Ed, I have lifted some of the text from your first three chapters to respond to it. The excerpts are in order from front to back, but I dont list chapter and verse from whence they came. My comments are in brackets.

Would you vote for either of these candidates? For that matter, would you vote for any of the Senators or Congressmen who governed this country in the years immediately prior to Y2K?

[No. Whats more, I believe that each and every one of them should be tried for crimes against the constitution (is that treason?), found guilty, and hanged publicly.]

So what are we talking about here? Revolution? Overthrow of the government? No, probably not. This is not a situation akin to the American Revolution of 1776, when citizen farmers hoisted their pitchforks and muskets to fight against a strong, rich, well-organized monarchy

[Is not the entrenched political system a monarchy? The leader of whichever party it is whose turn is to be president will be president. In a moment of unguarded candor, FDR said, If it happened, we made it happen, or words to that effect. I believe it. The system has been in complete control since 1938.]

Humpty Dumpty Y2K does not assume that Y2K will lead to TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it), nor does it assume that Y2K will be a mere bump in the road. Both of those scenarios -- which represent extreme optimism and extreme pessimism

[I think that our society is so delicately balanced that even a modest disturbance from y2k will result in TEOTWAWKI. Consider, the world as we know it ended in 1929 for those living then; the world as we know it ended in 1941 for those living then; the world as we know it ended in 1963 for those living then  all it takes is an event like a stock market crash, a war, or the death of a president. These are little things, but each has lasting ramifications and changes the world as we know it.]

If banking, as we now know it, is severely crippled, perhaps we should re-examine the concept of fractional reserve banking and fiat money.

[I think that the domino effect that Gary North expounds about guarantees that banking as we know it will be severely wounded, but whether it is or not, we certainly should try to wrest control of the wealth of the country from the bankers. (As an aside, I believe that JFK was killed because, like Lincoln, he intended to issue currency that would not involve debt to the bankers.)]

If power failures disrupt our lives for the first several months of 2000, perhaps we should re-examine the concept of monopoly utility companies and look for ways in which citizens can control their own basic infrastructure services.

[I think this is an excellent idea, but I fear that most people would rather have comfort than the bother of being self-sufficient, or even in control of their own destinies  after all, control implies responsibility, and most have shown that they sure as little green apples dont want that. Nevertheless, I think that the environment should be such that those who do want to control their destinies can do so.]

To accomplish this, we need to look into our own hearts and souls, and re-examine the way we've lived our lives for the past century. In North America, Western Europe, and a few other parts of the world, automation and technology have brought us luxuries and comforts beyond the imagination of our great grandparents; but Y2K may demonstrate to us that there was a heavy price to be paid for those luxuries.

[More likely it will demonstrate that the loss of something once held is considered a greater loss than the loss of never having obtained it in the first place.]

If we suffer a severe Y2K-induced collapse, we may have no alternative but to revert to a simpler, less-automated life -- and we may decide to teach our children that this is not such a bad thing after all. Even if government and industry don't change at all, it's quite possible that Y2K will bring about a profound change in our culture, our values, and our priorities.

[As my father used to say, Thats a consumation devoutly to be wished. (Somehow General MacArthur and the word, recrudescence, come to mind, too.)]

This is, quite arguably, the most important aspect of Y2K, and it will be the first of the key issues we'll examine in Part II of this book.

[Anything that will stir Joe Sixpack off his couch and cause him to become interested in shifting for himself in ways heretofore undreamed of will be good. Complacence is the enemy of freedom, justice, and the American Way( tm )]

A doomer, on the other hand, is characterized as someone who believes that the consequences of Y2K will be so horrific as to cause TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it).

[Again, I dont think it will take much to drive us to TEOTWAWKI, we need simply depress the clutch and we will coast there.]

Similarly, I've lumped levels 7, 8, and 9 into a super-category that I'll refer to as a serious crisis, somewhat along the lines of the Great Depression. The scenarios in Table 1 for the economy, the business situation, the infrastructure, the social culture, and the government speak for themselves. What's particularly significant about these scenarios is the time-frame, ranging from 2 years in level-7 to 5+ years in level-9. By contrast, the scenarios presented in levels 0-5 are presumed to last for 6 months or less, which is not long enough to cause any major changes in American society. While the younger generation of teenagers and adults may have experienced nothing but boom times throughout their lives, most middle-aged adults remember the stock market crash of 1987, the recession of the early 1980s, the energy-related recession of the mid-70s, and perhaps even a few earlier recessions. All of these downturns had their consequences, but they were relatively short-term in nature, and they certainly didn't produce a national response similar to what occurred during the Great Depression. A level 7-9 Y2K crisis, on the other hand, would be severe enough, and long-lasting enough, to cause the same kind of wrenching changes that our grandparents went through in the 1930s.

[I think that the internal domino effects of any of these conditions will result in what amounts to TEOTWAWKI. At the lower numbers, some semblance of order may be maintained, but at the higher numbers it seems likely that there will be civil (revolutionary) war against the draconian efforts put in place by the powers that be while trying to keep their power. But, in either case, what comes out on the other side will be so different from what goes in on this side that it will be in fact TEOTWAWKI.]

[This has gotten very long, and it is getting late. I think I will post this and see what, if any, reaction it evokes. If it seems reasonable so to do, I will continue this effort later.]

