have a way to live until it gets filled up again?

And if it gets filled from the Pacific Ocean (hmmm...Chinese waters, rather than lake Superior - which would of course try to refill Michigan first.) then the fish would die anyway.

Unless your point was to show that the fish better leave Michigan itself - but you don't want peopel to bug out of the city, do you?

Hell, even his analogies arguments don't hold water. They prove our point.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 05, 1999.