Government incompadense? (aka $1200 hammers) Any explinations? When the bunker was built, I got serious about a food storage program. How was this y2k thing so mis-read by those with more resoarces and inside information than myself??(please excuse spelling)

-- Alex (felix@hotbot.com), March 06, 2000

Answers

Damn good question Alex. You should also include the UN, World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve, the US Congress, every corporation in this world, every government in this world, etc., etc., who collectively decided/approved/sponsored the needless expenditure of one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000)

(Surely our star poster Flint will take a shot at it)

Take care.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), March 06, 2000.

It was this stakes-vs-risk thing.

I will not excuse your spelling: Word spell-check serves to compensate for your right-brainedness: use it. Absent that, Webster's.

Short answer really, truly is: there were just way too many variables to 'pah' the whole situation.

Most did 'pah'... a few did not. Those who understand inter- relationships of systems were (myself included) far more concerned than those who have no comprehension as to the mechanics of modern information exchange. We were also scorchingly mistaken, thank God.

Course, a lot of entities blasted erstwhile capital expenditures into the Y2K budget, and hurrah for them.

Think like this: your daughter goes out on a date with an boy you don't know. More than likely, you'll be worrying about the worst- case situation that might envelop.

If you don't worry about worst-case, then you're an 'optimist'.

(The really, really short answer: all the optimists are PC weenies!!)

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 06, 2000.

Did you ever wonder just where ALL THOSE BEANS CAME FROM?

I mean, you have 300#. I have a more modest supply--but certainly enough to last my lifetime. Everyone I know and a whole lot of people on TB 2000 stocked up on beans.

What were we thinking? Precious metals--phooey. Bean futures a year and a half ago.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), March 06, 2000.

Incompetence

No Alex, in my humble opinion, our government is only slightly incompetent. $50 million dollars to them is like a buck and a half to most of us. It's chicken feed and nothing to worry about.

Why did they build it? I asked that question at my city meeting in January and the response I received was that they HAD to because lawyers demanded that everyone CYA.

Furthermore, the plans for such an undertaking starts years in advance. By the time everyone knew y2k was a non-event I think the bunker was built and we were sitting here thinking that was proof the world would end.

The government ain't the bad guy; ignorance, inability to communicate information quickly, and our inability to understand that information had us preparing to the max.

Let's be honest and place blame where it should be. NOT on the government.

nite, nite!

~*~

-- laura (Ladylogic@......), March 06, 2000.

Oh my God, LL is Al Gore.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 06, 2000.

Well well, if it ain't "trillion dollar" George. Of course, as the final accounting has started coming in, it appears that total global remediation expenses had an *upper limit* of about $200 billion. The trillion figure was an early estimate that, even then, included legal settlements as far and away the largest part. And those didn't happen and won't happen, because there's nothing to sue about.

Also, it now appears that *at least* half of that 200 billion wasn't pure remediation expense, but rather went for long-overdue upgrades of both hardware and software. Even these "y2k bunkers" stand to serve their primary function in cases of very bad weather.

Nonetheless, in retrospect a great deal of money was spent unnecessarily, for various reasons. The most convincing reasons I've heard are (1) Uncertainty as to the outcome, almost entirely due to legal CYA policies in effect everywhere; (2) Dire predictions by a handful of noted experts; and (3) An enormous PR campaign by almost everyone to head off any undue public concern. Yes, some people read "PR" and can't help thinking "lies". But getting the truth out is just as expensive (and with hindsight, that's what the PR was). And "being prepared" is at least partially good PR.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 06, 2000.

China  China  China

That is the short of it Some get it... others don't.

-- Watching (Y@Y.com), March 06, 2000.

(Chuckle)

No, lisa. I don't have any political affiliation. I just hang loose and check everything out.

Since I'm a-political, so I can go anywhere, and ask anything.

~*~

-- laura (ladylogic@.....), March 06, 2000.

