http://www.marketingcomputers.com/issue/aug99/feature2.asp Have you heard the latest Y2K prediction? Out Like A Lamb According to some experts, the projected value of Y2K lawsuits is expected to reach $1 trillion! Golly! You'd expect that every public relations, marketing, communications and investor relations group in every technology company would be busy managing expectations, contacting every high and low-lying customer in their database, working their tails off to get their customers through the critical hours. If nothing else, such good faith effort would help against the torts headed their way at the hands of ambulance chasing lawyers working on behalf of every Joe-six-pack who's still running a non-Y2K compliant version of Quicken 92. And yet, even the threat of $1 trillion has brought little more than a yawn. Most software companies have positioned themselves against Y2K only to tout the event as another reason to buy new software. Take the Oracle site. It spins Y2K as "the perfect time to migrate to the latest Oracle products, with their Y2K compliance and superior technological advances." Or Germany-based SAP AG, whose site includes links to the lunatic fringe of the Y2K controversy. It seems unphased by the coming cataclysm.

"The year 2000 is going to come and go and we need to offer our customers services beyond that," says Steve Rietzke, business development manager of SAP America. In fact, the most fervent positioning is not coming from software firms, but rather from service firms-more specifically, the Y2K service firms, which are rapidly trying to increase their life spans beyond 12/31/99. Ted Kempf of San Jose-based Dataquest's Consulting and Systems Integration program recently surveyed a dozen Y2K-oriented service firms to discover their future plans. All were attempting to grow new service products-mostly in the areas of e-commerce and data warehousing. One reason for the retreat from Y2K is that they discovered the coming apocalypse wasn't the financial windfall they expected. "Every vendor I spoke to said a good portion of the Y2K work was done in-house," he explains, "and they didn't see the demand for external services that others had projected." In fact, Y2K-related services revenues have been so disappointing that "financial analysts have been very unkind to these companies." Far from finding Y2K to be a pot of gold, some firms launched Y2K practices only to abandon them, according to Kempf. The Y2K services business is so bad that some CEOs are congratulating themselves for not jumping in. Jim Lavalee, chairman and CEO of Cotelligent, a San Francisco services contractor employing over 3,500 technical consultants, seems quite happy to have avoided a pitfall. "Back in 1997 when the Y2K clamor began growing in volume, the investor community kept asking, 'Why don't you chase this?'" he chuckles, "Today, the same analysts were saying, 'Aren't you glad you didn't go after the Y2K business?'" The weakness of the Y2K services market, as well as the declining interest among software vendors of Y2K marketing messages, is simply a reaction to the IT/IS community-which simply isn't buying the message that Y2K is a life or death issue. The branding research firm Addison Whitney recently surveyed 1,100 IS managers worldwide from a cross-section of large businesses, industries, and organizations, concerning their future spending plans. The study concluded that "Y2K, while an issue, has diminished in importance," and noted that over 50 percent of companies have postponed all or some Y2K work to implement e-business initiatives, which were considered "simply too critical to the success of the enterprise to be put off." Only 8 percent of IS managers considered Y2K an issue that "kept me awake at night." But the most telling fact emerged when they were asked what they'd be doing on New Year's Eve. Sixty-two percent said they'd be partying; 13 percent would be sleeping; 5 percent would be watching TV; 4 percent would be on the Net. Only 12 percent planned to be checking up on possible computer crashes. "What can I say?" says Serge Timacheff, director of corporate communications at Attachmate, the survey's funder. "IT managers don't think that Y2K is all that big a deal." This lack of a sense of urgency about Y2K among vendors and IS runs contrary to many predictions made by leading market research firms. According to testimony presented to the U.S. Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem on October 7, 1998 by Lou Marcoccio of Gartner Group, 1999 was supposed to be marked by "fiscal year system failures," which occur for companies with fiscal years that are ahead of the calendar year. Unfortunately for Marcoccio (but fortunately for everyone else), such problems have failed to materialize. For example, ICL, one of Europe's largest computer support organizations, recently put a monitoring line on its call desk for U.K. customers to determine the frequency of Y2K-related calls. "Because we support legacy systems and software from companies like Microsoft, we expected Y2K-related failures," explains Jane Burns, Year 2000 marketing manager. The number of failures? "None," he says. "We've been watching the help desks, but there's been nothing yet,"-even on such "dangerous days" as 1/1/99 and 4/1/99 (because of new fiscal years), and 4/9/99 (the 99th date of the 99th year, reputed to be a problem for old COBOL programs). The June 30 fiscal year turnover has also proven to be a disappointment to the Y2K doom-mongers. Rather than a horde of systems failures and a resulting drop in stock prices, the Dow Jones average after the July 4 weekend clocked its highest numbers in history. In his expert testimony, Marcoccio predicted that in 1999, "11 percent of vendors [will] default on compliance with their products." This was supposed to create a spate of lawsuits-the first signs of the fabled $1 trillion. In fact, there's actually been very little Y2K lawsuit activity to date, which makes Congress' recent overwhelming passage of a bill to cap punitive damages on Y2K lawsuits look like wasted effort. There