"Those who want to hush the problem ("Don't talk about it, people will panic", and "We don't know for sure." ) are having three effects. First, they are preventing a more rigorous investigation of the extent of the problem. Second, they are slowing down the awareness of the intensity of the problem as currently understood and the urgency of the need for solutions, given our current assessment of the risks. Third, they are making almost certain a higher degree of ultimate panic, in anger, under conditions of shock"

Douglas Carmicheal

While this issue is an old refrain, it will no doubt surface exponentially in the next few months from hostile finger-pointers as more of the public frequently become more aware of the potentially serious consequences that those in y2k circles have known all along. We've also seen some former y2k alarmists such as Peter De Jager and the Gartner Group jump on the political-correctness bandwagon of doomsayer-bashing and evade the blame and pressure of the Guilt Manipulators who believe that those making Y2K predictions will alone cause the world's economy to collapse.

At the heart of this blame game is the factual existence of a known predictable crisis with a known date. (Though the extent is not known. Because of this unusual predictability, many (including the Author) feel compelled to develop scenarios--economic or otherwise--based on existing evidence and documentation to envision a rough outline of what can be expected in the new millennium. Due to the very negative nature of these forecasts, there is often a knee-jerk reaction from unknowledgeable people to assign a motive, and therefore dismiss and attack those who make them.

Such accusations commonly refer to the profit motive: "It's just a bunch of money-grubbing, exaggerating consultants scaring a gullible public for profit." etc. : If someone is selling a product or service, or involved in an industry that could profit from a disaster, they are automatically suspect. While this cynicism is quite understandable, they often fail to look at credible folk and officials who are making the same assessment and are not at all profiting from Y2K, and in fact have everything to lose! But credibility is a barrier to those seeking the truth about such a negative event. The Author of this site fits into this category. So does Ed Yardeni, Bob Bennett, Chris Dodd just to name a few. For some odd reason people are expected to give away their hard-earned programming skills, time or books for free.

Another routine accusation are those who have religious beliefs and also think Y2K is serious, or tie it to some religious millennialists groups. In reality fundamentalists have mostly ignored Y2K. Few have actually associated themselves with Y2K as they are in denial just like everyone else. Never forget: "Right-wing, gun-toting, militia-survivalists who bible-thump in the woods." Another assertion: Those who do not agree with our current political-socio-economic system and want to see it changed. This may be true of the reason some may be interested in the subject, but those who accuse this group of this "crime" are giving them far too much credit and power in the ability persuade an entire civilization to collapse! The reason people pay attention to these scenarios offered by the "doomsayers" is because it really could be as serious as they say, and they have plenty of ( overwhelming) evidence to support their position!

What the finger-pointers' arguments boil down to is this: Those nasty Doom & Gloomers pointing out and reporting the legitimate risks Y2K inherently poses to society's institutions such as the stock market or the banking system or power-grid are worse than the genuine computer break-downs Y2K threatens.

This argument is made by those who believe there is no objective truth to Y2K: There's nothing wrong with the computers, it's only what people think about it that matters. They believe that since their computer or company is doing well in its repairs, it will all be solved. "The consequences are too severe for then to let it happen"..."It must be solved!" Why? Because "They" say it will. These folks believe that we should be more concerned with "fear management" than dealing with a trivial computer "bug". There are a disturbing number who accept corporate assurances at face value. Such naive optimism often stems from an emotional need to hear good news--news that turns sour when subjected to scrutiny. The seduction of wishful thinking is powerful, but this alone does not repair defective computers.

They also inaccurately assume that the masses of people and officials are hysterical and unintelligible and are blindly following any predictions, abandoning the status quo and completely ignoring reality. This is the myth that an irrational fear will be adopted by an rational public in the face of objective evidence and reality to the contrary. Their arguments necessitate the erroneous implication that Y2K is really only a minor problem, and that the concern we have seen is simply over-reaction fueled by consultants, doom & gloomers and the media. So then we should have a strong evidence to show that it's all a bunch of hype, right? Surely there must be some web site that can effectively give a convincing case to show how y2k is no big problem ? Unfortunately not... The case for real optimism is very slim when scrutinized, as for every positive peice of evidence (PR assurances are not evidence) there have been many more than neutralize it.

The millennium bug is very much an objectively real, and extremely serious problem. Society is frantically attempting to repair its systems by spending billions of dollars (estimated $858 billions world-wide, Cap Gemini ) in conversion projects so computers will recognize the year 2000. The IRS is spending $1 billion, Citigroup Bank is spending $ 930 million, and governments are mobilizing troops and preparing for a possible martial law situation. Why are government and companies doing this when the return on investment is zero or because they think it'll be a "minor glitch" scenario? Why are several hundred thousand normal folk--Doctors, CEO's, programmers, teachers and police officers preparing by storing food and supplies if they figured it was all hype? Are Gary North, Ed Yourdon or Peter De Jager so persuasive in promoting a "hoax" that so much money would be spent, or cause the DoD to prepare, and cause so many governments to call out the National Guard? So why are these entities doing this? They know what's at stake; Their very survival!

