Decker, on another thread you refused to address my plethora of economic issues, which you referred to as "all over the road Y2K jitters." You requested that I pose them one at a time, I guess so your macroeconomic theory would not experience overload. So, forget all of those, they obviously disturbed you to the point of speechlessness. You ignored all except my contention that we live in a more violent society with a larger prison population than the 70's, and used misleading crime rate statistics to spin a bogus response to that one. So here's a new concern for you to contemplate:

During the Great Depression, families predominantly had a single source of income, usually the husband. When times got tough, the wife would seek employment as a source of additional income.

Today, two income families are the norm, and a lot of these are still struggling to get by. When the downturn occurs, they will lack the safety net families had in 30's with their reserve income earning potential. This is another reason why today's economic situation, with its structured credit, debt load, nonexistent savings and speculation-fueled buying is indeed a House of Cards.

Care to take a shot?

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999

Answers

a

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lot's of luck guy...I still can't get him to put on a pair of steel toed boots,hard hat. Grab a lap top,a set of lie sheets (systems check lists) and the funny papers (blue prints) and go out with me for verbal run through on checking out an embeded system located some place with-in an industrial complex.

LOL! Shoot I can't even get him to talk to me, or acknowledge that I posted a question for him...Chuckle! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), July 24, 1999.

A,

I appreiciate and read with interest your many informative posts. You and I tend to think similarly on many issues, but you are better able to put your thought to words then I. I think it a waste of time, though, to challenge a polly. I know it is fun to argue, but no one will every get a polly to admit defeat IMHO. EdY is right, we will not convince anyone by arguement... only the reality of long lines, lost savings, and no power will convince the unbelievers at this point. So why waste band width and your time? Am I missing something?

Sincerely,

-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), July 24, 1999.

Uhmmm: No, you're not missing much. I enjoy wrestling with other intellects, and it seems this forum attracts quite a few. I use Decker and others as a sounding board, hoping to expose the defects in their reasoning so that other can assess the situation more truthfully and spread the word accordingly.

There are three main reasons why I continue to be alarmist:

1. I honestly believe thing really are that bad.

2. I feel that the more folks I can alert to the dangers of y2k, the better the outcome not just for them but also for me and everyone.

3. I feel a little personally responsible for this mess since my entire 16 year career has been spent as a computer professional. However, for at least the last five years I have been warning that we were approaching a brick wall, so the vast majority of blame I place on the business sector, in which I include management and government. It has been my experience that the technical sector could have done little to avoid the situation we now find ourselves in.

Shakey: Maybe if you claim that the "market forces" within the embedds are not y2k compliant that'll rouse him. :)

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

whoops

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

a,

Addressing your arguments directly to Decker seems to me to be counter -productive. If they are strong and persuasive arguments, they will be accepted regardless of Decker's presence or absence.

By posing them as direct questions to Decker, you make it appear as if this were some personal matter between the two of you. What value is there in that? It makes your exchange reductive and exclusive. It also makes it more confrontational.

Now, confrontation may seem appealing, in that it sets up the possibility of having a clearly defined winner and loser. But, a war is also set up that way. That isn't a good model to follow, if you ask me.

We in this forum shouldn't be warring among ourselves. Ideally, we should be challenging one another to think more clearly, and assist one another in that goal. In my opinion it is not productive to demand that one person or another play the role of an enemy, or force any person to dig in at their current position, so we may prove it indefensible by destroying it, if we can.

Perhaps that was not your intention. But your posting provided me the opportunity to share these thoughts. Thanks for giving them your consideration.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 24, 1999.

Brian, no offense, but I am sick and tired of folks complaining that "we're rude to each other" and "censorship is bad because of blah blah blah." Decker first refused to respond to me because he said I was "boorish". Now you're saying I shouldn't even personally seek his opinion?

Look, I posed a question, and I addressed it to the leader of the "I know my economic theory" movement here on TB2000. I'm not apologizing for it. The decorum here is typical of a lively debate, nothing more, nothing less.

So get over it. This place is not going to evolve much more than it already has, IMHO.

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

And besides, Brian, I am specifically soliciting his input, and want him to access the thread. Kind of like cheese in a rat trap as it were. :)

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

*shrug*

OK. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

a: "Decker! I'm callin' you out, you lilly-livered rat! Come out here and take yer bait - oops! I mean take your punishment like a man!"