are two kinds of potential Y2K lawsuits: contractual and tort. In a contractual lawsuit, the customer sues the vendor under the terms of a pre-existing contract to do Y2K work that otherwise would cost the customer money. Torts deal with damages after the fact, e.g., people suing vendors if somebody is injured in an elevator that fails due to a Y2K bug. While it says little about what torts may pop up, it appears that contractual Y2K lawsuits simply aren't going to be a big-money business, according to attorney Tobey Marzouk of Washington D.C.'s Marzouk & Parry, one of the world's foremost law firms dealing in high technology law and litigation. Marzouk notes that three years ago Y2K litigation was the hot topic at legal conferences, but lately "the level of interest has plummeted," he says. The cases simply aren't holding up in court. "In most cases, the warranty on non-compliant software ran out years ago," Marzouk explains, "and almost all contracts are covered by statutes of limitations." That's been the experience at Mountain View-based Intuit, which, being responsible for Quicken, could be a likely target. "Intuit has a basic philosophy that we do right by our customers," says Intuit spokesman Jeff Larsen, "and we've made every effort to bring all current versions of our software to Y2K compliance." It appears that Intuit has been going beyond the call of duty. Earlier this year, the Santa Clara Superior Court dismissed three Y2K-related lawsuits filed against the company with regard to the Y2K readiness of the online banking functionality of certain versions of Quicken. (The Supreme Court of New York dismissed three similar lawsuits at the end of 1998.) "It's market-driven," says Marzouk. "Vendors are simply giving away their Y2K fixes," which shows more good faith than may be contractually required. But what about the torts? "It's anybody's guess," says Marzouk. "If airplanes fall out of the sky, you'll have litigation." In other words, the legal profession will have a field day if Y2K turns out to be a major disaster. However, it appears less and less likely that that will happen. As a result, many Y2K experts are beginning to back-pedal, distancing themselves from the aggressive predictions they and their colleagues have made. Take, for example, one of the most widely quoted figures-that the cost of fixing the Y2K bug was going to be $300 billion to $600 billion. This figure originally came from the Gartner Group, a Stamford, Conn.-based market research firm. Though the figure has been quoted everywhere from Time to The Wall Street Journal, it now seems highly unlikely that it will ever be reached. "The Gartner Group numbers are pretty much valueless," laughs Howard Adams, director at Gartner competitor GIGA Information Group in Cambridge, Mass. "It's going to be much less than $300 billion." Even Ted Kempf of Dataquest, which is owned by the Gartner Group, is reluctant to defend the numbers. "It's going to be a bit less, but I don't know by how much," he says. As for the Gartner Group itself, despite repeated calls to the company's Y2K analysts-including two calls to Marcoccio's home office-nobody was willing to talk, leaving the impression that the market research firm has lost confidence. Despite gathering evidence to the contrary, there are plenty of Y2K "experts" who continue to predict disasters. For example, Russ Kelly Associates, a systems integration company focusing on Y2K solutions, has kept a running poll of 20-odd self-proclaimed Y2K experts regarding the "seriousness" of Y2K on a scale from zero ("absolutely no concern") to 10 ("major worldwide social, economic and technological disruptions"). The average "expert" opinion, as of this writing, remains in the 8-9 range-despite that no natural disaster, war, economic depression or combination of the above has ever scored higher than five. Hearing those dire predictions, it's hard to keep a sense of perspective, until one considers that polls of Y2K experts are naturally going to be skewed, because Y2K experts have a vested interest in keeping the issue visible. And we're not talking chump change. The Y2K issue has given birth to a number of best-selling books, and there's plenty of money for those in a position to cash in. "A speaker on the Y2K issue can command a fee from $7,500 to as high as $40,000," according to Bob Parsons of the Washington Speakers Bureau. An organization called the Washington D.C. Year 2000 Group sent a questionnaire to 700 email addresses of people who had indicated an interest in Y2K. The survey asked for an estimate of the impact of Y2K within the U.S., on an escalating scale of zero to 10. The survey revealed that an "overwhelming majority of the respondents believe that the United States will experience a significant economic impact from the Year 2000 issue," and that "one-third (34 percent) believe it will at the least result in a strong recession, local social disruptions, and many business bankruptcies." A significant number even believed that Y2K would result in "martial law, the collapse of U.S. government and possible famine." Once again, it's a dire prediction that seems credible-unless you know something about market research. The Year 2000 Group study employed a research methodology known as a "self-selected listener opinion poll"- SLOPs for short. It's a methodology that nobody who does real market research takes seriously. The classic example of a SLOP is the typical mail-in magazine survey. For example, a women's magazine might have a mail-in survey entitled "Have you ever been cheated on?" asking readers to mail in responses. Most responses are naturally going to be from the scorned, because they're the ones likely to care. In the next issue, the magazine publishes the results, which indicate (not surprisingly) that the country is experiencing an epidemic of cheating boyfriends. It sells magazines, but the research is meaningless. In order to have statistical validity, the poll would need to include a broad cross-section of women, none of whom had previously indicated an interest in the issue.