Then there is the myth that the media, simply reporting on concerns expressed by Y2K Gurus is fueling a panic. For one thing, there is a difference between well-placed concern and panic. One need only look around and see there is not only no panic, but mass denial and complacency. This is the calm before the storm Also, this assumes that Y2K is not that serious and it is being exaggerated. Very sobering reports reflecting the basic issues about Y2K have been given in every form of mainstream media: television, newspapers, radio. Front-paged stories have been on most papers and magazines including 60 Minutes, Newsweek, Washington Post, CNN, C-Span, Business week, New York Times, etc. They have made very strong cases for serious disruptions in government, trade, banking, electricity and telecommunications which essentially mirror what this and other sites have been saying for the past year or two.

Renowned doomsayer Gary North also appeared on the Art Bell radio show several times since last May which, quite frankly, frightened many of Art's 8-12 million listeners. He openly laid down the fundamental issues about Y2K and even (gasp) talked about the threat of a banking crisis over the air-waves. So what (negatively) happened as a result of that interview? The stock market completely ignored these warnings by going up the next day, and after several more programs (and the fact that it is now all over mainstream press), the market is still near record highs! (as of June 1999), and there sure hasn't been any bank runs! What positively came of it? We have several thousand people responsibly preparing. Has the average person even heard of Gary North? Or Ed Yourdon? Or this web site? Of course not! (Check the counter at the bottom of Menu..That's over a years time) In other words, if simply talking about the problem or the media were to create a panic, it would already have happened!. The vast majority get their y2k information hrom TV and newspapers, not the internet. Besides, if sites like this are causing people to "panic," wouldn't it be because it close to the truth?

However, the manner in which reporters cover Y2K in the months ahead will be determinant in the level of panic we will ultimately witness as it reaches television--the dominant medium. By trivializing the issue, and issuing silly reports focusing on survivalists, armageddon and cabin-in-the-woods sensationalism, a sense of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is created in a public hungry for hard information about a problem to which solutions are urgently needed. Covering it up and giving stories with misleadingly optimistic tones based on isolated successes (then painting it as the rule rather than exception) also breeds a sense of complacency which hampers preparation and will lead to higher degree of panic later on. The productive, logical course of action is serious coverage dealing with the real threats Y2K poses.

Leaders and those in authority will also be partly responsible as well. By telling the public that we should only prepare for "A storm that lasts a couple days" seriously undermines the true magnitude about Y2K. They believe that prepartion leads to panic when in reality it works in an opposite fashion; preparation leads a ready public.

So why hasn't there been a panic and market crash when we continually get surveys saying that 16% or 25% or 31% will withdraw their cash from the bank sometime this year? Because they will "wait to see what happens," They will procrastinate until the last moment. Also, most people don't yet understand that it is real--let alone very serious; it is still abstract background noise. It will stay this way until the last minute. Only a very small minority are doing any meaningful preparations (1%). In other words, the populace are not going to jump the gun and make reactionary decisions based on myth or hysteria, but on the reality-based threat that y2k really is. Y2K is a rational fear.

So will there be a panic late this year? (I'm referring to bank runs, since this seems to be what is meant by 'panic' in y2k discussions) Will it be caused by "reckless speculation made by insane doomsayers?" No... It will begin with actual, large-scale computer failures which cannot be covered up, and will give the signal to those 16-31% waiting on the side-line that there is indeed someting very wrong. Should y2k turn out to be minor, there won't be any panic!

Will such a situation begin in the U.S. where people are aware and people are (rightfully so) fearfull of Y2K? Maybe, maybe not! In fact, it could likely begin in Japan or Germany or Italy where awareness and attention paid to the problem have been negligible and wake up one day to find systems breaking down around them. Since Japan's government and banks are, to a significant degree run by U.S. mainframe computers, which most are non-compliant, they will probably see their systems begin to crash , particularly in their banking system which is already on the brink of collapse. If a massive pullout from markets and banks occurs in that country due to the mistrust of these systems, it will spread around the globe to all financial markets--including the U.S. It will take a while for errors to accumulate, so it may occur later in the year as we get closer to 2000 and anxiety builds, and after computer failures escalate.

Now what would a rational person do if he felt there was a legitimate concern that his savings are at risk in the market and his bank cannot show it is compliant enough to conduct business?...What would you do? This is a rational fear Why bankers are blaming the customer or sites like this rather than the very system itself is odd, but that is precisely what is happening.

Essentially it will be cumulative errors and actual system crashes that will motivate logical individuals to "panic." The problem we will face is the relatively small number of individuals it takes to mess things up when the herd mentality takes over. In fact, you could probably say a bank shut-down is inevitable

The self-fulfilling prophecy concept can be safely ignored as a rhetorical device issued by those who themselves are in denial , unable to grasp its systemic nature, and/or those looking for a scapegoat.

FastCounter by LinkExchange
since Jan 25,1999

HOME PAGE: Year 2000 Economics