 Centennial Precious Metals Gold coins & bullion since 1973 Denver, Colorado 80246-0009 We educate first-time investors! |
for quotes and purchase information.
|
ARCHIVED DISCUSSION FROM 1/2/2000
All times are U.S. Mountain Time
View Yesterday's Discussion.
beesting
(1/2/00; 23:46:03MDT - Msg ID:22096)
See if this news makes the price of Gold rise.
http://abc.net.au:80/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-3jan2000-30.htm
Fire causes $1.5 Million in damage at the Perth (Gold) Mint in Australia.
Mr. Higgins(Firechief)said," it was quite difficult to get into the building because of the tight security. See full story above.
Comment: I hope someone checks those firemens pockets.
Those in the know....buy Gold.....beesting.
Journeyman
(1/2/00; 23:41:12MDT - Msg ID:22095)
Stealing is not immoral? @canimami
The stealing of the gold from "foreigners" in 1971 by the US Gvt. in cahoots with the Federal Reserve by refusing to redeem redeemable notes, specifically redeemable in gold and as specified in the US Constitution was the SECOND biggest robbery in the history of the world. The FIRST biggest heist was pulled off by the FED & USA Corp. in 1933 when the same perps, this time headed by Franklin Delano Rosevelt, similarly stole the gold from its own citizens.
The question is, I guess, since these two events are the two biggest thefts in history, is "Is stealing immoral?" Well is it?
Or do you excuse those organizations calling themselves "government," no matter what they do?
Or is only when YOU are the beneficiary that anything goes?
Regards,
Journeyman
Number Six
(1/2/00; 23:32:00MDT - Msg ID:22094)
The infamous Infomagic speaks...
From csy2k
"I have watched with amusement as the pollies rattled their cages and "jumped the gun", claiming the Y2K rollover is a non-event. As usual, I decline to respond to their insults and choose to speak, instead, directly to those who have chosen the side of caution and preparation in this debate. Perhaps you need a word of encouragement, right now, and a caution not to undo your wise preparations. In fact, increase them if you can.
First remember that this is a _Year_ Two Thousand problem, not just a New Year's Evil, stroke of midnight computer annoyance, as some would have you believe. There are a number of problems, all timed for the year 2000, with which we will have to deal throughout the entire year, and for many years to come (that has been the essential point of all my writings).
I have _always_ said that Y2K is only the trigger, and the real target is "the economy, stupid". The bullseye is bubble.com and the sights have been aligned for and by the God of Ages. Last Friday, at midnight, the trigger was squeezed, but we will have to wait some time before the bullet leaves the barrel, before it strikes the bullseye, and before the target falls down dead.
In ballistic science, this process is called the "lock time" of the weapon and the flight time of the projectile. In the case of my own, personally accurized pistol, with a Colt 1911 "single action" design, the process is as follows:
Starting with a loaded chamber, one either pushes down on the safety (if already cocked), or pulls back the hammer to cock it, or, one racks the slide to both load the chamber and cock the hammer at the same time. Either way, all of these events produce a noticeable sound, especially in the middle of a "social" conversation. This was the preparation event the pollys reacted to in terror and disbelief.
After aligning the sights over the correct target (something done by someone far greater than I) one gradually increases pressure on the trigger until it releases (unexpectedly, if you do it right).
Depending on the weapon, and a certain willingness to place one's ear close to the weapon's action, one can hear the release of the trigger sear, which releases the mainspring, to push against the hammer. In a cheap weapon it sounds like grains of sand, grinding against parts of delicate machinery. In my pistol, with a sear hand-honed to a three and a half pound letoff, all you hear is a very sharp click. In a weapon forged and honed by God I would expect an even sharper, clearer release.
This was the sound the pollys reacted to on new year's eve, when they quite literally "jumped the gun" and assumed nothing had happened. It really hadn't. The gun had not yet gone off. But it will.
After the mainspring is released, there is no audible sound, it just takes time, a relatively long time, for the hammer to strike the firing pin and force it into the primer. This is the longest part of the "lock time" and it's duration is dependent on the mass (inertia) of the hammer and of the firing pin. One can shorten the time by reducing the inertia of the hammer (by cutting parts of it out) or of the firing pin (by using lighter titanium instead of steel). But, as I have found in my experiments, these also reduce the force of the blow passed to the primer. In effect, the reliability of detonation of the primer is reduced. I don't think the One who has planned all this would go for it, especially since His aim is so perfect and He doesn't need to reduce the lock time for accuracy purposes.
In any case we must still wait for the primer to silently detonate and ignite the powder, for the gas pressure to build and push the massive bullet out of the case, and for the bullet to accelerate and twist down the barrel until it finally exits, followed by a visible flash. This part can be accelerated by using faster primers, more powder and/or lighter bullets. Unfortunately, all of these tend to produce greater variations in muzzle velocity and accuracy, reducing the reliability of hitting the target, even with His perfect aim. I don't think the One would go for it.