Like Lisa said, it's the risk versus the stakes.

Our utility spent about $40,000 on a command center to monitor the rollover. This was mostly manpower and additional equipment since we've had a command center for a long time due to earthquakes, fires, floods....the usual California disasters.

We believed the probability of ANY disruption was less than 1% but not zero. If there were problems, the effect on society would be great. Since the stakes were high, even though the risks were low, it made sense to take some prudent precautions. The same holds true for us as individuals - the only point of dispute is the meaning of "prudent".

Flint is also correct about some Y2K costs spent on upgrades that weren't really Y2K related. I know several people, for example, with nice 19" flat screen monitors that justified the cost as Y2K.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.

THN gvmnt IS SPSD t tk care af EVPbdyp, so thy hve to BE PRCPARD FOR EVrthyng!@ But PPL shldnth wry, bCPRSU the GVMTN WIL do it FOR SU!~!!! DNT WRY. DONT FLL UP YR GS TNK!@ (wt til it CRAHES.) AND DONT TK Yr MNTY OT OF THP BNK!@!!

-- RGHTN O!@ (master@bait.xx), March 07, 2000.

Re: why the bunkers and such, here's an interesting analogy from a survivalist website.

Mind Experiment- US Government discovers a major earthquake(or some other devastating info) is going to hit CA (8+ on the Richter scale) in the next 72 hrs. What do they do? Tell everyone on the 6 o'clock news and cause a major panic resulting in deaths,looting and general mayhem(not to mention slim re- election chances)OR just evacuate vital personnel and equipment? What do they do? Think about it. If the answer doesn't please you, start preparations.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 07, 2000.

Hey, I gripe and birtch about the government all the time, but I' m with LL on this one. "Let's be honest and place the blame where it should be. NOT on the government."

Had I done what the government advised, I would have prepared for three days or two weeks max. I would not have spent most of last year shopping for stuff, and then shuffling and dealing with it, and rooting around in the basement like a nut-case mole. And I won't even get into $$$ pissed off on stuff we don't need, and the stock market fiasco!!! LL could you please make a little graphic, maybe dollars with wings flying out the window, to illustrate my chagrin.

Totally brainwashed by a malevolent MEME, old TBK doomers, some IT gurus and my own insecure, goofiness--just call me Ms. FUD please. Gawwwd, I hate being wrong. But when I am wrong, I admit it to anyone who will stand still for five seconds: I wear sack cloth and ashes, I moan, lament, wring my hands, sling snot, and beg to be shot. That had rather a poetic ring to, don't you think?

And Lisa, I *will* excuse anyone for such a minor offenses as spelling. After my colossal blunder, and the even greater blunders of you IT people, which you graciously admitted, I feel we shouldn't criticize any poor soul for spelling, typing or grammar.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 07, 2000.

Just last nite, I listened to a tape that was very enlightening.....the speaker said the government really wasn't worried a bout Y2K. The reason it spent so many billions on upgrading their computer network and helping so many other countries with theirs, was part of a massive plan to integrate the world's computers as part of the plan to make everything global. To facilitate the NWO contolling the globe. It does make sense, in retrospect. Kinda chilling, right?

-- Jo Ann (MaJo@Michiana.com), March 07, 2000.

Gawwwd Jo Ann, don't tell me that!!! Do you mean to tell me I have been part of the globalization of the WTO, NWO, the Bilderbergs, Toondis and the rape of the enviornment, by our evil government.

Naah!! I don't believe a word of it. If so they have to prove it. I'm not believing another word of any doomsters on tape, on TV, on the NET, even if it's written in chem-trails in the sky. Flint, LL, Paul, Decker, Hoff say it ain't so. Fool me once you're a fool. Fool me twice, I'm a fool. Ms. FUD is deprogrammed!

Ms. FUD no more!

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 07, 2000.