The Washington D.C. Year 2000 Group SLOP is even less scientific than the magazine example. Because the email addresses were from a list of those who had indicated an interest in Y2K, the baseline was pre-selected to favor those who thought Y2K important. Not only that, of 700 surveys, only 230 came back-presumably from people who cared most- thereby creating an additional level of self-selection.

By contrast, the Addison Whitney survey cited earlier in this article simply included Y2K questions in the context of a broader survey, rendering results that are a statistically valid representation of the IT community. Now that early signs of the doomsday scenario have failed to materialize, some Y2K analysts seem to be taking a distinctly less aggressive stance when predicting Y2K disasters. For example, Stephanie Moore, a Y2K analyst at GIGA, has appeared on CNBC Market Wrap, Fox News and numerous radio talk shows to discuss Y2K issues. Moore will be in Australia on December 31, 1999, reporting by satellite on the Y2K problem as it hits that part of the world some 15 hours before it will hit the U.S. Despite this dramatic stunt, Moore is low-key. "I'm not one of the big chicken littles, saying the sky is falling," she says. "I think there will be inconveniences-like no phone service to Africa." One Y2K expert who hasn't changed his tune is Capers Jones, chairman of Software Productivity Research, a consulting firm in Massachusetts. Jones, who frequently testifies as an expert witness in software litigation suits, believes Y2K will, over a 10-year period, cost $3.6 trillion dollars (including hardware, software, litigation, et al.). Jones cites the possibility of major power outages-citing the widely-reported story of a power plant that moved its dates forward to test Y2K and experienced a shutdown. It's a compelling story, one that's proven difficult to verify. The story seems to float around, with the power plant located "somewhere in Ohio," or "in Arizona" or "in the U.K." or even as far away as "in Australia." In fact, it appears that the power test outage story-like many Y2K cautionary yarns-is an urban legend. The mythical nature of the power outage story became clear when Y2K guru Peter DeJager penned an article for Scientific American. He raised the red flag about power outages but was unable to cite a single example of a power plant that had blacked out during a Y2K test. The closest event he could cite was an extensive outage in New Zealand that was caused not by a software problem, but by a severed cable. A strangely sensationalist story for a magazine that "demands extensive fact-checking for every article it publishes," according to the editor at Scientific American who worked on the DeJager piece. It appears that, despite all the hand-wringing, there never was much danger to the power grid. At the San Onofre nuclear power plant-an installation considered among the most complicated in the world -only 2,900 out of 190,000 devices (about 1.5 percent) used computer chips and only a "few hundred" needed replacement. And even if all the Y2K glitches aren't located, it's unlikely that any would cause a major power outage. As John Ballance, manager of power grid dispatch and operations for Southern California Edison told The Los Angeles Times: "The control systems don't care what date it is or what year it is; they are just there for logging purposes." The same article pointed out that less sophisticated power plants, such as those running fossil fuels, are at even less risk. This doesn't keep some self-proclaimed Y2K "experts" from spreading disinformation.