After this, we must still wait for the bullet's flight to strike the target. And, again, this time can be reduced by using more powder and lighter bullets for greater velocity but, again, the reliability of the shot is reduced (less accuracy and less energy delivered to the target). Again I don't believe the One would go for it.
At roughly this point, we would finally hear the sound waves, recognize the flash and realize the gun has actually been fired, even though the target is not yet dead or even seriously damaged.
I don't believe this point will be reached until about the middle of March. And even then we must wait a whole lot longer to watch the target fall down dead. After all, after the shot of 1929, it took several _years_ for most people to realize they were really living in a "depression".
But we have another problem to keep us from realizing what is happening. Somebody, other than the One, has put a silencer on the gun, just to confuse us. Remember the lies? Remember certain Grabit agencies and Biztwits telling us all their "mission critical" systems were done and even lying about that? Do you really think they've stopped?
On New Year's Evil, right at midnight, a US spy satellite system failed in it's ground component. For a couple of hours, no data was available and, even now, the emergency backup system is still compromised and producing only limited data. As the Commander-in-Chief-in-Name-Only, Komissar Klinton was immediately informed of this (as we know from independent reports). Nevertheless, the next morning he continued to lie his skumbag heart out and insist there had been _no_, _zero_ failures!
This should not surprise us since, by definition. all pollyticians are liars -- whether thay are elected by the sheeple or erected through the Peter principle in "independent" business.
The history of Y2K remediation and early failures has been nothing but one lie after another. Not one single organization has ever told the truth, either about the state of their remediation or the facts of their actual failures. It has taken _months_ for serious failures to become generally known, and that process will inevitably continue. And, as the paid recipients of advertising revenue, the mainstream mediots will be only too happy to go along with the big lie (for the sake of the "children" of course).
The proof of this is in the _lack_ of reports of major failures since the rollover. The reported failure rate is not just lower than I and other "doomers" have predicted, it is lower than even the technically competent _pollys_ have predicted! This defies all logic and any rational technical explanation! The technical debate between doomers and pollys has never been about _whether_ there would be failures, but only about the number and magnitude of the failures and whether or not they could be fixed without entering a chain reaction. To say there have been _no_ significant failures is clearly a lie and the victims are the pollys, not the doomers.
In any case, the rollover failures we have seen so far apply only to a very limited sample of systems and hardly at all to the business systems that Cory Hamasaki, I, and others have always identified as the key to this problem. Except for embedded systems failures causing permanent damage to the physical plant they control, most rapidly detected, obvious failures will also be rapidly repaired, yes, even in a couple of hours (for example the year 19100 failures on Internet web pages). The real problem is the deeply embedded "quiet" failures which don't show themselves for weeks or months and in the meantime continue to generate invalid data which cannot be corrected later, even after the problem has been identified. These are the ones which will break Charlotte's web.
Contrary to Cory's belief, these are not just "enterprise" system failures. They can also apply to small scale users. I spent the New Year at the party of a federal biologist who has been a friend for many years. At home, he has a Packard Bell which I made SURE was compliant by reinstalling the software and personally checking the BIOS time stamp after the rollover. Nevertheless, at work, he uses an early Pentium running under DOS and, sometimes, Windows 3.1. On this machine he stores massive amounts of research data stored with a non-compliant version of dBase for DOS. Like most Grabit employees he has received zero help from any IT support specialists. Say no more. He's part of the 0.01% of the Grabit which Komissar Klinton admits has not been fixed and which I say is really 90% of Grabit computing. But at least his kids will be still able to play the games we gave them for Xmas!
My advice is to wait. Wait for the remaining 90% of business systems to be started on Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday, whenever "they" think they have escaped the problem. Then wait a few months more for the truth to come out and the effect of the real failures to be felt. In the meantime ignore the lies, the spin, and hang on to your supplies and preparations.
=====================================
y 2 0 0 0 @ i n f o m a g i c . c o m
=====================================
. . . one thousand nine hundred ninety nine,
. . . two thousand !
. . . Ready or not, I'm c.o.m.i.n.g !!!"
Number Six
(1/2/00; 23:10:49MDT - Msg ID:22093)
@Netking
Number Six;Perhaps the good Dr heard about your going long on oil from monitoring this site!
