Blurb in local alternative paper; "WHY Y2K?" "The risk that Y2K will pull the plug on Eugene's (OR) electricity is less then the chance the area's power will be knocked out by a major windstorm, according to EWEB, (Local utility), spokesman John Mitchell. " As of August, our system is Y2K ready," he says. Mitchell says he's not encouraging people to buy backup generators because of the computer bug. So why, just a few months away from the year 2000, are EWEB and the city of Eugene running out and spending thousands of dollars on big emergency generators? EWEB's bought several trailer-mounted generators for it's water pumping stations and the city has bought three generators-one stationary unit, one mobile 50 kilowatt unit and one mobile 100 kilowatt unit."

-- Ralph Kramden (and@awaywego.com), September 26, 1999

Answers

Good old Eugene! Nice new Emergency Ordinances too. Thank God at least they don't believe themselves entirely.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 26, 1999.

* * * 19990926 Sunday

*SIGH*

Indeed! City of Detroit Department of Water & Sewerage representative announced last Thursday evening they have spent some ~ $60,000,000 on Y2K efforts--~$40,000,000 to PURCHASE(!) ~15 trailer- size emergency generators--11 in set up/staging; the rest to be delivered by December 1--that they estimate could keep them fueled for running for "72 HOURS!" I remember groans from the audience at that "confession."

Gee, I wonder if they have a buy-back arrangement with the vendor if Y2K is ONLY a BITR?!?

Don't forget: These guys (officials) are on the "inside," and have cross-access to infrastructure entities that is not hitting the streets and/or (silent?!) media.

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), September 26, 1999.

So if they have 'inside info' doesn't this mean we only have to worry about a seventy-two hour outage, max?

-- fake name @ (fake@address.fake), September 26, 1999.

Here we go again. Contingency plans once again being regarded as *guarantees* that these contingencies will happen. Only arsonists buy fire insurance, right?

For quite a while, I was convinced that nobody here understood the basic concept of insurance, as protection against a high-impact, but *LOW* probability event.

But now I think I see what's really happening. You *start* with the conviction that all hell will break loose. THEN you interpret what everyone does, no matter WHAT it is, as PROOF of the future. If a city lacks backup generators, they've got their heads in the sand, so y2k is sure to be bad. However, if they DO get generators, this is ALSO proof that y2k will be bad, why else would they do it?

Can't anyone here see that if you interpret what others do as proof of your foregone conclusions, no matter what they do, then you aren't collecting evidence at all? You're all like a bunch of lawyers, claiming your client is innocent on the grounds that all the evidence against him is no more than a simple reflection of desperation on the part of the opposition. Yes, posting this stuff here where the jury consists solely of his friends and family will garner applause. But in the real world, this is ludicrous.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.

Flint,

I think the point is not that the cities of Eugene or Detroit buying generators proves anything. The point, to me, is that they consider this a prudent (and necessary) contingency plan, while JQP is being generally advised that such personal contingencies are foolish, at best, and irresponsibly fanatic at worst.

Also, it seemed apparent to me that Robert M was implying that 72 hours of back-up power is an inadequate contingency for the City of Detroit. Do you disagree with that point?

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 26, 1999.

RUOK:

Yes, I think that they should have had those generators all along, just in case. Without them, in the words of Dick Mills, they were dancing too close to the edge.

I really haven't seen any direct advice that people do nothing. I haven't seen any campaign to get people to prepare, but NOT telling people to do something is a very different thing from telling people NOT to do something. Just because I haven't told you not to place your hand on a hot stove, doesn't mean I've told you to grab that burner! From what I've seen, the government has not taken an active role here, one way or the other. Defining a passive role as an active negative role is simply incorrect.

As for the 72 hours, this is probably sufficient, given that workarounds for y2k-induced power outages (various kinds of "hotwiring") can be implemented quick and dirty. Given the physical details involved, it would fall FAR short of sufficient if it were need to circumvent a billion problem (say), but it seems adequate. MOST y2k-induced generation/distribution problems, from all available evidence, seem possible to overcome within 24 hours. At least, that's my interpretation of the problems with control systems, SCADA, monitoring glitches, and the like (which is what we've found).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.