For example, the web site of author Steven Heller features his opinion that Y2K will mean "the end of Western civilization," citing as evidence data on the web site of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (www.nrc.org). However, rather than containing evidence that backs up his claim, the site contains a document dated April 1999, "Nuclear Power Plants on Track for Achieving Y2K Compliance," stating that the "NRC has no indication that Y2K computer-related problems exist with safety -related systems in nuclear power plants. Most commercial nuclear power plants have protection systems that do not rely on computer dates and hence, are not vulnerable to the Y2K 'bug.'" The article states that the audit did "identify problems with non-safety related, but important computer-based applications," but noted that work on these systems would be completed by the autumn of 1999.

In other words, there is some bug fixing to be done, but the problem is less extensive and complicated that originally anticipated.

Other so-called Y2K "facts" are simply lies. For example, on a November 27, 1998 radio broadcast from WDJC, a 100,000 watt FM station in Birmingham, Ala., a self-proclaimed Y2K expert (who was hawking a book) claimed that IBM's Watson Research center was "hunkered down" with its own food supply and power generators.

Another urban legend, says Paul Horn, head of IBM Research. "We do have a small group of people who are helping build tools to find Y2K problems in our code, but it's not a significant piece of what we're doing here," he insists.

Another popular canard is that the world's financial systems are in danger. But, once again, the reality seems quite different. As early as summer of last year, Y2K tests of 29 securities firms and 12 exchanges went smoothly, according John Panchevy, Year 2000 project manager for the Securities Industry Association, the organization that conducted the test. "The financial industry in the United States will be fine," he says.

But what about overseas where, according to alarmists, they're far behind? Not a problem, according to tests of 190 international banks conducted in mid-June. "Everything has gone very well for us so far," according to Gerhard Singer, a vp of Deutsche Bank quoted in the June 14 edition of The South China Morning Post.

The computer trade press is becoming skeptical of the doomsday scenarios being bruited in the popular press. In a study of trade books conducted by Boston-based Press Access, Y2K reporters revealed "concern that much of the news about Y2K has been hyperbole and rumor, and many doom and gloom messages are unfounded." According to the study, editors feel the media, in general, is doing a poor job of "reporting the facts, squelching rumors, staying calm and educating readers." According to the report, editors are finally noticing that many of the information sources, such as companies that sell their Y2K expertise, have an interest in keeping the story alive.

The fact that Y2K reporting is hyperbolic is not say that there won't be some problems. The bug is real, but it appears the frequency of its occurrence, the negative impact when it occurs, and the complexity of fixing the problem, have all been vastly exaggerated. Even Capers Jones admits the problems that have been encountered thus far have been less than spectacular. "It's been accounts that don't balance and some applications that have stopped cold. Mostly they've been localized," he says, adding that a ripple effect "wouldn't be impossible." Anything catastrophic? "No," he admits, disappointment in his voice. Still, Jones insists there would have been at least "$300 billion" in Y2K-related lawsuits, had Congress not passed legislation limiting Y2K litigation. As for the $1 trillion figure, he claims that the number came from Stephanie Moore of GIGA. While Moore admits to using the $1 trillion number in her articles, she insists she got it from-guess where?-Capers Jones. In other words, nobody seems willing to own up to the forecast.

Like so many other Y2K "facts," the $1 trillion appears to be an urban myth-which isn't surprising when you consider that the actual figure is probably too "pat" an estimate to be based upon research. Why not $935,252,785,080? Or for that matter, why not a "zillion" or even a "gazillion?" Like Gartner Group's $300 billion to $600 billion (give or take $300 billion?!), "$1 trillion" has been devised to shock rather than to inform.

Despite mounting evidence that Y2K is unlikely to create major disruptions, either to the computing infrastructure or to society at large, the big numbers and dire forecasts are likely to continue being quoted. Meanwhile, the people who are most concerned-the IS managers and the companies that sell to them-are quietly moving on to bigger and better things. The lackadaisical attitude may be, as Capers Jones puts it, "a state of complete denial" or it may be the result of a healthy perspective on how technology crazes come and go. Let's face it, this won't be the first time that computer industry hype has far outstripped reality, and, to be sure, it probably won't be the last. MC Geoffrey James (www.geoffreyjames.com) is a frequent MC contributor and the author of the cult classic The Tao of Programming (InfoBooks).