*** silence ***

a: "Decker! I know yer in there! Quit stalling! There's some nice cheese in a trap - oops! I mean, questions to debate!"

*** more silence ***

a: "OK! I want all you folks to notice that this Decker fella is yella and won't come to a fair fight out here in the street, so I WIN!!!"

We last see a@a.a doing a little victory jig. Crowds of admiring people come out to shake his hand. Decker slinks out of town. Or was it all a dream?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 24, 1999.

These questions make it possible for anyone to respond and rebut the points raised. The polly responses tend to be "I don't think" that ---- with no evidence presented. Any computer pro has the opportunity to try to prove the poster wrong. The fact that so few people respond with specific evidence that the poster is wrong give the initial post a great deal of credibility. Keep up the good work. If embedded can't be tested without shutting down the plant, how can the organization claim that they are 90 per cent finished and compliant? Lies, lies and more lies. They could at least say that they have fixed their paper processing systems and have an unknown risk on the 4,231 embedded systems in their ----- plant. There is no credibility. This is kinda like the people on the Titantic. The ship was taking water and sinking, the band was playing and many were in denial that they would not be saved. Some were rearranging the deck chairs. Why couldn't the Clinton Administration and the Computer Industry Standards committee see this coming back in 1995 or so? With all of the idiotic regulations in place, no one saw the need for some that would have prevented these problems? Incredible.

-- Tom (Tom@bbb.gom), July 24, 1999.

Interesting challenge in some ways. The first paragraph is an impressive exercise in rewriting history. First Decker "refused to address" even though he didn't refuse. Then his theory is "overloaded", whatever that means. Then Decker was "obviously disturbed" to the point of "speechlessness", something obvious only to 'a'. Then Decker "ignored my contention" even though he started a whole thread demolishing these contentions one by one. Then Decker was "misleading" and produced a "bogus response", even though neither is true. All of these are dishonest attempts to discredit Decker before 'a' asks a single new question. The entire first paragraph is a transparent attempt to declare "victory" in advance.

Finally, we get to the issue: Do current employment patterns render families less flexible today than in 1930, if faced by an economic downturn? The implication is that in the 1930's, work was going begging because a good chunk of the potential labor force was choosing not to work, rather than filling these positions. The problem with this theory is, the jobs weren't there. Armies of qualified and willing workers were available to fill any job that came open. It wasn't a matter of a second worker to augment income, it was a matter of *either* spouse finding *any* paying job. So the theory 'a' puts forward simply doesn't apply.

And of course, 'a' concludes his post by stating he's right (he isn't) and then criticizing the current economy, saying his false theory is "yet another reason" why things are so bad today. I guess the philosophy here is, if you're wrong, you might as well be confrontative and belligerent about it.

'a' reminds me of ex-umpire Dutch Rennert, who had leather lungs and called pitches outside in the dirt STRIKES in a voice you could hear half a mile from the stadium. Rennert was no better than most umpires, but it sure was hard to argue with him, right or wrong.

Decker, on another thread you refused to address my plethora of economic issues, which you referred to as "all over the road Y2K jitters." You requested that I pose them one at a time, I guess so your macroeconomic theory would not experience overload. So, forget all of those, they obviously disturbed you to the point of speechlessness. You ignored all except my contention that we live in a more violent society with a larger prison population than the 70's, and used misleading crime rate statistics to spin a bogus response to that one. So here's a new concern for you to contemplate: During the Great Depression, families predominantly had a single source of income, usually the husband. When times got tough, the wife would seek employment as a source of additional income.

Today, two income families are the norm, and a lot of these are still struggling to get by. When the downturn occurs, they will lack the safety net families had in 30's with their reserve income earning potential. This is another reason why today's economic situation, with its structured credit, debt load, nonexistent savings and speculation-fueled buying is indeed a House of Cards.

Care to take a shot?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

Flint: The threads speak for themselves, I don't care to debate you on who was more convincing.

As to my new issue concerning two income families, the bottom line is that American families are overextended and the SAFETY NET IS NO LONGER THERE. Can you argue with either of those two simple facts?

