Is there a case for BITR?

Coming down to the wire, I am sure all of us doomers have been rolling around the possibilities in our minds: BITR or TEOTWAWKI?

One of the most maddening things is the fact that if Y2K is a BITR, we will never hear the end of it from the pollys. If TEOTWAWKI comes our way, we wont have the opportunity to say I told ya so to any pollys except in our immediate vicinity. At that, we may have to wave a Mossberg 500 in their faces as the only valid form of communication.

But I digress

Weve all read the arguments for various levels of disruption: insignificant, recession, depression, Mad Max, and every definable level in between. Doomers and pollys (pollies??) tend to gravitate to the opposite ends of that spectrum. I am no different, although I would welcome things working out opposite to my view, a claim the pollys cant make.

My thoughts are that the two extremes are the only two possible outcomes.

I work in the electric motor industry. Electric motors are a mature technology, that is, no late breaking innovations to speak of. There are rigid laws of physics that govern the ratios of wire to magnetic materials, RPM to horsepower, etc. No one can break this set of laws. However, you CAN take things to the hairy edge so to speak. You can design a motor that is right on the edge of magnetic field saturation, so that any variation in any physical spec will cause a significant failure. Aerospace motors are like this, due to weight constraints in aircraft. The designs are right on the physical limits. In some cases, a bug gets jammed in the vent and the slightly reduced airflow will cause a hotspot on the frame and a consequential long term failure.

On the other end of the spectrum, a nuclear 1E motor for reactor air circulation is designed for maximum life. You dont have weight constraints, so you throw extra everything in, choosing to sacrifice materials efficiency for reliability. (Believe me, theyre built better than tanks.) The cooling fans are 3 times larger than they have to be. There is so much magnetic material, and frame surface, you have to run them for four hours under full load to reach a stable terminal temperature. Lots of room for error in materials and design parameters.

The parallels with our economy should be obvious. There are so many parameters close to the edge of design: debt ratios, JIT inventories, capitalization, transportation links, interconnectivity of all the pieces. And information flow. Manufacturing is the information business. It is the act of encoding information into materials. If the information flow stops, the design limits will be stressed to breaking. Quickly.

The longshoreman situation in Hawaii is but a sample of what can happen. We are like high wire daredevils without nets, and the wire gets higher all the time. The result is pretty much binary in nature. If you fall, you die. If you stay up, the most that will happen is a few bruises to your calves and thighs from hugging the wire with your legs, but youre AOK. The spiders web of a net provided by Government cannot catch or brake us enough to make a difference.

Someone is going to thump the wire pretty soon. Either we recover really, really quick with no noticeable effects, or we plummet down an ever rising height. I cannot envision a BITR, since we know there will be significant disruptions, if nothing else from foreign supply sources.

I know its not as eloquent as the devolutionary spiral laid out by Infomagic, but we all describe things in our own terms.

Comments? Flames? Calling of names?

MFU

-- Man From Uncle 1999 (mfu1999@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999

Answers

The best case that I can make for a BITR scenario is that two things need to happen:

1) It will turn out that the fact that "the code is broken" really is not that much of a hardship, and probably never was. Examples of where Y2K-like problems have had a major impact will turn out to be outliers, not the normal case.

2) People can be creative, and necessity is the mother of invention. So, when problems come up, the people closest to them manage to get done what needs to be done with minimal impact to society as a whole.

That is the best case that I can make. I don't believe either has a snowball's chance in July of making it through the reality of 2000. And I sure am not betting my life on it.

70 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), October 22, 1999.

Y2K has made an impact already. Private firms and public agencies have spent literally billions on remediation and/or replacement of IT systems.

Let's use the example of a hurricane. The Weather Channel uses nifty colors to project the more and less likely paths of a hurricane. As the hurricane moves closer to land, the "band" of prediction narrows. Eventually, landfill can be predicted with some degree of accuracy.

Until mid 1998, the predictions on Y2K varied wildly. As the event moved closer, the "band" of predictions began to narrow. As we passed critical dates in 1999, the projections of a modest, but manageable, impact became mainstream.