=================================
I am being philosophical about this :o) Win some, lose some. There is a great deal of debate in my little circle about how the experts got it so wrong on the embedded chip problem with regard to oil production. I am actually long in call options out to April so i'm basically waiting and watching to see what happens... however I do find it quite surreal that absolutely ***ALL*** Oil Companies in ALL countries without exception have reported NO glitches whatsoever... and I'm the sugar plum fairy! :o)
pdeep
(1/2/00; 22:51:55MDT - Msg ID:22092)
A Few More Cuts
http://home.kyodo.co.jp/cgi-bin/m_conciseStory#20000103807
The Devil is in the details....
canamami
(1/2/00; 22:43:33MDT - Msg ID:22091)
Reply to FOA - Possible Demands re Gold Breach of Contract
FOA,
I believe the recent demands made against Germany/Switzerland flowing from World War Two, and the end of gold convertability under Bretton Woods, are almost completely disanalogous; I don't see any demands ever arising against the US flowing from August 1971.
The demands against Germany/Switzerland are heavily tied in with moral questions relating to Holocaust-type issues, and all that that entails. Whether rightly or wrongly, portions of world opinion (particularly important groups in the US, and the broader world community) continue to view a continuing moral culpability on the part of Germany and Switzerland. On the other hand, the end of gold convertability was a pure commercial matter, somewhat akin to a bankruptcy, not giving rise to important moral issues. Remember, every other country ended gold convertability, and some of these countries did not disestablish the previously gold-backed currency - for example, Canada kept its dollar and Britain kept its pound, though gold-backing ended for these currencies. Also, neither Germany nor Switzerland expressly stated - "no more claims will be recognized flowing from World War II". However, the US has expressly extinguished any demands for gold against the Treasury, except for some very old issues of certificates and dollars. Thus, the US has made an express policy decision that no demands are to be made against its gold. This has not stopped the rest of the world from continuing to view the dollar as the pre-eminent currency.
The bottom line: the US will not entertain any claims against its gold on either a moral or legal basis, and I don't believe any claims will be made against it either. This matter has been resolved, and the US would disregard any attempts to make this an issue, though I doubt such attempts would even be made.
Black Blade
(1/2/00; 22:41:52MDT - Msg ID:22090)
Early indicators? Is the game a foot?
S&P futures are still down (currently -3.80) and Bonds are moving lower. I would venture a guess that we could see yeilds rise substantially in short order at the open. Could this be an indicator of foreigners preparing to bail out of dollars and/or investors moving to other investment vehicles? This week should be interesting.
Number Six, thanks for the explanation. Their loss...our gain. We also gained YGM in a similar situation. We do have a few "cross-posters" here as well. Take care.
Netking
(1/2/00; 22:32:50MDT - Msg ID:22089)
"Relief rally in store" (spare us)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000102/bs/yk_markets_5.html
Excerpt; ...`With Y2K out of the way investors and central bankers can now focus on the underlying economic fundamentals which point to
a strong global economy and ample liquidity,'' said Gerard Lyons, strategist at Standard Chartered in London.
``That will be reflected in surging stock markets in January in the U.S., in the UK, on the continent (of Europe) and also a
reinforcing effect in Asia.''
Number Six;Perhaps the good Dr heard about your going long on oil from monitoring this site!
Number Six
(1/2/00; 22:31:46MDT - Msg ID:22088)
Oops
Too used to looking at the mrci night quotes!
BTD
(1/2/00; 22:19:59MDT - Msg ID:22087)
Steve H, Number 6 - Comex is closed tonight
The Comex is closed tonight and tomorrow. The prices you are quoting are Thursday's closing prices:
"Feb. gold down $2.8"
"Silver just up another 3 cents to $5.45 at MRCI.COM"
MRCI.COM gives a current time and date, but the quote is the last closing price. You can check the current spot price at http://www.kitco.com/gold.graph.html
beesting
(1/2/00; 21:58:10MDT - Msg ID:22086)
@Chicken Man#22070 How come the BIS plays with real Gold chits?
http://www.bis.org/index.htm
First: HAPPY NEW CENTURY TOO EVERYONE!!!
Second: Welcome back Sir Stranger, again.
Chicken Man, you didn't quite research far enough at the BIS site.It's under profile of the BIS.
The following proves the world is still on a Gold standard, because the BIS is the Central Bank for all the other Central Banks of the world, and they change all the fiat currencies, including U.S. Dollars,into Gold Francs in their books, as explained below.
From:PROFILE OF THE BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.
The authorised share capital of the bank is 1,500 million Gold Francs, divided into 600,000 shares of equal nominal value (2,500 Gold Francs per share), of which 517,165 shares are currently issued. They are paid up to 25% of their nominal value (625 Gold Francs per share).The amount of the paid up capital in the balance sheet of the BIS at 31 March 1999 thus stands at 323.2 million Gold Francs.
