There are 2 kinds of Y2K doomers (leave nuke war, etc. aside for now): mild (2 - 5) and hardcore (6 - 10). Let's leave the supporting analyses for each type aside for the moment and focus on the realistic "prescriptions" for practical action that each can offer. The doomer prescriptions are necessarily simple, since no doomer can know every listener's/reader's individual situation. I'm assuming charitably that Pollies and Doomers alike agree on the necessity for some basic emergency supplies in every home for all purposes. I'm going to boil the Y2K-specific prescriptions down to an ultimate gist, suppressing all kinds of details and shading that would arise in implementation.

Mild Doomer Prescription: Get out of the stock market.
Hardcore Doomer Prescription: Move to an isolated rural location and prepare for a life of subsistence agriculture.

We are all now wondering which side is correct, Y2k Pollies or Doomers. I suggest that, regardless of what physical manifestations take place, the real answer to 'which is right' can be simply determined by the answer to the following question, which I call the "Doomer Diagnostic Question for Y2K Consequences". It is psychological in nature, as it should be, since our attitude toward events is more important than the events themselves.

The DDQYC is as follows:

In July 2000, will over 50% of the American population wish they had followed either or both dooomer prescriptions (above), before end-of-year 1999 ?

That's it. Simple. I'm assuming most of the US population has heard these messages in some form. We could exclude those who never heard them, and use the remainder as the test population. By using this test, we can avoid endless pointless agruments and flames, tossing failure statistics around, etc. Sure, if y2k leaves nothing but smoking ruins, we can't practically conduct the test, probably can't anyway, but I submit that this is the logically perfect diagnostic.

I remain, as a poster here once wrote "prepped to the gills, and armed to the teeth", but cautiously optimistic.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), October 11, 1999

Answers

off

How can you factor in someone like me. I moved to a rural area, where the food and fuel is. I prepped to the gills and armed to the hilt. My "extra" cash is in gold and silver in a bank box (till December).

Yet, I am having a son or daughter in April 2000. I recently started a new internet business. Also, I'm retiring from my career in December and expect to get my check. It's still a ways off, but I expect to get the social security, too!

You may be surprised at how large a percentage of the population is "quitely" preparing for contingencies at both ends of the spectrum.

They have already been taught not to mention it in public, so as to avoid ridicule. I now believe even those that ridicule are preparing, to include the most staunch pollys.

-- IKnow (Im@ready.now), October 11, 1999.

If I'm a 2-5 I am prepared, if I'm a 6-10, I'm prepared...NEXT...

-- NEXT (NEXT@NEXTTTT.xcom), October 11, 1999.

Yes.

-- seraphima (seraphima@aol.com), October 11, 1999.

"Our attitude toward events is more important than the events themselves." Does that mean if I am shot but have a good attitude about it I will be better off then if I am shot and have a bad attitude about it? Does my attitude affect the fact that I am dead? Being shot would be an event to me. But I don't understand how my attitude will relate to the fact that I am dead. Y2K will be what ever it is and my attitude will affect me if I live through it. But I don't think my will have any impact on the importance of the event of Y2K.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), October 11, 1999.

Ah, Count...(pardon me, but I must,...my kids were Sesame Street babies from the early days....."(Transylvanian accent voiceover: Do you know Vy they call me the Count?...because I LAVE to count THINGS...ock, ock, ock, ock....One Doomer, Two Doomers....Three LOVELY Doomers!!! ock, ock ock)...okay,...all better now.

In two separate grad psych courses we were required to construct a questionnaire/survey as part of learning to 'research'. What most of the students realized as assignments were completed was how difficult it was to construct a valid survey/questionnaire, get a large enough sample,...and how easy it was to slant questions to elicit specific responses,...sometimes. :-)

You tried your best, Count...you really did. A, for effort. Define your terms in more detail. That might help. You could do the "all of the time, some of the time, rarely, never" thing,.... more questions!

Isn't it amazing what pollsters get paid for all those fragile answers and limited analyses?

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 11, 1999.

COUNT VRONSKY,

Your personal presumptions for framing these two prescriptions are just that, PERSONAL and overly simpilistic.

However, you do understand percentages. Over 50% of the American population will, come July 2000, remember this adage:

'THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE'

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), October 11, 1999.