As Hoff correctly observes, 1999 has witnessed incredible replacement and upgrade efforts. Given the phenomenal rate of work, we have seen relatively few software problems. Again, credit to Hoff, the replacement of a system is far more likely to cause errors... and these errors are far more difficult to locate than "date processing" errors. Let me translate this into mechanical terms... if you change the spark plugs on your car and a problem occurs, chances are the problem has something to do with "the plugs." If you buy a new car and have a problem, you must consider far more than the spark plugs.

Using the logic of the pessimists, the work underway should have made 1999 a real mess. After all, we are working these "interconnected" systems in a "just-in-time" environment where there is little margin for error. We have plodded on... perhaps the systems are more robust than the pessimists think.

As we consider the emergin data, the predictions for Y2K narrow. (Unless you are Gary North or Paul Milne.) Few people believe Y2K will have zero impact. Few people (though several on this forum) believe the impact will exceed that of ANY event in modern history. Personally, I think the impacts will be felt, but within the range of known experiences, i.e. economic recession.

The "bump in the road" is another rhetorical tool used by the (love this nickname) "GI's." Y2K has already been more than a bump in the road... it's been too expensive and involved too many person-hours of labor. Y2K has been on the cover of national magazines... it has even made the modern TV highwater mark of "60 Minutes."

The "polar" view of Y2K outcomes is simply foolish. (Sorry, MFU) It reflects the binary thinking of the Y2K pessimists. As a person who works with motors, you should understand the concept of efficiency. Y2K problems cause a loss of efficiency. In rare cases, efficiency can be reduced to zero (off). Never can efficiency be perfect (on). The world of the computer programmer does not reflect the world of commerce and industry. As Y2K causes problems, there will be reductions in efficiency. For the record, computer (and human) problems cause reductions in efficiency every day.

How low can our economic efficiency drop and still provide basic infrastructure...? Well, we survived the Great Depression with a government making huge policy mistakes that exacerbated the problem. Our economy is self-adjusting. Working Americans are committed to solving the problem. I always wonder if the pessimists think people will bolt and run at the first sign of trouble? I don't think so.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 22, 1999.

Ken,

That was great. I agree with much of what you wrote up until the last paragraph. Well, that reference to a BITR being a rhetorical tool of the "GI's" isn't really true. It is the optimists who argue that Y2k will be a "bump in the road".

Your last paragraph is where I have problems.

"How low can our economic efficiency drop and still provide basic infrastructure...? Well, we survived the Great Depression

True, though not everyone survived the Great Depression. And, the division of labor in today's "modern" world is very different, isn't it? At that time, people lived closer to the land. That isn't the case now. We will survive Y2k too, but if serious disruptions occur then it will take a massive shift and serious "downsizing" in the population levels on the planet before a working balance is achieved.

...with a government making huge policy mistakes that exacerbated the problem...

This has been the case thusfar with the current leaders of the world and it'll be the same after Y2k. It really will be up to the individual to use their own mental and physical resources to make due. I agree, no one should count on policy makers to provide for their family. The question is how and what TPTB will do to exacerbate the problems caused by Y2k disruptions.

Our economy is self-adjusting.

You're the economist so I defer to your expertise. Personally, with all the government intervention and manipulation in the economy these days I can't see how this is true.

Working Americans are committed to solving the problem.

Absolutely. But, given the scope of the problem, and the fact that it will take not just working Americans but a work force around the globe to solve Y2k problems and disruptions. Obviously, we import a whole lot of goods from overseas and many components used to manufacture products within this country are included in those imports. It's the time of adjustment that could be exceptionally difficult.

Also, what events helped us get out of the Great Depression? Will events, similar in nature but more ominous in force and evil, be required to pull us out of the next depression?

I always wonder if the pessimists think people will bolt and run at the first sign of trouble? I don't think so.

Yep, I agree. Not everyone will bolt. Some will die, others will starve. Some will flee and others will stay and help fix the problems. It's that darn adjustment time before the balance is reached that really worries me.

