I haven't read much of Mr. North's writings, but my readers tell me that many of myths that I've debunked in this column originated with him. I normally don't like to make personal remarks, but in this case, the reader who sent me the email is correct. Mr. North should stick to history. As an armchair engineer, he seems to have less good sense than the average 8th grade science student. People shouldn't pay attention to him when he writes about things of which he has no expertise. (quoted in Dick Mills: "Gary North has less good sense than the average 8th grade science student")

I will defer to Mr. Mills' expertise. His concluding advice, though, does not really come from his expertise, so it's up for grabs. At first thought, it seems like good sense: "don't pay attention to anybody writing outside his expertise". Unfortunately, following it would leave most of us in ignorance and anxiety.

For instance, when programmer types (like Hamasaki and Yourdon and Palm) predict serious business & economic consequences of Y2K failures, they're often told that they don't really understand how things work "in the real world" and that they should stick to the code that they know.

And when economists predict practically negligible business & economic consequences of Y2K failures, they're often told that they don't really understand how computers work and how they affect business and commerce every day and that they should stick to lofty academics and statistical abstractions.

And when managers and executives say "No problem", they're often told that they are basically clueless (I know this, because I'm one who is saying so) and that they should stick to conducting meetings.

And when politicians say "No problem", they're often told that they are even more clueless than managers and executives are, and that they should stick to swiping people's hard-earned money.

And the average ordinary Joe or Jane, trying to make sense of it all, is told to quit worrying and listen to the "experts".

Too bad all the experts nullify one another's opinions because nobody has recognized expertise in programming AND electrical utilities AND macroeconomics AND project management AND wholesale distribution AND international trade AND ....

See what I mean?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), June 18, 1999

Answers

The hubris of the IT shop. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard an IT pro talk about the "stupid" management. If you are brilliant, Lane, launch your own firm and wear the big hat. The country needs more entrepreneurs. Fair warning, though, the "Street" is littered with smart IT guys who thought running a business was easy.

Experts can talk with one another and share data. Check Ed Yardeni's T-200 conference for an example. In fact, there is general consensus among the legitimate experts that we will have some level of Y2K problems. There is a middle ground of global economic malaise. There are also "experts" with opinions at both extremes. Then again, you can shop around for an expert on almost any subject (some with more degrees than a thermometer) who can say exactly what you want to hear. Check our legal system, if you doubt me.

My issue with Milne, Hamaski and Palm is that they do not represent the IT community... more a "fringe" element. The CIO survey, admittedly imperfect, supports this contention. We will see another survey released today. Let's see if a majority of IT professional anticipate the end of the world.

I suggest the average person is better listening to "communities" of experts than individuals with a particular axe to grind.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 18, 1999.

Ya see Lane, you're talking crap, ddecker says so...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 18, 1999.

"the end of the world"

Find somebody else to take your extreme straw-man bait.

And go back to engineering dams or something.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), June 18, 1999.

Hey, David, you got an axe to grind?

Must be to cut down some of them there trees on the farm, I guess....

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), June 18, 1999.

You said, "Let's see if a majority of IT professional anticipate the end of the world". Now how much are those stock portfolios going to be worth again if any major company issues a looks bad report?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 18, 1999.

I think Decker needs to buy some "Rand McNally" stock!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 18, 1999.

You're right, Lane. No one is an expert at everything.

But, within specific areas, there definitely are experts. And they should be relied upon for information.

When someone attempts to analyze information from multiple sources to come to an overall conclusion, at least two things should be considered:

1) Past track record at performing this type of analysis, and the accuracy of their conclusions.

2) The accuracy of the information used as input into the analysis.

As this Dick Mills' article demonstrates, the information that Gary North is using as input regarding the effect of SCADA on the power grid is completely wrong. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

And Gary North's past track record speaks for itself.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 18, 1999.

Decker said:

In fact, there is general consensus among the legitimate experts that we will have some level of Y2K problems.

Gee imagine that. That's really surprising. ROTFLMAO

-- a (a@a.a), June 18, 1999.

Hoff, your two points are correct, and very important to remember.

Frankly, I was thinking more of those who dismiss programmers' opinions 'cause we don't know nuthin' 'bout the "real world". And those who dismiss gloomy prognostications of non-technical types merely because they're non-technical types. They are as capable (or incapable) as anybody else of gathering information and making conclusions. (I'm not meaning to imply that you have said otherwise; just a general observation.)

It's the economists, really, that I don't understand. They are mostly looking at Y2K as a non-event. (I am assuming their honesty and integrity. I know, I know....) Spending up late this year, spending down early next year, or vice-versa, or something similar.

I keep wondering, How many economists in 1929 predicted an economic collapse? (I have been told that there was only one noted economist who did so, but I don't know if that's so.) It sure happened though. These days, there are legitimate reasons for thinking that there might be a lot of business problems because of Y2K failures; all of these reasons, it seems to me, are merely discounted out-of-hand.

Well, I guess I've gone off-topic on this thread....

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), June 18, 1999.

>>I keep wondering, How many economists in 1929 predicted an economic collapse?<<

A significant minority believed that the stock speculations of 1928-9 were irrational. According to J.K. Galbraith in _The Great Crash_, the financial editor of the NY Times sounded alarm bells all through the first half of 1929. Eventually he shut up, as no one seemed to be listening and it was only hurting his general credibility. He was viewed at the time as a fuddy-duddy with old-fashioned and outmoded ideas.

I think no one anticipated the depth and extent of the economic problems that accumulated from October 1929 until things hit bottom in March, 1933. That was 3 1/2 years of bad and getting worse.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 18, 1999.

Certainly no economist foresaw that the DJIA would lose 79% of its value by June 1932 (from its Oct. 1929 high).

Why go back so far for an example, though? Ask yourself how many economists foresaw the Asian financial crisis? Even as regional Asian currencies began to be devalued, most economists there and here were still buying into the myth of Asian "tiger" economies.

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), June 19, 1999.