The Gold Franc of the BIS has a Gold Weight of just over 0.29 Grams of fine Gold, which is identical with the Gold parity of the Swiss Franc from 1930 to Sept. of 1936. The BIS employs the Gold franc solely as a unit of account for balance sheet purposes, assets and liabilities in U.S. Dollars being CONVERTED into Gold Francs at a fixed rate of U.S. $208 per ounce of fine Gold(approximately equivalent to one Gold Franc = U.S. $1.94) and ALL other currencies being converted into Gold Francs on the basis of market rates against the U.S. Dollar.
7.Bank Balance Sheet:
At 31 March 1999 the Banks balance sheet total stood at 66.2 billion Gold Francs, with the Banks published own funds ( capital and reserves) at 2.9 Billion Gold Francs, expressed in U.S. Dollars with Gold at the then CURRENT MARKET PRICE the figures can be put at $131 Billion and U.S. $ 5.7 Billion respectively.
The total of the currency deposits so placed with the BIS amounted to about U.S. $112 Billion at 31 March 1999, representing ""7%"" of WORLD foreign exchange reserves.
Most of these funds are placed in the market mainly in the form of investments with top quality commercial Banks and purchases of short term Government Securities, it also conducts a range of foreign exchange and Gold operations on behalf of its customers.
In addition to placing funds in International markets, the BIS sometimes makes short term advances to Central Banks, these usually are in the form of SECURED CREDIT AGAINST GOLD!!!!
My Comments:
This last statement insures Central Banks will keep Gold on hand, to act as collateral in the event a loan is needed from the BIS.
The next time someone says"Gold is a barbarous relic", show them a copy of this post.
By the way the U.S. is well represented on the Board of Commissioners of the BIS!!
We walk this Golden road of new awareness together.....beesting.
Number Six
(1/2/00; 21:55:38MDT - Msg ID:22085)
@Black Blade
Was there something else going on there since Dr. V. (the new Number Two?) was a big proponent of the Oil/Gold correlation as well?
============================================================
I don't know what Vronsky's problem is. He took umbrage at my posting on oil and gold and commodities in general. He e-mailed my privately saying I had an "agenda" (actually I just have a palm pilot but thats neither here nor there :o) ), so I composed what i thought was a gracious farewell message to the GE site, basically saying that I believed that in this day and age in order to understand gold and its role in the world you couldn't just do it in a vacuum, you also had to factor in oil, inflation, geo-politics and all the rest.
No sooner had I posted the message it was pulled along with my password. So now all the folks at GE think I am some sort of flake that has disappered into the ether... I was very PO'd to say the least. As I said though, I'm in good company, not the first and not the last to be viciously blackballed by the old goat :o)
I also, like yourself, am interested to see how the markets react to the "apparent" y2k non-event. this is clearly the way the media at the direction of the powers that be wanted it to play out.
Where does this leave Greenspan and his excess liquidity?
Where does this leave Wall street if foreign moola deserts US equities?
And what of all those "investors" who put off bailing out last week because of the tax hit? many will no doubt bail on Tuesday, but how many?
Will it turn into a stampede?
I really don't know - I can't figure out these market at all anymore...
However I do think I know why FOA has said gold will rally this week... :o)
Watch the banks :o)
Black Blade
(1/2/00; 21:41:22MDT - Msg ID:22084)
Stranger and Number Six
Howdy Stranger! Good to see you back. Should I find myself back in SLC I shall have to look you up and take you to the Dead Goat Saloon (my treat). I understand that there is some good old time Boogy Blues tomorrow night. Now that we have made it through the roll-over without much trouble (barring any delayed/unreported problems), the question of course is, will the foreign investors declare an "all clear" and withdraw from the US "safe haven" markets? Also if the Asian contagion is really over and it is clear sailing ahead, does it not seem that industrial commodities, petroleum, metals, would rise at least proportionately? And would this likely spike petroleum prices well above the recent doubling in price, therefore dragging other commodities along for the ride? I know that this is much to think about as well as being some very broad-based general questions. We just haven't had your imput for a while ;)
Number Six: I have read your posts on the other "site", I was not aware of any real problem other than the usual banter among the participants. The only reason I ask, is that I generally agree with the oil/gold correlation as it relates to inflation, etc (ala OPEC 1973, etc.), and the embedded systems such as SCADA, etc. did present some reasonable concern for oil production, refining, and distribution. Was there something else going on there since Dr. V. (the new Number Two?) was a big proponent of the Oil/Gold correlation as well?
Number Six
(1/2/00; 21:16:54MDT - Msg ID:22083)
@Mchuck and poor old Solomon/AEL/Stranger
Mchuck - Good choice! - you will not regret it. We are entering turbulent times.
POS
An excellent post which sums up my views pretty well too!