No doubt about it. New technologies will be born. New solutions will be found. Perhaps a whole new age will come into being, some day.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your response.

Mike

==========================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 22, 1999.

***

***A LOT OF PEOPLE DID NOT SURVIVE THE GREAT DEPRESSION***

I wanted to bring that point up, just in case someone might believe that it was totally survivable. Many people died here in the U.S. and elswhere.

***

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 22, 1999.

Kenny,

Have you ever read Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath?

Have you ever been to a Turkish prison?

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

***A LOT OF PEOPLE DID NOT SURVIVE THE GREAT DEPRESSION***

I wanted to bring that point up, just in case someone might believe that it was totally survivable. Many people died here in the U.S. and elswhere.

LOL. Many people died yesterday too. I hear it happens quite often.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), October 22, 1999.

Kenny sez: "1999 has witnessed INCREDIBLE replacement and upgrade efforts. Given the PHENOMENAL rate of work, we have seen relatively few software problems."

Here's one for you: "2000 will witness ASTOUNDING system failures."

-- Mr. Superlative (Infomagic@is.right), October 22, 1999.

>> LOL. Many people died yesterday too. I hear it happens quite often. <<

Yes. But the particular deaths Michael was speaking of were direct consequences of the depression. If you have not read your history, I would identify three major causes for economic-related deaths in the depression:

1) Starvation and opportunistic diseases coupled with malnourishment.

2) Suicides caused by mental depression consequent to the loss of social position.

3) Predation (murder) among the homeless. These murders were spectacularly under-reported by the police at the time. So many derelicts crowded the roads and hobo jungles that the crimes were never even acknowledged. Too much trouble for too little result.

All these economic-related causes of death existed yeaterday, too. But I'll bet you a dollar to a dime that the deaths-per-thousand from these causes were more than triple during the 30s what they were yesterday.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 22, 1999.

LOL! Oh no, not the old "no problems in 1999 = no problems in 2000" polly spiel again! (I think Hoffy must have developed a contagious, infectious meme that is STILL making it's way through the forum.)

OK, one last time:

"Y2K - It's the Year 2000, Stupid!"

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 22, 1999.

In response:

Mike,

By American standards, the Great Depression was a difficult time. We did not, however, suffer famine, pestilence or other Biblical plagues. The division of labor was somewhat different, but by the 1930s America had moved beyond its agrarian economy. Rural America has always lived "closer to the land," but in the 1930s, the typical American did not live on "Walton's Mountain."

During the past half century, third world countries have suffered far worse than America during the depression. If there are Y2K problems, loss of life is likely to center on the LDCs who depend on the first world for basic needs. Remember, America is a net exporter of food, medicine and other "core" goods.

As proven throughout history, survival is most often a group effort. Individual preparations are secondary to the ability of the community to function. Imagine, Mike, if the local doctor decides to hide in his (or her) bunker rather than treat injuries. What happens if the public workers who operate water and sewer decide to stay home? What our police, fire and emergency medical personnel?

What I'd like to hear from the pessimists... a commitment to keep doing their job, even if things get a bit rough. To some extent, we depend on people "manning their stations." How about it, Mike? Are you staying at your post, or staying at home?

On to the economy, it is difficult (and expensive) to manipulate the economy. Contrary to what conspiracy theorists think, government usually get walloped when then lean against the market. Cartels are inherently untstable... there's always an incentive to cheat. Markets generally function fairly well and there is a great deal of redundancy in a competitive economy.

As to your last comment, I disagree with the content and the principle. It is wrong to suggest those who work to fix Y2K problems are likely to die or starve. Personally, I think the people who hide in bunkers waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting are cowards.

You sound like a Vietnam-ear war protestor, Mike, chattering about the "stupid" soldiers. You really think Y2K is going to bring some new Age of Aquarius? Do you think the utility workers who'll be risking their lives to keep power flowing are fools? How about the emergency services workers? Do they love their families any less than you?

Please.