"they HAD to because lawyers demanded that everyone CYA"

Y2K was a liability issue - companies and governments took direction from lawyers about "worst case scenarios". Most technical people laughed at the concept of command centers, but by this time, TPTB were not listening to them.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), March 07, 2000.

Y2k Pro,

While most technical people may have laughed at command bunkers, we didn't find it to funny to have to work them.

-- (Donna@here.now), March 07, 2000.

See this link for the answer to your question.

-- DooDaa (nonews@doodaa.net), March 07, 2000.

TTMHMIY2K gives a pretty good explanation of the .gov's, etc.

Off topic of this post, but rereading that article I think shows clearly why Jonathon Latimer was banned by EY, something I had yet to completely figure out.

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), March 07, 2000.

--LL --you got it right on --Lisa @ wherever -- do you really have to be so ____ ? jEESH --Ma Kettle --OR just evacuate vital personnel and equipment? What do they do? Think about it. If the answer doesn't please you, start preparations.

that is different that CYOA in a bunker because?

--gilda -- you go girl. Couldn't agree with you more. Instead of convincing me to the contrary, the spiracy BS'rs are just getting more pathetic in their tactics. I agree, honesty is the best policy. It only hurts to tell the truth once. Better'n try to cover it up with BS and wondered just what it was that you said "before". FUD never again here too!

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), March 07, 2000.

Doomer stomper, what on earth are you typing about? What is FUD? and what's wrong with conspiracy? Are those hemmorhoids bothering you again?

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 07, 2000.

That 'not excusing typos' was tongue-in-cheek.

Good God I want a 21" FP monitor.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 07, 2000.

FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Ma, people use those three concepts to manipulate us. It's a marketing ploy that's been used forever, and will continue to be.

It's important to teach your children that most FUD is irrational.

#

-- laura (lady@.....), March 07, 2000.

Don't think they're the only small collective group of idiots---they got elected into office, didn't they? Jeez, I'm testy today myself. Forgot the metamucil yesterday and I'm all stove up.

No, really I think they've got the atrophied prefrontal lobe that kritter (I think) was posting about on another thread.

Basically, folks, I agree that it's not the government's fault, and I don't think they were sure about anything. I think I remember an article about Sen.Bennett who admitted that he had some barrels of water stored, however he does live in Utah and I'd do the same, Y2k or not. I think this whole thing was a wake up call. Fend for yourself, take care of your own, TPTB, or the government, the various experts, can't do it. They'd like everyone to believe that they can, what a great power trip to have so many willing dependents! As I recall,the Defense dept did have "some" problems with the communications satellites, and if someone had wanted to get a shot off or cause mayhem, in my opinion, that sounds like it could've been the most opportune time and the official "three days worth of preps for a snowstorm...etc," would've meant crap.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 07, 2000.

Lisa -- sorry, I didn't catch the "cheek" first go round :-) My apologies!

MA -- the problem with MOST conspiracies/tall tales is, they are THEORY and the usual alterior motives are lurking in the minds of the theorists.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), March 07, 2000.

if someone had wanted to get a shot off or cause mayhem, in my opinion, that sounds like it could've been the most opportune time and the official "three days worth of preps for a snowstorm...etc," would've meant crap.

There you go MA - there's the crux. You CAN prepare for a storm, but preparing to be the only suriving members of society in chaos is POINTLESS.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), March 07, 2000.

My dearest, uncensored Flint, star poster of ANY forum:

Y2K was/is still a trillion dollar problem yet to be solved. No solid, sustainable, unified theory of Y2K has yet been proposed and agreed upon, even by pollies.

The trillion dollar breakdown is:

(1) Y2K litigation costs are still Y2K costs, whichever way we slice them. Even if lawsuits are against consultants, IT vendors, etc., on the basis of having induced unnecessary Y2K remediation (gaining force everywhere, worldwide), it's still a Y2K cost, you can't get away from it. Furthermore, litigation costs have yet to show their truly ugly heads, both ways. That means that pending litigation could be for Y2K non-remediation or non-performance as well as Y2K unnecessary/excessive remediation. Let's not forget either the 90-day forced "truce" imposed by Y2K legislation. When litigation figures are finally known (maybe months or years from now) the one trillion figure could actually turn out to be short.