I spent 6 years in realtime coverage programming with VISA - I dealt with transaction errors on a day to day basis with banks and financial entities all around the globe. My point is that even on a daily basis these transactions are tremendoulsy complicated - no two to be honest are ever really the same. I am expecting serious data corruption problems to surface (and perhaps propagate, although the jury is still out on that one) in the banking community. Cast your mind back just one month to DeutscheBank - they went belly up for just 24 hours - but it was enough to almost grind the system of systems to a halt. If we get similar occurrences, with more than one major bank, at the same time, we will be in serious trouble, it will goodnight Vienna! Then what happens to gold/silver/commodities...
Thanks also to AEL for the y2k roundup below.
I have particular regard for a fellow named Big Dog, who has written two excellent summaries (also below), well worth another gander.
This week should be interesting to say the least. Silver just up another 3 cents to $5.45 at MRCI.COM...
Watch the banks :o)
And "Hello Stranger!"
mhchuck
(1/2/00; 20:29:16MDT - Msg ID:22082)
FOA
Hello and welcome mhchuck,
Thanks for responding----Yes, I have been on this trail for what seems an eternity, and I intend to finish the hike, hopefully in "YOUR" lifetime. (smile) A few months back I made the adjustment in my holdings to reflect more "physical" gold.(Having already been "crushed" in paper) If most of the mines have sold much of their future production at $300-$350, then their fate is obvious, should gold indeed rise.
There's an old saying that "A man with one watch, always knows what time it is, but a man with two, is never really sure."... I have discarded all other time pieces...you're it. It is not such a dangerous maneuver for me personally as some might think. You see, I "know" where the trail is going, but with your higher perch, I will improve my visibility. But whether or not any of your "pre-vision" comes to fruition, matters not, (although it might matter to you for having put it forth) ....the fact is, I like the way you tick.
Solomon Weaver
(1/2/00; 20:21:21MDT - Msg ID:22081)
watch 2 k
Well, the electric is on for two days now…phones work….the internet up….the worst case scenario for y2k is no longer coming true…
I have always thought that y2k would go one of two ways (in relation to financial markets):
The first outcome would be such utter collapse and chaos that markets would not be able to trade because of infrastructure problems…If that had happened, most of the developed world would have been blind to the amount of value destruction going on behind the scenes, until when the markets reopened, and almost all things were trading at a steep discount.
The other outcome (which I think we are now in) is that the infrastructure stays up, the markets stay open, and the world can have a play by play view of the slow meltdown…having y2k problems is like having AIDS…nobody wants to admit that any current computer problems are "y2k" related… the reason why I think meltdown is coming is that the entire USDollar reserve asset base worldwide is tied to the economy which has the largest amount of information jobs per capita. If 5% of that information becomes unreliable, the trust level will start to plummet.
What we have already seen is that the physical infrastructure appears to hold. It is important to remember that electric, phone and internet are all networks….all are able to lose as much as 20% of their function and still get by because the remaining nodes pick up the work. It is not really true that there were no problems…it was rather that these networks were able to adjust. Additionally, the "problems" are visible in real time and mechanisms are in place to correcting for imbalances.
In the coming week, we will now test the information infrastructure. Maybe the problem has been solved…but if it hasn't been solved well, then the primary value added layer in America's economy will erode in function. Like no other country, America is an information economy….dollar bulls will point out that this technology is the strength of our dollar…that cyber economics are here to stay and that it is a fountain at which all may grow "dollar wealthy". The truth of the matter is that "problems" in the information economy are sometimes obscure, visible not in real time, but with delay, and many failures of the coming week will not have mechanisms in place for correcting them.
An interesting contrast: In Japan, two nuclear reactors were taken off line after midnight…other electric production locations immediately take up the slack…but imagine what would happen if two major Japanese banks would suddenly go offline (say they couldn't settle trades and balance books for 3 days).
My family made y2k preparations…some of it is maybe more than we will need, but we were considering that some of our food might need to feed neighbors..that time may still come. Most of it was in things that I now call wealth…like if oil goes up a lot…at least we have the option to heat more with wood.
We have all been blessed that much human suffering has been avoided
We will have a lot to watch these next few weeks.
And the least of that will not be the great diversity of persons who all sit at this round table.
Poor old Solomon
mhchuck
(1/2/00; 19:52:49MDT - Msg ID:22080)
USAGOLD
Thanks for your response, and your assessment of the factors likely to effect the gold market. Given your years of experience in the trade, your bullish forecast is not one to be dismissed lightly, if at all.
Al Fulchino
(1/2/00; 18:49:09MDT - Msg ID:22079)
Welcome back,Stranger.
Good to have you back
FOA
(1/2/00; 18:34:26MDT - Msg ID:22078)
Comment
TheStranger ( Msg ID:22056)
Thanks Stranger, that's all in the past now.