If I remember your writings, Mike, you are a Christian. Perhaps you can point to the Biblical verse about saving your own backside first and foremost. Just curious.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 22, 1999.

If it turns out BITR Kosky gets a bonus.

-- pat on back (more@than.that), October 22, 1999.

Thanks Ken. I think you may have misunderstood some of my points.

Brian was right on in his understanding and articulate, as usual, in stating the points I eluded to regarding deaths during the depression. By American standards, the Great Depression was a difficult time. We did not, however, suffer famine, pestilence or other Biblical plagues.

I didn't say a catastrophe of biblical proportions would occur. Where did this come from? However, there was famine and pestilence during that time. Did you forget about the Dust Bowl?

The division of labor was somewhat different, but by the 1930s America had moved beyond its agrarian economy. Rural America has always lived "closer to the land," but in the 1930s, the typical American did not live on "Walton's Mountain."

Ken, this statement seems to be reaching for facts that don't exist. In the 1930's there were family farms, local produce growers, smaller cities and populations. People DID live closer to the land. There were no Ralphs, Luckys, Safeways. Huge supermarkets didn't exist. There were local markets that received goods from local farmers and there were meat markets instead of huge slaughter houses that provide prepackaged meat which is delivered to the markets in refrigerated trucks. Consider interdependency now and then contrast that with then. Consider population levels and city sizes now compared to then.

You state that "rural" America has always lived closer to the land but even city dwellers lived closer to the land back then, Ken. When my mother was growing up in L.A., during the depression, the a vast portion of the L.A. basin was farm and dairy land. In the area where I grew up in L.A. (only 20-30 years ago) we used to have local farms, local dairy cows along with a diary, etc. Have you visited L.A. lately? What about any of the 100 largest cities in the country?

We've moved so far from being an agrarian society that famine and pestilence today could not only kill many here but many around the world. We're exceptionally productive compared to the 1930's in both time and resources and if there were a diminishing of that capacity and productivity that means a lot of people here and abroad would starve.

During the past half century, third world countries have suffered far worse than America during the depression. If there are Y2K problems, loss of life is likely to center on the LDCs who depend on the first world for basic needs. Remember, America is a net exporter of food, medicine and other "core" goods.

Ah, Ken, I think you touched upon something here. If America, as a "net exporter", exists as such but operating in a diminished capacity, then what will our world look like? What will life be like here? Are you stating that even though people in the Third World suffer they continue to survive and so will we under similar conditions? I'm not following your point of view.

As proven throughout history, survival is most often a group effort. Individual preparations are secondary to the ability of the community to function. Imagine, Mike, if the local doctor decides to hide in his (or her) bunker rather than treat injuries. What happens if the public workers who operate water and sewer decide to stay home? What our police, fire and emergency medical personnel?

I agree. But, this has been my position all along. We wont know until we know, huh?

What I'd like to hear from the pessimists... a commitment to keep doing their job, even if things get a bit rough. To some extent, we depend on people "manning their stations." How about it, Mike? Are you staying at your post, or staying at home?

It depends Ken. I wont jeapordize the health and welfare of my family because I feel a noble desire to man my station and stay at my post. Perhaps, once their safety is assured, I will. In all honesty, my goal, as a graphic designer, is to actually grow out of the difficult times ahead. Seriously, I've already decided that because I could not get my extended family to prepare for possible problems ahead I will stay here and stick it out. I will be "manning my post." But, my idea of where I should be at that time is very different from what you might expect of me, perhaps. I'm exceptionally comfortable in the decisions I've made and sleeping well at night.

On to the economy, it is difficult (and expensive) to manipulate the economy. Contrary to what conspiracy theorists think, government usually get walloped when then lean against the market. Cartels are inherently untstable... there's always an incentive to cheat. Markets generally function fairly well and there is a great deal of redundancy in a competitive economy.

whoakay.

As to your last comment, I disagree with the content and the principle. It is wrong to suggest those who work to fix Y2K problems are likely to die or starve. Personally, I think the people who hide in bunkers waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting are cowards.