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

'a':

I already did. When unemployment is 25% (or higher), it doesn't *matter* how many household members can't find jobs, or how many are looking for work in vain. If the jobs aren't there, who cares how many family members can't find one?

This sounds like another of your claims of how the world was better when a smaller percentage of eligible workers chose to enter the work force. Certainly I'll agree that production per capita goes down unnecessarily if a substantial fraction of workers decide to quit without replacement, *provided* the jobs go begging as a result. But in a depression, what's the difference between two people looking unsuccessfully for work, as opposed to only one?

On the contrary, many more women today have marketable skills than was true 40 (or more) years ago. If anything, this *increases* flexibility, rather than diminishing it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

No Flint, you're missing the point. The families of today REQUIRE TWO INCOMES to keep afloat. That means make car payment, mortgage payment, credit card payment, buy groceries, pay insurance & tax bills etc. THERE IS NO LONGER A SAFETY NET with the second spouse having reserve earning potential. THEY ARE UP AGAINST THE WALL. Get it?

But congrats on taking this sow's ear and somehow turning it into a purse. I knew that for someone as deluded as you it wouldn't be a problem.

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

'a':

Sorry, but you're missing the whole boat. The increased percentage of adults in the workforce today is one of the key engines behind the standard of living we enjoy (the other is increased productivity per worker due to technology).

Now, when the economy contracts in real terms, the goods and services per capita goes down. We aren't producing as much, so we can't consume as much. We see this reduction in terms of many ramifications, one of which is the loss of employment by one or both spouses. In other words, the *pattern* of this reduction is projected onto the economic demographics of the times.

During the depression, these demographics were different, so the ramifications were different -- the (single) wage earner became unemployed or drastically underemployed.

What we're really up against today is full employment. The only direction this can go is down (if it changes at all). When the economy is poorer, those who compose it are poorer. It really is true that marketable skills more widely held and more evenly spread across the population acts as a buffer -- an economic benefit. This makes us *more* flexible rather than less.

Still, we can never consume as much when we don't produce as much, regardless of demographics. The details of how this plays out may change, but the net result is the same in the end.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

There is a recent essay at Gold Eagle, or maybe it was the latest PEI offering, which is meaningful in light of your concerns "a".

Analysis shows that individual investors had left and were leaving before the 1929 market crash, with the really big guys taking the brunt of the fall.

Our current situation is the opposite. Small investors are still inflooding the market while the big players have been in quiet exit for many months.

In my estimation this current situation re small investors plus the fact that that retirement funds and mutual funds are quite exposed in the market create an arena in which the lifeblood savings of a whole lot of people living paycheck to paycheck and very high debt obligations, will be spilt.

And this is without ever invoking a y2k related job loss.

Has anyone else been checking out the p/e ratios of the top 5 daily traded stocks? Volker said this spring that 50 stocks are supporting the market, recently it seems to this casual observer that it is fewer than that. Plus the traded slope is steep from number 2 down, meaning that on most days recently only 2 or 3 corporations are carrying an inordinate weight - Lucent and AOL are prominate in this elite group. Stock volume is low considering the daily end numbers, even factoring this week's downturn. Lack of liquidity is becoming a problem so "they" say, due to ongoing national currency devaluations - a game which the US hasn't yet joined, but China is about to (dispite their official 8% growth rate). Watch the Japanese. Foreign money is being moved out of US markets - the squeeze is on and no one is going to win.

"a" you are right, this one looks like it is going to be worse than '29 for the common man in the street and coupled with y2k Fortune 500 failures - a few probables/possibles being GE, General Dymanics, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Shell, Exxon, Texaco, Chevron, Phillips, Citgo, Boeing, McDonald/Douglas, Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, AOL, Disney, McDonalds, Wal-Mart - will make '29 look nostalgically like a picnic. When one factors in the collapse of most to all of govt entities larger than a a small city/county, plus the general interruption of imports and exports - well, it almost makes me yearn for that mythical UN takeover! ;-)

As, I think Diane said yesterday, I sure hope we, humankind, learn from this event we have structured.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), July 24, 1999.

Flint, I see where you are coming from but I disagree.