The future is before us.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Gresham (1/2/00; 14:17:31MDT - Msg ID:22060)
Thanks Mr. G..
My #22048 was a hard complicated piece to produce. After reading it again I saw many spelling and english usage mistakes. But I hope it offered a springboard for concept. I'll write it again more clearly if you want.
This perception is the basic foundation that has fuelled the drive for a new reserve currency. Even if this only amounted to an establishment of another like the dollar (without the lineage of debt for baggage). Understand the reasoning in this and we can clearly see where the dollar was going without any political leverage to change the US course. A world wide hyperinflation that would impact every economic aspect of world trade. Today, that same inflation results will be contained by devaluing the dollar in gold with another reserve currency available for use in international settlement and reserve holdings. Instead of a world-wide event, the effects will be mostly felt only in
countries that have little gold and no Euroland trade reserves. Yes, the US has some gold, but this limited amount is frozen from effective use by the "duality" of the dollar. Today, the dollar is a citizen of two worlds even as the gold that must back it belongs "politically" to the a single
American people. There can be no clean resolution of this as we can't print a new money and we can't back the one we have.
Granted, this transition will amount to a financial paper deflation and goods price hyperinflation in some of the largest economies (US, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc.), but the majority of the worlds population will be somewhat shielded.
I am jumping way ahead of the fact here and should wait for political motives to set gold on this new trend line. But, I feel many here will understand this now. We shall see.
Thanks FOA
Note: This week is going to be big. I bet gold ends the week with a gain and the dollar is hit.
Netking
(1/2/00; 18:27:33MDT - Msg ID:22077)
Crash Chart
Sir Rap(22074), watch that space!...serious action promised by March.
Peter Asher
(1/2/00; 18:17:34MDT - Msg ID:22076)
Steve
Also down 6.90 for the S&P is heavy for this hour
SteveH
(1/2/00; 18:15:11MDT - Msg ID:22075)
LT bond
L.T. bond is taking it in the gut tonight. Yield is up big-time.
Feb. gold down $2.8
RAP
(1/2/00; 17:51:59MDT - Msg ID:22074)
Crash chart
http://www.futuresfax.com/tops/stkcom1.gif
Comparison of 1929 vs 1999/2000.
Looks serious to me.
AEL
(1/2/00; 17:47:24MDT - Msg ID:22073)
more y2k clippings, fyi...
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991229/ts/yk_impact_1.html
Wednesday December 29 3:27 PM ET
Y2K Impact to Be Largely Hidden at First - Expert
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The full impact of the year 2000 computer
glitch will be largely hidden until mid- to late January, the head of
a U.N.-sponsored Y2K data clearinghouse said on Wednesday.
``By the third week in January, we'll be able to really tell what the
overall impact is,'' said Bruce McConnell, head of the International
Y2K Cooperation Center, which is funded by the World Bank.
Meanwhile, mistakes may pile up, cause ``lots of inconveniences,''
erode productivity and possibly disrupt world trade, McConnell told
reporters.
Separately, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency said it had
begun an unprecedented effort to prepare for every conceivable Y2K
emergency, up to and including a meltdown at a nuclear plant.
``Any emergency that could happen, any emergency,'' Robert Adamcik,
deputy associate director for response and recovery, said when asked
what FEMA was prepared to handle in a worst-case scenario.
``Explosions somewhere, widespread power outages somewhere ...
nuclear plant meltdowns.''
FEMA -- which coordinates the federal response to any emergency that
overwhelms local and state governments -- said it had deployed
liaison personnel from its Washington headquarters to each of the 50
states and the five U.S. territories.
Preparations Are Described
In addition, each of FEMA's 10 regional offices has been activated
and a state ``mutual aid assistance team'' has been set up, Bruce
Baughman, chief of operations for response and recovery, told a news
conference.
McConnell predicted ``few if any'' immediate ``serious disruptions''
anywhere in the world in vital services such as electricity and
telecommunications when computer clocks roll into 2000 on Saturday.
This confidence reflects the way that such systems work rather than
the completion of steps needed to make sure computers involved
recognize the new year and process the date correctly.
``The computers that control electricity and telecommunications
perform management functions for the most part,'' McConnell said.
``And so even if there is a Y2K problem, it doesn't cause the power
to go out or the phones to go out.''
Instead, he said, Y2K glitches may quietly accumulate in the
``back-office'' systems that handle administrative tasks for
governments and organizations, including accounting, billing and
keeping track of personnel.
``We have never gone through a global event like this in which all
the world is affected by one thing at the same time, something that
has the potential to disrupt commerce,'' McConnell said.
``And so it has the potential, but it's hard to know how big that
potential really is going to be.''
``MANY'' ERRORS, ``MODERATE'' IMPACT?