Nope, I never said nor even suggested that people working to fix Y2k problems are likely to die or starve. I'm saying that people who have no control over the situation are likely to die and starve in the meantime. Reread what I wrote. As for people waiting in bunkers being cowards, I suggest you treat each as individual cases. Laying a blanket of cowardice over all those who act in this way is thoughtless. There are some who feel it necessary to protect their families above all else. This is an instinctive reaction which leads to something known as survival.

You sound like a Vietnam-ear war protestor, Mike, chattering about the "stupid" soldiers. You really think Y2K is going to bring some new Age of Aquarius? Do you think the utility workers who'll be risking their lives to keep power flowing are fools? How about the emergency services workers? Do they love their families any less than you? Please.

You've got to work on those comprehension skills, Ken. Seriously, before you make off-the-cuff remarks you should actually read a statement. Age of Aquarius? Ken, that whole paragraph is completely off what the sentiment of my statement was.

If I remember your writings, Mike, you are a Christian. Perhaps you can point to the Biblical verse about saving your own backside first and foremost. Just curious.

Sorry, you've got me confused with someone else. I don't believe that Y2k is related to biblical prophecy and I've never stated that during the time I've posted here. Hopi prophecy? Well, that's a different story.

As for my saving my backside first and formost? You really don't know me. I've managed a few selfless acts in my life that scared my wife half to death, before my son arrived, to help people I don't even know. My priorities are different now because of him. However, this didn't stop me from running toward the burning home of my neighbor two weeks ago. If you really knew me, Ken, you'd have a difficult time writing such things.

Anyway, thanks for the res

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 22, 1999.

Kenny has forgotten his manners yet again, Mike. Rest easy. He'll be in Montana saving his own a** and (laughing) at the poor suckers that didn't 'simplify' their lives, while you stick it out in L.A. and help people. (Laughing) at you.

-- Hypocrisy (Decker@by.any.other.name), October 22, 1999.

Sorry, Mike, if I misunderstood the tone of your article. I stand by most of my original response.

If you do not predict an apocryphal Y2K problem... just don't tell the serious pessimists on the forum. They often react poorly.

I agree that agriculture has become larger in scale. We have fewer farmers and ranchers producing far more crops and meat. There still are local farms, Mike. I see them on my way to work every day.

While large supermarkets did not exist, the choice of goods was much smaller. I have to wonder... do we really need 300 types of salad dressing? With advances in refrigeration, goods can be transported and kept much longer.

You may prefer a more distributed agriculture system, however, you will have to pay higher prices. Since most people want low prices, we have larger ag operations with greater efficiencies of scale. Is this type of system more susceptible to disruption? Probably. But prove that Y2K will actually cause enough problem to significantly disrupt AND keep the system functioning at a low enough efficiency to actually starve people.

If Y2K does cause serious problems, people will focus the tremendous productive capacity of our nation into meeting critical needs. Personally, I am unconvinced Y2K will cause this type of disruption.

As to my point on LDCs, it is simple. The poor suffer the most now. They will suffer the most from any Y2K disruptions. Americans will not miss a single Big Mac to save starving Ethiopians. Tragic, but true.

Here's my point on the bunker mentality... and pardon me if I become a little agitated. The poor guy on the utility line probably has a family. He's out there putting his ass on the line for many families. It's not that different than serving in the military. I did my time for Uncle Sam, Mike, and I have seen heroes. The men and women just call it "doing my job." Because they are willing to sacrifice, we all breath free air. The police, fire fighters, emergency personnel... these folks will being "doing the job" on rollover. Their willingness to step up will save lives.

I read the serious pessimists... and the attitude is self-centered. "I am going to protect MY family." Well, Mike, unless someone is willing to leave their family for all of our sake, we are truly doomed. Personally, Mike, I've made my choice. I changed jobs several weeks ago. To my surprise, my New Year's Eve will be spent in a small Y2K response center.

Like you, Mike, I have a choice. It is the same choice I faced in the military. I can stand and serve... or I can take care of myself. In some cases, those options are mutually exclusive. If we are going in harm's way, the choice for me is simple.