First of all, when the one family income system broke down, the wife could either seek employment or perform agricultural tasks such as growing food. That's not possible nowadays in the vast, vast majority of cases, thanks to the explosion of large cities and phasing out of home gardening.

Second, YOU are "missing the boat" on the significance of the division of labor and what that will mean if we are confronted with a situation that rivals the 30's. There is no way on gods green earth you can say that this "makes us *more* flexible rather than less."

And lastly, as far as "consuming less", car payments, mortgage payments, credit card payments, groceries, insurance & tax bills do not just disappear because one has decided to "comsume less".

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

Thanks Mitchell, good points.

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

'a':

I still find it hard to understand how *more* marketable skills, more widely held, makes us worse off. This is kind of like arguing that if we were largely uneducated as a nation, we'd be better off because we'd have more uneducated people with the 'potential' to go to school. This strikes me as exactly backwards.

Now, I think you can make a decent argument that the 'unemployed' women of the past weren't really unemployed at all. There are 'holes' in the official employment figures. If one member of the household is spending essentially full time growing most of the food they eat, this doesn't show up on the employment rolls, yet makes a substantive economic contribution nonetheless. I really don't know if anyone has quantified such contributions over time.

Contrapositively, the 2-wage-earner families you speak of aren't as efficient as you imply. Often, they must (as a result of being away at work) pay for day care for children or elderly parents, buy fast food or eat out for lack of time (and energy) to prepare their own, and so on. I have known several couples who sat down with a calculator and realized that the additional costs associated with both of them working exceeded the take-home pay of the lesser wage earner. They were financially better off (to say nothing of health) when that person quit.

I think what you're talking about is best described statistically. General feelings based on anecdotes often mask the fact that things really haven't changed that much after all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

Flint said:

"They were financially better off (to say nothing of health) when that person quit. "

Flint, who are you kidding? Are you trying to top your "You have failed to recognise the amount of insufficient progress" comment on the Milne thread?

Like I said, Forum Jester...

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

Gentlemen! Gentlemen! What happens to John Q and Jill Q who A; live in a rented apartment, B; drive leased vehicles, C; sit on rented furniture and D; have some worthless job that will go away in a crash? Hungry and homeless comes to my mind.

-- dozerdoctor (dozerdoc@yahoo.com), July 25, 1999.

I am unfortunately not very well read on the actual types of employment obtained by the spouse. However, my understanding (from listening to reminisences of my grandparents discussing the depression) is that many women did in fact take on employment- however, it was often much more informal than employment is today. Some did washing /ironing/ cleaning and such for more well to do neighbors-what I think we would refer to as informal service jobs. There was no income tax or federal tracking of employment in those days, so I wonder how the current regulations might affect that scenario... I think an even more important point a alluded to is that there was a much higher percentage of the population in rural areas, the urban areas were still not (in most cases) as crowded, and it was not unusual for the average person to keep chickens, a pig and a big (by todays standard of 6 tomatoes, a zucchini, and a couple of rows of green beans) garden, preserving much of their own food. Staples such as flour were often purchased in bulk. Except in inner city areas, shopping was not a frequent affair. I recall my mother explaining to me that the young marrieds of the 50's were lured away from this (not just by the increasing population, and decreasing space) by the reaction to the deprivations of the depression years-so canning and self sufficiency and "make it do or do without" tended to be looked on as poverty related, and Madison Ave jumped on the bandwagon to encourage the spending that resulted in our fast food, microwave culture-they made it seem even more unfashionable and low class. (I know theres more involved-just reporting what some of the folks who lived thru both eras's speculated about.) In any event-theres not too many folks today who possess the skills and abilities and tools and room to do what the average 1930 person could to mitigate their income drop. Just some thoughts,

-- LauraA (Laadedah@aol.com), July 25, 1999.

dozerdoctor--those are the ones that you are suppose to feel sorry for and take into your home and give them shelter and food. Just make sure Cable TV is turned on so they can keep up with One Life To Live.

-- pissedsocialworker (pissedsocialworker@pissed.com), July 25, 1999.

'a':

If you quote what I actually said on the Milne thread, I'm perfectly willing to discuss it. Do you think you're making points by putting words into my mouth that I never said and then trying to mock me for 'saying' them? Why are you so afraid of honest discourse, that you feel you must resort to lying? The implication is that your position requires lies to support it. Is that what you want?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 1999.