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), August 05, 1999

This-heah is a classic case of dueling experts, fit to grace the best court in the land. ANd it'd be moh readable if'n it had a few paragraphs in it. ANY-body who kin git all of that color oughta be able to drop a few paragraphs in....

night train

-- night train (nighttr@in.lane), August 05, 1999.

Things will be much funnier when we all get out at once!

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblcokD), August 05, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

That's the problem with you pollys, you always want someone to do the thinking for you. As I said before, the debate is over. The pollys have won the public mind; the public's heart is still resisting, but losing ground day by day.

We are at the brink of disaster. It's all over but the shouting. I've been around the block on this forum debating various Y2k issues. A huge waste of time. The pollys can't see the forest for the trees. My guess is it's more genetic than environmental. Sort of like trying to teach a monkey to play the violin. Have a nice day.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), August 05, 1999.

Translation:

I can not provide a substantive rebuttal to Cherri's post. I am a Doomer after all...

"People who want to survive Y2K should be prepared to kill."

-- (its@coming.soon), July 27, 1999.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), August 05, 1999.

Don't worry, Doctor, given your writings thus far, I'll pass on having you "think" for me. You could counter the post with solid data, or even reasonable speculation. Alas, tis not to be.

By the way, did you learn about a "stupid" gene in medical school? Or is this based on your own biomedical research? Perhaps you can give the Human Genome Project a call... imagine the possibility of curing human stupidity in our lifetime. Oh, and please share any other traits you think are genetic in origin. Perhaps laziness, low morals, or musical ability? What groups other than "Polly's" have you drawn conclusion about?

Since you have nothing of substance to say about Y2K, perhaps you can dazzle us with eugenics. Or was your comment just more rhetoric?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), August 05, 1999.

Dr Altman,

Paraphrasing then, (and simply based on the general impression your last response gave me) . . faced with Mr Decker's request for you to refute the information in the above post, your considered reply is . .

Well phooey . . why should I have to back up anything I say with something as trifling and conventional as a "counter-argument" ? . I've spent a long time trying to convert people on other fora to my viewpoint, but these darned "pollies" (namely anyone who doesnt agree with me) constantly prove their sad, denialist tendencies by asking me for such trivialities as "facts" and "data".

I'm tired of it. Can't you simply accept the purity of my opinion as you would any other article of faith ? Whats wrong with you people ?

{the next line - had you continued, would I suppose read somthing like . . .}

Can't you see those dark clouds up ahead . . and those swarms of mutant bats . .aauurgh . .see them swarming . . SWARMING . . you mark my words . . some day soon you pollies will regret the day you ignored my wisdom . . (muaaahahahahah !!!)

All very interesting . . but . .respectfully sir, answering the question will always carry far more credibility than this kind of device.

I do not claim to believe every word of the article quoted above, (but then I rarely believe every word of ANYTHING). I am however worldly enough to recognise a hastily-drafted cop-out when I see one, and yours (above) does nothing to bring me (or I suspect anyone else) around to your clear degree of scepticism. Perhaps you'd like to run it by us again.

:)

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), August 05, 1999.

The " overseas problem" doesn't exist, according to the ONE paragraph referring to the 190 banks. So... everything is huncky-dory abroad also... Question: How many banks are out there? Close to 10,000 (ten thousand) right? World foreign debt be any problem? No, no problem. Oil? No problem. Does the US import any? ... Yeah, but ...No problem...Import anything else by the way? Yeah, some... But no problem, no... they'll be allright, eventually, I guess.

Embedded chips anyone??? No, not really a problem. Let's FOF them... (or they'll FOF us maybe? You think? Nooo waaayyyy)

Ho-hum, what a boring thing this Y2K... Wonder why stupid Americans spent, what was it, 300 bbbillion? Or maybe some more? Yeah, Americans always tend to fix what doesn't need any fixing. (Dumb Americans, how did they ever get to be world leaders I wonder? Luck, sheer luck) ... And then there is the State Dept. Report, the US Senate, Report, the CIA Report, The Navy War College Report, but these also are dumb American institutions not worth taking into account...(they are scare-mongers you know) Ooohhh, yeah, Y2K is boring... ho-hummm.....