Common now! Since when was 2/3's of a budget to "fix" a problem ever spent on the contingency for anticipated failure? Gimme a break. You don't spend 20 million bucks to fix something and 40 million bucks on a fallback plan because you "think" you are okay. These guys know that there is a problem and the real plan is the contingency plan.

This is so laughable that I feel like crying.

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Y2KOK.ORG), September 26, 1999.

Uncle Bob:

Just for the record, a contingency is a *possible* problem, not by any stretch an *anticipated* problem.

And if you saw how budgets are actually put together, you'd cry. Your argument is excellent *if* government spends our money wisely. Sadly, this is rarely true. In many case (such as this one), quite the contrary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.

Well, there you go again Flint with your predictions. You don't really know if these contingency plans are a smart move or not. We'll all find out soon enough though.

-- Flint's still a psychic (noone@nowhere.com), September 26, 1999.

Ah Folks- - - - - -Mr. Flint HAPPENS to be correct on this one. the city of Detroit, in buying the generators, has found a neat, expedient way to write off the generators it needed to come into compliance with EPA regs for water/water treatment plants.

AND, as an ADDED benefit, it has also gotten a workable contingency plan to cover the greatest likelihood problems (something in the neighborhood of 98.5 to 99% of the available outcomes) which is ALL you can ask of a city.

Now, do I believe it is enough? As a third-wave Doombrood (tm) card holder, I have my doubts. BUT there is NO WAY I can ask ANYONE OTHER THAN ME to cover the furthest probabilities.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 26, 1999.

Flint,

I have heard the advice not to prepare. Above all, don't take any money out of the bank. After all, if we change any of out buying habits, we will cause shortages. Right?

Now what does that say about the advertising industry? They must be subversives.

-- SkeptiCal (dontbelievum@all.not), September 26, 1999.

SkeptiCal:

Yes, the banking situation is classic game theory. Assume first that y2k is no big deal. In that case if everyone leaves their money in the bank, everyone wins. If a very few people withdraw, this is normal and everyone wins. If everyone (or too many) try to withdraw, then a very few get their money, but *everyone* loses, *including* those who got their money out first. I've said before that I'd rather be broke in a world with a working banking system, then sitting on a big pile of cash (or even gold) in a world where that system collapses.

And if you assume that banks are so hosed that there's no hope of their survival due to sheer buggy software, then it really won't make any long term difference whether you got a wad of cash out in time or not. If the system collapses for ANY reason, I hope you like grinding poverty.

So here we have a case where people acting sensibly as individuals, are all shooting one another in the foot as a public. A tragedy of the commons, where acting in your own self-interest narrowly defined, is acting directly *against* your self-interest from the big picture perspective.

So advising people to withdraw their money (I'm guilty of this too, by the way) ONLY works if the vast majority of people ignore you. If too many listen, you and they will be hurting as well.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.

Flint: I disagree that those who take their money out first will be part of the "everyone" who loses in a bank run. If you have a pot full of money and most other people have only a few dollars, and the banks are down for an extended period, some of them permanently, then you will be a very rich man indeed. If you suspect that a bank run is likely, the only sensible thing to do is to be first in line, or better yet, be there the day before and get your money in cash. Personally, I strongly suspect the mother of all bank runs is coming at us.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 27, 1999.

Flint -

Since neither of us is an expert in all things, let's take a look at what some experts have said in the very recent past... some comments from a reports follow

For educational /research purposes only:

1. PREVENTION OF ALL Y2K FAILURES WAS NEVER POSSIBLE:

1.1 "Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES."