Why accuse me of lying Flint? Did I cut a nerve? Here son, you're a glutton for punishment:

Flint said "Duh, So I challenge you back: Find even *one* Milne post that shows any recognition whatever that we're making progress."

Of course we're "making progress". It's the same insufficient, half-assed, too-little-to-late progress that pessimists have said all along would be made.

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

You will notice that I made *no* claim that the progress is sufficient, I asked if the progress were *recognized*. BIG difference, when it comes to distortion. And as always, what I said is misrepresented to serve your own purpose. More distortion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

If the progress is not sufficient, then it is irrelevent, so why bother recognising it?

-- number six (tytryuryur@jujujhg.com), July 24, 1999.

-- a (a@a.a), July 25, 1999.

'a':

You baffle me. You quote what I said, and also quote number six's misinterpretation. Then you exaggerate the misinterpretation, and claim I said it. Neat trick.

So OK, what does 'recognize' mean? Even Hamasaki recognizes that many organizations, by dint of *huge* efforts, have got themselves straightened out. NERC reports, along with *many* supporting posts and observations, indicate the grids are safe and most (perhaps all) of us will have power. Reports of testing within the banking system are flowing in. Wall street is busy testing. We see the tip of the testing iceberg, and it's positive. Multiple posters here express confidence in their own operations, some of them large. For whatever reasons, predicted failures haven't materialized. The sums spent on remediation boggle the mind -- and they haven't all been wasted.

Now, how does Milne react to such evidence? He claims the banks are lying, the government is lying, NERC is lying, the lack of problems so far is meaningless, and remediation is a waste of time.

This is NOT recognition of progress, this is FLAT DENIAL of progress, in the face of all indications to the contrary.

Without question, remediation has accomplished a great deal. Whether it has accomplished *enough* remains an open question, on which we can legitimately disagree. Even after the fact, as we survey the problems we will surely have encountered, we can legitimately disagree as to how bad they were.

Flat rejection of all evidence contrary to Milne's fixed position does not constitute recognition of that evidence. Supporting a theory by dismissing all contrary evidence is both foolish and dishonest.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 1999.

I have only one remark to make here.

Although it is apparently true that Americans in general are experiencing more credit card debt than ever before, there has been a continuous trend in the last X years...with X being at least 5 for many families to live on one income. I remember some female programmers at Commonwealth Edison becoming pregnant and stating that once the child was born they would stay home to raise him/her. I've seen this in practice today in my neighborhood. I normally telecommute from the office in my home....at the very front of the house. I open the blinds to let light in during the day and see scores of women with young children in strollers walking the neighborhood. There's a backlash in effect to the double household income in favor of raising children and re-affirming the community.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 25, 1999.

Flint, reread six's comments, I included them for a good reason, and not to distort your reply. OF COURSE PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE. Do you think that we "doomers" (recognise here that I am a #1,28,50,20,1; ie 28% chance of recession, 50% depression, 20% collapse of govt) thought that everyone would just SIT ON THEIR ASS AND DO NOTHING? Of course not! We extraplolated and now we are seeing almost precisely what we had envisioned! THE PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BE GOING AROUND SAYING "ITS FIXED!" "BITR!" "NO NEED TO ALARM FOLKS INTO PREPARING!" "NOBODY KNOWS" and JQP goes back to the reruns.

I don't like it, you don't like, nobody likes it. But the shit is going to hit the fan big time Flint. Face it man.

-- a (a@a.a), July 25, 1999.

"THIS IS NOT GOOD MAN! This is not good!!"

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 25, 1999.

'a':

OK, I see your point. Fundamentally, our disagreement isn't with the relative success of remediation, but rather with our basic understanding of how the world is hooked together, and the adaptability of people, technology, and economic systems to various forms of stress. Does the first woodpecker really spell the end of architecture as we know it?

Personally, my feeling is that the world has a great deal more slop than you think. I'd consider your probability estimates ludicrous even if no remediator had ever lifted a finger. And as I've written before, Milne (and his sycophants) are indulging in sheer wish- fulfillment fantasy. No, it won't take many bugs in just the wrong places to interfere with our current near-clockwork efficiency. But the cascading-domino theory is based on assumptions about how things really work that I consider demonstrably flat false.