Let's go have some coffee... YOU IDIOTS !!

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 05, 1999.

LOL! Read the article Cherri posted--carefully. The irony is that in an article that talks about how those who sell Y2K services and products use unscientific polling techniques to make their points, the author of the article makes a similar kind of error himself. Notice this quote which seems to imply that either the world's financial system is already compliant or that it would work even if it wasn't compliant:

http://www.marketingcomputers.com/issue/aug99/feature2.asp

[snip]

Another popular canard is that the world's financial systems are in danger. But, once again, the reality seems quite different. As early as summer of last year, Y2K tests of 29 securities firms and 12 exchanges went smoothly, according John Panchevy, Year 2000 project manager for the Securities Industry Association, the organization that conducted the test. "The financial industry in the United States will be fine," he says.

But what about overseas where, according to alarmists, they're far behind? Not a problem, according to tests of 190 international banks conducted in mid-June. "Everything has gone very well for us so far," according to Gerhard Singer, a vp of Deutsche Bank quoted in the June 14 edition of The South China Morning Post.

[snip]

I know from this link...

http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/22/bank.y2k.idg/index.html

...that there is still work to be done to get financial systems ready internationally. The author of "Out Like a Lamb" is assuming that the tests he mentions are representitive of the international situation, when in fact there is still work to be done--unless of course financial systems would work properly even without Y2K remediation.

There's a moral here somewhere. Those who sell Y2K services and products have a vested interest, and so do corporations and financial institutions whose financial success depends on the confidence of stock holders and depositors.

Don't trust any one source of information about Y2K. Read widely, read carefully and then slowly come to your own assessment of Y2K and how risk adverse you are.

On the other hand...individuals and families being ready for emergencies is always a good idea:

http://www.fema.gov/library/emfdwtr.htm

"Emergency Food and Water Supplies"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 05, 1999.

The problem I have with the entire piece is that it ignores the very real fact that Jan 2000 hasn't arrived, yet....

It ignores the fact that small to medium sized business have done nothing to prepare. It ignores the fact that much of the reporting on govt systems is self-reported with only a small percent IV&V'd. It ignores the fact that there have been slipping deadlines for months. It ignores the fact that agencies have been caught lying red handed. It ignores a very large body of evidence accumulated by various Senate and House committees. It ignores the CIA analysis, it ignores the BIS Contingency Plan, it ignores Washington DC's Contingency Plan.

In fact, it ignores anything which might cause the casual reader to think beyond the thin veneer of logic this author uses when buttressing his basic position of "see I told you, nothing is going to happen".

He points out that experts can be wrong. That might turn into a double edged sword, but we won't know till later, will we?

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), August 05, 1999.

How about counties and cities? Would they run any chance of getting FOFed up?

I wonder, how can people be so ignorant and/or stupid?

Why would the White House spend $45 million in a Y2K bunker just to monitor a Bump in the Road? Same for Japan, etc.

Why would the Fed print so much cash? Japan? U.K.?

I mean debating where, and when, and how Y2K will strike makes sense. Discussing the post-Y2K recovery process also.

But this type of non-sense is absolutely counterproductive at this late stage. There are people, millions, that may just read this thread (or part of it) to make up their minds. Terrible...

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 05, 1999.

George

Millions???

Now really.........

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), August 05, 1999.

I think the analysis overlooks what I shall call the "disenfranchised factor." What % of the population "feels" disenfranchised politically, economically, socially from the current "system?" What % has little to no stake in seeing the current system continue? What % may actually feel that a collapse of the current system in one or more of these areas might place them in a better position or in a position more in alignment with their political or religious ideological beliefs? Wipe out their burdensome debt?

This unknown factor may have a great influence on human perception factors that may accelerate the timing and amplify the impact of public reactions to perceive threats or opportunities from y2k.

It should be noted that optimistic commenters on y2k tend to be those with a stake in continuance of the status quo. Those who feel alienated from the present system may have less to gain from maintaining an even keel and may be more apt to comment or act in such a manner as to rock the boat. (Even if only subconsciously.)

It is said that the middle class strata is shrinking and the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is widening. Perhaps this may have an small impact on the how the public is likely to receive rumors of stock market crashes, bank failures, etc. in the fall.

-- anon (anon@anon.com), August 05, 1999.