1.2 ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIBLE OR CONTROLLABLE

1.3 INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING.

1.4 COMPLEXITY KILLS.

2.1 THERE IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN BUYERS, SELLERS AND USERS OF TECHNOLOGY. Computer products themselves have only clocks that have dates in them. Application software products usually offer optional ways of handling dates. The customer/user organizations, especially larger, older ones, have created much of their application software in-house. When new products are introduced into the buying organization, the customer/user usually has vast amounts of data already in place that have date formats and meaning already established. These formats and meanings cannot be changed as a practical matter. The majority of, and the longest-lasting, potential system problems lay in application software and the data they process, not in clock functions. (Clock-based failures, those likely to happen early in January 2000, while potentially troublesome, will be for the most part localized and of short duration.) Various service providers can be optionally called in to help plan and apply technology for business purposes. But it is only when these are all merged together and put to actual use that failures can emerge. It is very rare that one of them alone can cause a failure that carries legal consequences.

4.1 Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM

Respectfully,

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Technical Activities Board Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group

Dale W. Way Chairman and Letter Author

Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group Members:

Dr. Arnold S. Berger Dr. Brian Boyle Paula J. Dunne (IEEE Staff) Austin Frakt Dr. Mark P. Haselkorn Vincent E. Henley George Hurlburt Jim Isaak, (Co-chair) Dr. Murray Jennex Thomas John Kevin Lewis James A. Lott, Jr. Mary Lou Padgett Paul R. Seesing Mary Ward-Callan (IEEE Staff)

Contact:

Paula J. Dunne Sr. Administrator, TAB Committee Operations TAB Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group IEEE Technical Activities Department 445 Hoes Lane Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 USA (732) 562-3919 voice (732) 981-1769 Fax Email: p.dunne@ieee.org

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), September 27, 1999.

Flint: I've said before that I'd rather be broke in a world with a working banking system, then sitting on a big pile of cash (or even gold) in a world where that system collapses.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Could you explain the logic of this statement a bit further?

To me, this is kind of like the old 1960's counterculture motto: "Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope."

-- Nom (nomd@plu.me), September 27, 1999.

>>the banking situation is classic game theory. Assume first that y2k is no big deal. In that case if everyone leaves their money in the bank, everyone wins.<<

Are there not TWO possible outcomes for the event "everyone leaves their money in the bank" in a game theory model? 1)everyone wins;2)everyone loses? No sarcasm here. Correct me if I'm remembering it incorrectly.

Fond remembrances of studying such 'games'.

Zero Sum Games

An Ethic Based On The Prisoners' Dilemma

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 27, 1999.

Flint is "Mister Smoke And Mirrors". He says that Y2K will be a bump in the road, but thinks there is nothing wrong with governments spending big bucks for prep stuff that would make Gary North drool, since its only for "contingency". Yet, if someone says, "I think that I will buy a year's worth of freeze dried food as a contingency", Flint immediately discourages it, says there is no Y2K related reason to do so. Yet, Flint himself admits to having loads of stored food, his money is outside of the banking system, etc., etc.

Lets see now, what was the title of this thread? Lets make Flint example #3655.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 27, 1999.

Nom:

As the proud owner of every Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers comic Gilbert Shelton ever wrote, I'm delighted to see that quote. I've always wondered whether I should regret being violently allergic to marijuana.

As for my statement, I'll do my best to explain. But I suspect it's like the Harley motto, that if you have to ask, you'll never understand (just to exchange mottoes here).

It *ought* to be clear that the banking system is the lifeblood of the economy. Except for very local, personal and limited exchanges, barter is simply not workable. The banking system underlies the division of labor that makes our lives comfortable and our standard of living high. So the myopic belief that you'll remain "rich" if you have a big pile of cash or gold while banking collapses for some long period of time, is like believing that if you have a whole lot of BIG batteries all topped off, you'll be comfortable if power goes out for a long time. It's not so. Kind of like "hiding" your gold by throwing it way up in the air. An excellent hiding place, but for a very short time [grin].

Yes, for a limited time, before there's nothing left to buy at all, your cash/gold reserves may enable you to buy what's left while others cannot. And within a few weeks, there will be nothing left to buy to speak of. You won't be employed, since your employer can't pay you without banking, and can't produce products/services without banking, and neither can their customers or suppliers. The economy grinds to a halt. You can forget about things like heat and light (no power), or fresh food you don't grow yourself, or medical help if you should need it, or decent clothing. You know, stuff like that, which we take for granted because the economy keeps making them.