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 11, 1999

Answers

George,

Thanks for the long, thoughtful commentary. I'll print it out and read through it later today.

Thanks again for the effort!

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 11, 1999.

George,I sincerely doubt that we will have TEOTWAWKI, but "we can hope!" :-) I, also, believe that the "bankers" have been in control for some time. I, also, doubt that those in control will allow it to be TEOTWAWKI... Do you have any suggestions on how to ensure that we indeed induce TEOTWAWKI, and reduce or eliminate the power of the controllers? Who are the great writers on anarchy, beyond Heinlein, Rand, etc..?

-- Brad Bolz (bradbolz@cableone.net), August 11, 1999.

George, while we are "discussing" politicians, could we include lawyers in general?

I fear that, no matter what type of organization we have, those with more wealth will rule. How else would it evolve? Even communism, supposed to be THE great leveler, only resulted in the growth of a new wealthy and priveleged class.

Most people will expend great effort and go to great lengths to avoid thinking. Strange, but think about those around us. Not just the Y2K issue by any means.

I fear you are correct about the slope to a grim ending. We have lost too much of the old knowledge. Too (far too) many people I talk with literally say they would rather lay down and die rather than struggle against odds if things get rough.

Huh???

We all die. No one is guaranteed anything else. You are born, you work, you struggle, you die.

Now, lest anyone feel I am being a bit grim, there is plenty of room in even the hardest life for moments of fun, of joy, of satisfaction. YOU have to find and make them.

If my satisfaction must come from being able to provide the bare essentials for my family to eat, and it takes all of our time and energy, it is better than the alternatives.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), August 11, 1999.

Fractional Reserve Banking

You and Ed both comment that the Fractional Reserve Banking system is flawed, but I disagree.

The fractional reserve banking system has been responsible for a lot of the economic growth that has occurred since it was instituted. The fractional reserve system allows for the easing of credit to allow us to "build".

You simply need to look at countries where a fractional reserve system doesn't exist and the economics of those countries to understand how rich we truly have become off this system.

In countries without fractional reserve, loans are nearly impossible. Banks become "safe deposit boxes" for the rich.

Noone owns a home until they have the entire amount. Apartments don't get built because there's no capital available to build.

People live in land they squat on or rent, live in shanties, and scrape for crappy worthless jobs. Those in power keep armies of loyal minions just by feeding them and providing basic living conditions.

Do you really want to live in a country where cash is truly king? Where you have to purchase your home in cash? Where no one can afford even a cheap used car and bicycles are the primary mode of transport?

Fractional reserve provides the easy credit we all live on. Take away fractional reserve and we go back to living like people did in 1900 (not something I would be fond of doing).

Glen Austin

-- Glen Austin (gdaustin@aol.com), August 12, 1999.

gdaustin@aol.com wrote: Glen Austin (gdaustin@aol.com) responded to a message you left in the HumptyDumptyY2K bboard:

Subject: Response to Is this the sort of commentary you wanted about your chapters?

Fractional Reserve Banking

You and Ed both comment that the Fractional Reserve Banking system is flawed, but I disagree.

The fractional reserve banking system has been responsible for a lot of the economic growth that has occurred since it was instituted. The fractional reserve system allows for the easing of credit to allow us to "build".

[I will concede that it allows us to build faster than we might be able to without it, but that still does not make it right. It gives the illusion of growth while resting on a foundation of sand. At some point, no matter what people do, the house of cards will fall of its own weight. At that time, all of the "growth" will be erased. Fractional reserve banking is a con game that serves only to make bankers rich, regardless of the illusary benefits to the public at large.]

You simply need to look at countries where a fractional reserve system doesn't exist and the economics of those countries to understand how rich we truly have become off this system.

[I suppose that the fact that our country has (and had) vast natural resources had no bearing on our becoming rich. Also, I contend that had we build somewhat more slowly, but on a solid foundation of true money and honest dealings, that we would ultimately arrive at the same amount of richness without the certainty of its collapsing.]

In countries without fractional reserve, loans are nearly impossible. Banks become "safe deposit boxes" for the rich.

[And wealth is real, not fraudulent(sp?)]

Noone owns a home until they have the entire amount. Apartments don't get built because there's no capital available to build.

[I fail to see how the lack of fractional reserve banking destroys credit. I do see, however, that it increases the amount available, and I do not believe that that is a good thing.]

People live in land they squat on or rent, live in shanties, and scrape for crappy worthless jobs. Those in power keep armies of loyal minions just by feeding them and providing basic living conditions.

Do you really want to live in a country where cash is truly king?

[Yes. at least I want to live in a land where the system is not rigged to favor one class over another.]

Where you have to purchase your home in cash? Where no one can afford even a cheap used car and bicycles are the primary mode of transport?

[That is not solely the function of the banking system.]

Fractional reserve provides the easy credit we all live on. Take away fractional reserve and we go back to living like people did in 1900 (not something I would be fond of doing).

[To go from the corrupt system we have now to a more honest system would be a severe dislocation, but after the pain of that dislocation were over, the ability to go forward would still be there. I believe that the coming y2k awakening will bring down the fractional reserve banking system, and I hope that it does. (You might ask about all the poor folk who will be hurt in the dislocation, and I would reply that that is sad but that I am not the one who set them up for an unavoidable catastrophe, fuss at the greedy bankers.)]

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 18, 1999.