There is a mantle of responsibility handed to each generation. A proud line of men and women have accepted the price of freedom, of peace, of hope. When Jefferson talked about the Tree of Liberty, he meant the blood of sacrifice. You are right to correct me. Not everyone who stays home is a coward. There are good men and women who decide not to step forward. You may well be one of them.

Again, I apologize.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 22, 1999.

Mike & Hypocrisy: Kenny has no manners, no real world experience, and (from previous posts) apparently thinks he can "buy" his way along throughout the "recession" he is predicting. When unemployment reaches 20%, kenny will be (he hopes) purchasing land and goods from those who fail to prepare. It is clear, from this and other posts, that he thinks he can buy his way into the good life...after all there were those who did VERY well in the great depression, if they had the cash. He's an opportunistic jerk, not worthy of your time and effort in response. Buzz words and platitudes....all worthless occupiers of your attention.

-- lurker (lurker@beenherelongtime.com), October 22, 1999.

Get out the deep waders!!!! Kenny is going to "sacrifice" himself for the common good!!! Tell us kenny, are you going to go to the back of the line at your bank(at the "run") in this grand example of your self-sacrifice??? It's getting deep folks!... the Decker who claimed that we are in for a simple "Recession" is suddenly talking about his sacrifice wherein he "stands and serves"!!! What a laugh!!! Methinks its getting a little nervous out there now... I predict kenny will disappear (post-wise) in approximately 30 days.

-- joe (joe6pack@here&now.com), October 22, 1999.

I think it was KoS who put it so eloquently, "Pollies are stupid."

-- gmh (gmh222222@aol.com), October 23, 1999.

Ah, the usual bottom feeders. Obviously, you haven't written my many posts to this point. I have no need purchase land... I have some already. Unemployment will not reach 20%. If I lose my job, I have other skills included some blue collar trades. Unlike some of the serious pessimists, I'm not overly concerned about saving my own skin.

Here's a prediction, Joe. At least one utility worker will be killed by some idiot plugging a generator into a home wiring system. Chances are, the utility worker will leave behind a wife and kids. That, pal, is sacrifice.

All I'm doing is trying to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I'm not going to hide in some banker because we MIGHT have a few computer problems. If we have some problems, I'll be on the job... and so will a number of good people. If you pull your face out of your beer glass, you might recognize these folks. Of course, you sound like one of those guys who's always bitching while somebody else does the work.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 23, 1999.

"I'm not going to hide in some banker"

Kenny slips and reveals his secret plans, despite himself.

-- Sigmund (CIgar@is.just.a.cigar), October 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker

Keep up the intelligent, level headed posts. I enjoy reading something besides the drivel posted by most of the doomers, who can only name call and act like idiots.

Your posts are appreciated.

-- (AlongTime@reader.com), October 23, 1999.

Thanks... I should read for typos, but I average at least one or two a post. While it is no excuse, I have some damage in my right hand that makes typing more challenging. When I make a Freudian slip, I'll tell you.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 23, 1999.

Hey Kenny! This is from "catfish Joe", the bottom dweller! You stated: "The police,fire fighters, emergency personnel...these folks will [sic] being 'doing the job' on rollover. Their willingness to step up will save lives." You have consistently stated that there will be very few, if any problems on "rollover". NOW, you expect that rollover will endanger lives???? Do you expect that just a "FEW" computer problems might result in a threat to your well-being or riot problems in the cities?? What's up?????? Are you verging on DOOMER status??? Worried about "oil to fork" at this late date? (I'll bet that your pantry is stuffed FULL, FULL, FULL!!!)P.S. Self-analysis can result in COMPLETE self-deception! You need professional help. This is free advice: If you don't overcome your outrageous sense of superiority very soon....it will not serve you very well in the next decade. No one likes a smart-ass; even if they are smart in some limited areas(as you might be).....grow up kenny. The first step might be to admit that you really don't know everything about every subject. Comprende??

-- catfish joe (joe6pack@here&now.com), October 23, 1999.