I would *much* rather those things continued to be made and provided, even if I'm temporarily broke and can't afford them. Because I'll find some job soon enough, however menial, and be able to buy a little even worst case. To me, this is a lot better than sitting like King Midas on a stack of gold nobody has anything to exchange for, hoping it will rain soon so my food will grow and I won't starve, just exactly like all the people around me (who are still alive, of course) who didn't take any money out but who ALSO wouldn't have anything to buy with it if they had.

So to summarize: We live in, and rely on, a smoothly functioning economy. Money is an abstract means of interacting with that economy, without intrinsic value, and so has no value outside of that economic frame of reference. Cash or gold without an economy is without value, like giving Aristotle a TV set. Those who claim they'll be "rich" if they get their "money" out of the system first, are assuming there will be something to DO with that money. Without a working banking system, this assumption will soon prove false.

KOS:

Despite a near-encyclopedic effort, I still haven't expressed myself clearly enough for you. I'll keep trying until I get it right.

1) I've said the BITR scenario is most probable from my reading of everything I've seen. I didn't say (or I've tried not to say) that this is guaranteed. It's unlikely that you'll roll snake eyes too, but not guaranteed that you won't.

2) Considering the stakes, I consider a mild recession (1991 level) as a bump in the road.

3) I have only encouraged preparation, I've called it prudent and sensible hundreds of times. I've encouraged preparation every time I've mentioned it. I've never discouraged it. So your statement is simply false. Once again for the record (sigh), I encourage everyone to do what I've done.

(And I'd like to ask why you make such a statement in contradiction to all I've written. Surely you know better by now)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 27, 1999.

Flint-

I thought it was

"Friends will get you through times of no dope better then dope will get you through times of no friends"

??

-- Sam (Gunmkr52@aol.com), September 27, 1999.

....Flint violently allergic to weed....... I understand now.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 27, 1999.

>> I've said before that I'd rather be broke in a world with a working banking system, then sitting on a big pile of cash (or even gold) in a world where that system collapses. <<

True enough. But these are simply two unrelated possibilities in a much larger set. Mentioning only these two makes them seem like alternatives, which they are not.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 27, 1999.

* * * 19990927 Monday

Flint the Psych-ot-ic wrote:

"It *ought* to be clear that the banking system is the lifeblood of the economy. Except for very local, personal and limited exchanges, barter is simply not workable."

Flint knows not of what he speaks...

For informational purposes only:

In 1984 I developed a computerized system for a barter exchange client (in Michigan)--essentially a credit/debit units tracking system. This barter exchange company had been in business for 3 years, and doing quite well--millions of units/year and several thousands of businesses participating! ( Client specifications called for 2-digit year fields throughout! Shu-d-d-der... )

Seems bartering--local and long distance--is "workable" and was/is(?) doing quite well!

[ BTW: This, then, quickly emerging ( un-taxed ) "underground" barter exchange industry economy was nailed by the IRS in 1985! One of the last "enhancements" I made to the system--at considerable cost to the client--was to implement a new sub-system for NEW federal tax code specifications! ]

Newbies: Flint's crystal ball is always clouded from banging up against those hard surfaces all day creating the sparks and smoke!

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Robert:

What you did was monetarize a barter system! A computerized system of debits and credits is money, by commonly understood definition. Because we need money, and barter doesn't work. Which is WHY you monetarized it. Doh!

If you (or anyone using your software) charged a fee for this service, you were a banker by commonly understood definition.

As Brian points out, there's a whole spectrum between our banking system and a pure barter system. And your system was well over onto the money and banking side. You have confused what you chose to CALL your system, with how it WORKED.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 27, 1999.

Flint, if you did not encapsulate what you want to say with layers and layers of verbosity, maybe people could actually get the points that you are trying to make. Anyway, I am glad that you favor and encourage personal preparation.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 27, 1999.