There seems to be a personal financial component that determines how a pessimist and optimist view preparations. This is something that I have been thinking about a little. I haven't really come to something that's clear in my mind to express well here. Please, bear with me.

I personally would like to achieve 6 months of preps (in that unique way that I would prepare for 6 months). To do so might make me feel much better about Y2K. My unique visualization of 6 months of preps, however, involves high risks that do not NOW seem at all reasonable.

What do I mean by "high risks"? Namely, the "canabalization" of my current business ventures and other good and noble activities. I admit that I readily stopped (or try to stop) pursuing certain personal interests, pleasantries, and enjoyments. This seemss reasonable to do.

But I'm not prepared to throw it all on the TEOTWAWKI no. of the Y2K roulette table. On this Y2K roulette table, there are 9 numbers on this table in three thirds. I am covering the second third, because that's where my analysis of the spin says to bet on. I'd like to get something on the last third and still keep a strong bet on double 0s.

Unlike a real roulette table, the second third covers the first third and doesn't take necessarily mean a loss if it goes to zeroes (as I will be living more smartly than before). However, the last third gets significantly more complicated and complex than the usual roulette game.

Significant bets on the last third are such that if it's double 0s or in the first third, this comes out as a significant loss where me and mine will face hardship. A minimum bet on the last third or betting on the second 3 is the same or worse if the Y2K goes to the TEOTWAWKI number.

0 and 00 are things to bet strong on, but not to the very unreasonable exclusion of making any other bets. Not to make a significant bet on the 0s is equally unprudent. People may also give you funny looks. (g) That's the game. Unfortunately, Y2K is not a game; it is very real.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 23, 1999

Answers

I don't remember who said it, Ed Yourdon or Michael Hyatt, but it seemed like good advice to me. The advice was to reach your own conclusion as to how bad Y2K would be and to make preparations for a level higher than that.

A three day "snowstorm"? Plan for a week. Six months of disruptions? Plan for a year.

I think things may be major league screwed up for nearly a year. I'm planning on twice that, just so I don't have to worry.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 23, 1999.

Stan, another challenge is inflation and a reduction of items you may wish you had. Like olive oil, which is the longest storable oil because it is mono-unsaturated. I hear the maritime industry is going to be challenged. That would make the price of olive oil much higher. Inflation may be viewed as a similiar challenge to Y2K for those who are financially strapped. Can't get it cuz of Y2k or can't afford it. Personally, I would buy things now because I want to save money for items I think will go up anyway. Figure in the odds for inflation for items you think will not make it due to the maritime challenge. We already think oil for energy will be in shorter supply.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 23, 1999.

Loose Definitions:

0, 00: CPR, Stephen Poole

1-3: Mr. Decker's 7 days water and 30 days of food

4-6: Stan Faryna's 3 month goal to his 6 month ideal

7-9: Big Dog to Andy

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 23, 1999.

Stan,

I'm still an 8 across the board - with the specific tactic of knowing that I can use less than I have on hand if less is needed, while the reverse is not true.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 23, 1999.

The main "gamble" for most people is whether or not to relocate. In this "civilizaton" the reason so many people are in the cities is because that's where the jobs are. They can't just pack up and move to "Cowtown, Montana", because they don't have the money, or if they have some, they could last but a few months to a year on savings.

Now, if everything goes to hell, the move would be the better bet, because the "money" wouldn't make any difference; supplies and skills would. They and their more established neighbors would be pretty much on equal footing.

OTH, if they move, and it turns out just a "bump in the road" or even just a 3 to maybe a 5, then there they will be in the boonies, with no money (savings gone) in a still functioning economy. But maybe not as well functioning as before, and so will be broke in the country, and if they can get back to the city, broke there, also.

It's a pisser.

-- A (A@AisA.com), May 24, 1999.

While I am placing my Y2K bets in the middle third (4-6 range), I find that my floating Y2K outlook is now in the last third (7-9 range) but just shy of TEOTWAWKI. I find that my Y2K outlook floats up and down based on the current, available information (including information that I can not share publicly on this forum for a variety of reasons).

The only difference between me and Arlin (or Big Dog) is that (1) I don't see how I can financially assume the kind of preparations that I now think is best and (2) I am not yet willing to canabalize my business and/or other ventures to gain only a marginal improvement over my current preparation goals. In other words, 3 more months.

If I were to make such sacrifices (take my strong bets off the 0s), I would want to see significant improvements. It doesn't work that way, or so it seems. This may be the flaw in what appears to be reasonable expectations. Therefore, do not mistake my bets for my outlook-- if you are making your bets (perhaps, dangerously) by following my bets.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 24, 1999.