(2) Kappelman, Caper Jones and others agree that US spending was above $200 billion. Considering that 75% of world code was/is outside the US, that accounts for several hundred billion more. And, in the event that others did/spend little/nothing elsewhere in the world, it's still a multi-billion dollar problemo, as that spending wasn't needed apparently, even in those places that did it. And don't try to tell me that Italy, Russia and Germany arenot IT rich countries. Actually, banks, insurance, social security everywhere are date dependant (think India, China, Brazil, Paraguay, etc.) and the date bug should have attacked them as well, right?

(3) Because of the sheer importance of Y2K, TPTB, plus every corporation in the world, every major industry in the world and, consequently every plant and SMB factory in the world, took the wise and mandatory decision to shutdown for 2-3 days minimum, many 4 days (Dec.30-31 thru Jan 3-4), a truly unprecedented event. Furthermore, powering up wasn't easy, and certainly not cheap. Out of spec production, lost production in still mills, refineries, etc., means low productivity, lost revenue, etc., etc. All of the above means at least 0.5% of worldwide GDP, probably much more. That's also several hundred billion dollars worth.

(4) Obviously enough, TPTB , including the CIA, the FBI, the US Congress, the Federal Reserve, every bank and insurance company in the world, every government in the world and, of course, the White House, did NOT think that Y2K would be (a) "benign" and (b) not pervasive, which you Flint have always been so sure of, despite the fact that you prepped up as much as you possibly could. So TPTB sponsored/supported multi-billion dollar spending, worldwide.

(5) Now if you were correct Flint, this means that (a) every single one of worlwide PTB were wrong in their assessment capacity and in their decision making process or (b) Y2K was a one trillion dollar hoax sponsored and supported by them. Either (a) and/or (b) would mean that we are all in the hands of an unreliable bunch of two-bit pricks that shouldn't be respected or believed, let alone followed, and that you Flint have been basically right all along and have thus revealed to the whole world the largest, best-kept, most expensive conspiracy in the history of mankind. In that case, if proven true, congratulations Flint.

I still think it's too early to affirm such thing simply because we do not yet know the etilogy not the epidemiology of Y2K, just like we didn't know it about AIDS in 1980 and all sorts of silly, damaging theories were set loose by seemingly competent, trustworthy medical doctors which confused the AIDS problem down to painful depths.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), March 07, 2000.

End center.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), March 07, 2000.

Thanks for cleaning up my lousy html, Deb.

;+

-- laura (Lady@......), March 07, 2000.

LL,

Not a problem, was a very easy problem to correct (especially with my limited HTML).

All,

Personally, I don't have a problem with the gov't (or anyone else for that matter) having spent money on Y2K preps/remediation. I was glad to see the dust "shaken off" of renewable energy resources and self- sufficiency skills. I consider it a "shoring up" of our nation's most critical infrastructure - our resiliency, which sooner or later, will be tested.

Also consider, that with all of the remediation that was done, I'm sure that more than a few people learned more about computers than they had before. If we're going to stay competitive, then we must understand the playing field better than any other nation. Perhaps Y2K really was a blessing in disguise...

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), March 07, 2000.

Doomerstomper, the three days prep mantra was inaccurate info from the government ANYWAY. And in the event of TSHittingTF, we would have had been own our own with our minds and wills anyway, and with some preps,too-- if we had'em, not just what we could store. It is pointless to endlessly store goods with no way to renew supplies, but it's not pointless to plan to store some, if survival is at stake. Yeah, if your lucky enough to be DRT or DOA, preps would've been pointless, but no one plans for that. And survival isn't pointless, no matter how small. My point is, no one was sure about anything as fas as I know. Maybe the IT experts? Yeah, right. So people made contingencies, even the Government. Is that pointless? Not to me, not to the ones who felt they needed to because they didn't have enough information or couldn't comprehend the technical data. So you pays your money and takes your chances once you realize that you're already in the game. And I am not griping about the outcome, no matter what I bet.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 07, 2000.