As things play out over the next year, and as you see that the impact curve, in actual practice, drops off like a cliff, maybe your conceptualization will become more realistic. That is, if you're not too busy crossposting Milne's rants about how late unemployment checks in Chicago proves civilization has come to an end.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 1999.

Flint, Flint Flint. You're a self professed 30,50,20,0,0. I am a 1,28,50,20,1. You say my odds are ludicrous, even if NO remediation had been done. That statement right there shows you have NO objectivity. None. Zilch. You may want to retract that right now, because it will come back to haunt you. I will use it like a weapon in my hand on the next thread I start. :)

You are looking at the y2k problem in a vacuum. In an email to you last October, I told you I was more worried about the global economic situation than y2k. I still am. But y2k will be the trigger. And it will exacerbate what may otherwise have possibly been a manageable train wreck. On top of that I listed increased militarism/terrorism. Then all the other variables.

Late unemployment checks in Chicago is not the issue. The issue is a breakdown in our modern way of living, and how millions of people who have been assured of only "minor inconveniences" that will react to it.

-- a (a@a.a), July 25, 1999.

'a':

No, of course I'm not objective. I don't claim to be, which is why I spoke of my personal feelings. I was trying to speak of our relative grasps of how the world works.

Yourdon said (might not be an exact quote here) "If a recession is 'darn', then a depression is 100 times worse than 'damn'" What I think he's implying is that your scale is logarithmic. My ratings implied that IF bug impacts are fairly small (for whatever reason) and the economy isn't as unhealthy as the worrywarts have *always* claimed, it's a Koskinen level event. But I agree that economic signs are ominous, and a recession (Yardeni level) is due even on general principles. Y2k may be a trigger mechanism as you say, so I gave this a 50.

Since I can't rule out the economy going *way* out of kilter, especially if given a *big* jolt by y2k impacts, I see some possibility of a depression, at least according to a technical definition. The question is, if this is 100 times as severe, is it therefore 100 times less likely? I think there are enough negative feedback forces in the economy that there's a pendulum effect -- the harder you push it off center, the more effort it takes and the more inclination there is to push back. A decade of depression strikes me as a 1-in-100 event.

Beyond that I just don't consider within the realm of possibility. Now we've moved past even extraordinary economic misfortune, since the deepest of depressions don't cause governments to collapse, don't cause cities to be burned down, and don't force even minimal economic activity to grind to a halt. By the time you reach the Milne level, you are necessarily ringing in major, long-term infrastructure breakdowns. The evidence against this is overwhelming, even if remediation had never been done and everyone worldwide had decided on fix-on-failure.

The domino theory assumes that date bugs are capable of rendering entire industries totally nonfunctional for a long time. Date bugs never had this capability. Yes, they were capable of causing severe local problems (still are, though not nearly so bad), triggering small but newsworthy chains of events. But the Milne level has always had to assume that any illness means certain death. And I think even without remediation, date bugs would have meant death only for a small minority. Serious illness in many cases, but not fatal.

Somewhere along the line, people lose sight of the prospect of millions of other people dealing with misfortune -- fixing systems that break, or replacing them if they can't be fixed, or creating new ones if the old ones can't be replaced. When code you're responsible for fails, do you just say "Gee, it broke, I guess I'm toast?" Or do you take action to handle the problem? Yeah, in a pinch your fix might be duct tape and baling wire. Sports medicine -- tape it up tight and we'll X-ray it after the game. But *keep going*.

So although I agree there's plenty of evidence of coming problems, even the worst such evidence considered all by itself doesn't lead to a Milne-level event. Even Milne must comb through our evidence to select the very worst, and then exaggerate what's left like mad, applying every rule of disinformation he can find, to support his fantasies. 100 times worse than 1-in-100 just isn't in the cards.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 1999.

Well, I suppose a little positive thinking is a good thing, but your "expecting a recession" seems naive, even if it is Yardeni's best guess (supposedly). A recession is nothing. Business as usual, with growing pains. But we are at a crossroads here Flint. A singular event that is unfolding when the world is straddled with major economic problems. No wonder Paul Voliker says we're screwed. No wonder Soros expects a 30's depression. No wonder Japan's leading economist is predicting economic disaster.