He has predicted ``many'' Y2K errors but only a ``moderate'' impact.
``The reason that I say that it will be moderate is that the problems
that will be run into will happen slowly over a period of days and
weeks and that people will find ways to work around them. And so
there won't be a chain reaction of effects,'' he said.
McConnell formerly served as chief of information policy and
technology at the White House Office of Management and Budget. The
organization he now heads was set up in February under the auspices
of the United Nations. It has been working with about 170 countries
to cushion the impact of Y2K.
The problem is a design flaw that, left uncorrected, may cause
computers to recognize only the last two digits of the year in a date
and assume that the first two are ``1'' and ''9.'' On Jan. 1,
machines that have not been fixed may interpret the year 2000 as 1900
and possibly crash or not work properly.
McConnell cited cases of Y2K glitches that have already prompted
dunning notices on bills supposedly 100 years overdue and calls for
people to report for jury duty in 1900.
Initially, many of an organization's internal glitches may go
unreported to the public, McConnell said. But he said he expected to
see some early problems.
``There will be some systems that just refuse to work or that produce
incorrect data ... in business and accounting applications,'' he
said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20000101_914.html
01/01/2000 17:16:00 ET
Despite early smooth sailing, experts say the bug will still bite
NEW YORK (AP) _ After the 21st century dawned without a crippling Y2K
catastrophe, some people branded the millennium bug an exaggerated
threat, a huge angst-washed waste of money that got mounds more
attention than it deserved.
Not so fast, the experts said Saturday.
Tens of millions of the world's business systems have yet to reboot. And
why should anyone be surprised that the computers guiding the globe's
vital power, telecommunications and air traffic infrastructure didn't
fail?
Their software was the focus of the most diligent millennium bug removal
efforts. Experts never expected anything but a few failures in such
systems.
"Throughout the world I think you'll find that almost a trillion dollars
was spent on Y2K work. There ought to be some results," said Ian Hugo, a
British information technologist who helped write his country's Y2K
standards.
"The more cautionary news is that only 10 percent of the world's systems
went to the gym last night. Ninety percent of them weren't exercising,"
noted Howard Rubin, a leading Y2K expert in the United States who was
nevertheless amazed at how well the world did.
Institutions including the CIA and U.S. State Department had said the
Year 2000 computer problem might spawn major blackouts or phone outages
in countries including Russia, Ukraine and Indonesia.
None of that appears to have happened so far, though a slew of glitches
_ from merely nagging to worrisome _ were reported.
snip
"Things are looking very good," said Bruce McConnell, director of the
World Bank-funded International Y2K Cooperation Center. "This is
consistent with, although on the bright side, of our prediction of few
if any serious disruptions."
He cautioned, though, that it's too early to declare victory.
Most of the world's business systems don't go back on line until Monday
or Tuesday after extended holidays _ some of them intended to give banks
and stock markets extra time to fix any bug errors that have cropped up.
Chile, for example, told the Y2K center that two-thirds of its computer
won't go back on line until Monday.
"It is very, very premature at this point in time to declare victory,"
said Peter de Jager, a Canadian Y2K pioneer: "We expected the
infrastructure to be OK, but wait until next week to start drawing
conclusions about how successful or unsuccessful we've been."
Unready at this point to celebrate was Tony DeRosa, of Spencerport,
N.Y., who has paid attention to the pundits who say many glitches won't
show up for days or even weeks.
"It's like a baseball game, we're only in the third or fourth inning
maybe," he said. "I don't think we're out of the woods." DeRosa stocked
up on MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) for his family of four and filled four
55-gallon drums with tap water.
snip
Holzer listed the two main reasons for his cooperative's hard Y2K work
and contingency planning.
"One, we had a responsibility to fulfill, and, two, the fear that we
were going to get sued," he said. "The lawyers were just lining up to go
after people if there were any problems."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002B3o
The First Post-Rollover BD Report (01/01/2000)
It's understandable that relief over the unexpectedly low reports of
utility system outages around the world is leading to premature
declarations of victory by doomers and pollies alike. Understandable,
but wrong.
Don't get me wrong. I am thrilled so far. I love the idea that those who
mocked Y2K and didn't prepare aren't in the "dark" today, scared and
desperate. My family is so much the safer as a result.
I am thrilled that -- so far -- terrorism has been nearly non-existent
and that the nukes did stay in their silos. Let's leave the near and
far-future (years) for another thread.
OTOH, regular posters know that I have been saying for months that I had
become more optimistic about power and telecom. Rollover for utilities
is not a "wrong prediction" on my part. Note that I will feel better
still even about utilities after 01/07/2000 when the post-mortem is more
complete -- and I note that Rick Cowles, who ALSO expected a calm
rollover, anticipates potential (not definite, but potential) power
problems later even than that (ditto Dick Mills).