MA -- I agree, reasonablepreps are invaluable. But if a nuke goes off, or there is chemical warfare, or the country runs out of oil for an extended period of time....

You just can't get caught up in living for EVERY scenario that might befall civilization. Chances are you'd have a bunker at home and be at work in the city when the nuke went off. Chemical protection is such a crock. Nobody would know it was activated until they saw ppl dropping like flies and oops - too late!

The gov't has NEVER been there too protect us, provide for us. Why would anyone expect Y2k to be any different?

I hear where you're coming from MA. I just don't see justification that "they" were out to keep us uninformed, because obviously they were'nt.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Paranoia and conspiracy drove ppl to FUD and OVER preparation. That's a fact. "But ifs" are pointless, unless someone is trying to convince themselves that the decisions they made were the correct ones.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), March 07, 2000.

Psshaw, Doomer..!!!(how do you like the new nickname HA!) Sweeping generalizations and judgements about individuals and groups as fact! I'm not qualified to judge the psyche of others, go there if ya wanna but I ain't fool enough to do it. No one will want to read my posts if they think I see things in absolutes, especially when it comes to the behavior and thought processes of the masses. I thought I understood that our collective butts were out there in cyberspace with a big red bullseye painted on it but no one was looking or no one was itching, who's to say? so we didn't get the hosing that many of our global brethren would gladly have unzipped upon us. Doesn't bother me a bit to think of the possible outcomes, makes me realize my vulnerabilities and dependency in that ASSpect (couldn't resist) and doesn't in the least convince me of anything except that we are all fortunate people. How many Doomers have you got left to stomp anyway?

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 08, 2000.

doomstomper, I have to agree with you. I've always thought the conspiracy mentality was just a mind thing. In fact I've always thought that people liked the idea of a conspiracy to kind of add excitement to the ordinariness of daily life.

But having fallen for the "we're ruined if the power goes down," scare, I have gone back to my old fearless self. Never again. This doesn't mean one shouldn't be a little prepared; IMHO, at least for two weeks or a month. But longer than that, there would be so much mayhem that it probably wouldn't matter anyway.

People shouldn't worry so much. Most of what you worry about doesn't happen. It's those things you don't worry about that sneak up and kick your butt.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 08, 2000.

Gilda -- it's called *having a life*. The ones hanging onto doom and gloom just really don't get it.

MA - there really is nothing I can offer you nor you to me. Let's just leave it at that, ok? You're in your ozone and I prefer mine. No offense. Just different strokes.

hey I know a guy named zog that you should hook up with though!

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), March 08, 2000.

LOL,DoomerStomper! Nothing was requested.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 10, 2000.

Dear Ma-

The apropriate response is VERY quietly evac the responsible parties and preposition relief supplies and agencies AS FAR AS POSSIBLE!!!

I mentioned this a number of times, but my bride and I coordinate the First Aid coverage for a one day, 400,000 to 700,000 person partuy on the shore of Lake Erie.

The emergency services management personnel get together every year and ask the same question every year : "WHat if we have a repeat of 1969?" (Severe storm blew in off the Lake on the 4th of July, killing 10 or so and injuring a couple hundred or so.)

Due to the physical layout of Edgewater Park and the lack of places totake cover, the decision EVERY YEAR is to NOT announce the onset of the storm and NOT recomment that peole take cover as the act of trying to take cover will kill MANY more than any storm.

The US Gov't does the same risk:benefit evaluation as we do and it comes up with the same TYPE of response. NO ONE should be surprised.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 10, 2000.