I think you are in denial.

And BTW, you voted 30% chance of depression, but say it is a 1 in 100 event. Explain?

-- a (a@a.a), July 25, 1999.

'a':

You'll notice that Volcker, Soros and the Japanese economists (I'll take your word on them) are not using y2k as a factor in their predictions -- they're looking at an overheated market. I could counter by pointing out that in his most recent testimony, Greenspan predicted a 0.5% decrease in real GDP growth next year. Y2k isn't on any of their radar screens. Greenspan (who without question understands y2k bugs) predicted 2.0 to 2.5% real GDP growth in calendar 2000.

As for the 1-in-100 at 20%, you're making what I regard as another logical error. Yes, for convenience you divided your logarithmic scale into 5 divisions, for the purpose of giving divisions labels and roughly equating them to well-known visions of the future. But you should recognize that the entire scale is huge and nuanced. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination consist of five distinct, internally homogenous divisions. You have simply drawn 5 lines through a continuum.

For this reason, I spoke of "technical" depression. I was trying to find a shorthand way to say that "depression" encompasses a very wide range of economic misery. The scale you presented simply lacked the granularity to allow anyone to distinguish between a mild depression (N consecutive quarters of real GDP decrease) and a major depression short of the Milne boundary. Lots of territory in there. And I see a 1 in 5 chance of edging just into a mild depression. 1 in 100 of a severe depression lasting a decade.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 1999.

Flint, excuse my french, but you are a damn fool. Do you really think Greenspan can or even would speak his mind? Do you really, really now flint, think that "y2k is not on Alan Greenspan's radar"? Greenspan the ex mainframer COBOLer? Greenspan the "99% ain't good enough"? If so, you are either A) as slimy as Milne says you are B) as dumb as Milne says you are or C) all of the above.

Flint you seem to think we have just dreamt all this stuff up, that y2k is now AOK and that Wall Street is due another bull market. And if any bad times occur, everyone in the world is just gonna come out of their houses and sing "Wa Who, Wa Who" like those poor little Poo's after the Grinch stole their Christmas.

There were 5 divisions in the poll Flint because, in case you haven't noticed, there is a very very wide range of opinion on the severity of y2k. But the scale was somewhat specific: Depression at least at bad as the 30's (that was a 10-year'er Flint). Folks that expected a depression worse than that were free to weight their "Collapse" estimate accordingly, which is one reason why I gave Collapse 20%.

I do not think you are not being intellectually honest Flint. I think you have decided that a positive outlook will change the future. You may be right. And I honestly hope you are. I know I pray every night that I will be wrong. But your opinion on the odds of a BITR, which you put at 30%, are quite frankly, asinine.

-- a (a@a.a), July 25, 1999.

You make my day every day Flint - you are truly priceless!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), July 26, 1999.

Quick thought,

Think you might want to consider that most 2-income families are so over-leveraged now with credit card debt, that the first response to a markedly deteriorating job situation (layoffs, etc.) is probably BANKRUPTCY. (And the ripples of enough people and companies doing that have decided economic downturn impact).

In some cases people may lose homes and have to bunk up with friends or families. We may see the inadvertent demise of the nuclear family as a result, and a larger group sharing of group needs. Sort of tribe-like activities. One is the child watcher, another cooks, and others grow food in strip land, others take in washing, others do hauling and odd jobs... etc. Not unlike what many immigrant families do now.

What, perhaps, some dont consider, is collective response to crisis situations, after the initial panic phase for *some* not all. It the rebuilding phase.

Return to the lessons learned during WWII... mostly, people learned to do without, and focus on the basics, because there was a common cause. Somehow, IF things trigger into a global depression, perhaps worse than the 1930s scenario, we may all find our common cause. How people ultimately respond in their communities will determine if the they sink or swim, and this time around, I suspect its going to become a collective experience rather than individual and isolated.

Just cant help feeling like were all about to be tested to see what were made of... globally. (As the world limps).

And discover whats important individually and locally.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 26, 1999.

I can't qualify it ,but I remember haering that in the 50's it took 60% of one mans income to make the bills,and now it takes 80% of two

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 26, 1999.