So I am not surprised by the result so far EXCEPT by the unexpected
DEGREE of grid calm.
Read that again -- the notion that I (can only speak for myself)
predicted a grid collapse as the basis for a doomer expectation was
already wrong months ago. And, yet, I continued in the face of that
expectation (and continue) to come in at a 8.5 for Y2K impacts. Why?
The primary reason is that serious Y2K defaults will take weeks or
months to emerge (funny how some bubbly obscures sensible analysis on
this board). "Or not". But the point is, it will take until May before
we can either wrap this up as a wonderful polly victory AND/OR determine
the severity of the impacts to come. There will be defaults. Whether
those defaults will add up to a "3" or a "8.5" can't be determined on
01/01/2000.
To a few specifics:
--- Banking and markets.
We know almost nada at this point. It will take days, weeks and/or
months to determine whether the system has been corrupted. If banking
goes down, TEOTWAWKI will be just as sure as if utilities had gone down,
though it is obviously nicer to endure a terrible depression and
worldwide chaos when the lights are on (or, at least, "on" if you can
pay your bills).
--- The rest of the embeddeds
Oil, air traffic, chemical, water/sewage, agriculture, medical, etc.
Again, we know almost nothing so far since some of these systems are
just now coming up today and degradation in systems will take days,
weeks or months to reveal long-term impacts. I am confident that our
insiders (rc, gecko, etc) have NEVER had a stake in a disaster. If the
inside dope from these sectors proves positive over the coming days,
they will report it and it will be awesome. But we don't know yet.
Ditto military systems.
While the surprising absence of utility downs might be encouraging,
embeddeds vary significantly by sector. If we see a consistent and
unexpected type failure in a given sector that has not yet "reported",
we will be in the deep stuff for that sector.
--- Government applications
The jury remains out on Medicare, IRS, USPS and a range of other
applications that drastically affect the lives of tens of millions of
people and entire industries. Consequently, gauging the impact of their
relative remediation is a task for the coming weeks and months.
--- Business applications
The fact my lights stayed on doesn't help me determine the status of
50,000 enterprise mainframes around the world ("hey, Fred, the lights
are on, you can go home now and stop FOFing the iron") nor the viability
of millions of SMEs who have chosen to FOF [Fix On Failure]. Does big
iron "matter"? Were the SMEs smarter than "me"? Mebbe. Mebbe NOT. Again,
time will tell. If "not", will the effect on the supply chain be
minimal, significant or disastrous? Stay tuned.
DO I really have to go on?
What we have apparently learned so far is that utility folks like Malcom
Taylor and Rick Cowles were correct that the advanced grids would handle
rollover. Great. But that's about ALL we have learned. As for Russia et
al? Keep watching the news for a week or two, as I've said all along.
If the same holds for telecom (I haven't seen any first-hand reports),
that will be somewhat more surprising to me, since many doomer and polly
analysts have been predicting problems there right up to yesterday.
Again, great.
As for how the "forum" is behaving, I can't say I'm surprised one way or
the other. Most are playing to "type" -- a mix of trolling, blaming
"Ed", claiming "victory" or feeling like they were "duped".
Hang in there, folks. The home team (that's all of us) had a good first
inning. Now, let's keep playing while the rest of the game unfolds.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 01, 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Bwq
Let's Put An End To The Hidden Error Debate ....
Look, I'm still expecting an 8.5.
But let's find some common ground about Y2K glitches that are "hidden"
within organizations.
First, no organization with any brains reports problems externally that
can be solved internally. That's not conspiracy - it's simply sensible
business.
Of course, many, if not most, Y2K impacts internally will be minor. They
will be fixed without fanfare.
An unknown percentage may be moderate to critical. These will either be
fixed; a work-around will be designed and the bug will be fixed later or
leave this world when the system is replaced sometime in the future; or,
if the impact brings down a critical system, the red alert will be
sounded and enormous energy will be applied to the problem.
To be sure, we don't know whether or if the accumulated load of minor
problems will swamp support operations at a given point. We debated this
without resolution on this forum last year. Milage will vary for many,
many reasons. If problems swamp support, we don't know at what point
they will become visible to customers and the world. Nor do we know at
what point, for a given operation, failure means business failure.
The same is true for the "red alert" situations, though their dynamic is
obviously more intense, acute and immediate.
It will take days, weeks, months or "never" for Y2K problems to be made
visible to US, consumer-users. By visible, I mean that business failures
are occurring that affect the customer (or supply-chain partners, who
are also customers). If business failures do not occur visibly, Y2K is a
"victory" for all of us even if there were billions of Y2K glitches
behind the scenes.
Moreover, it is obvious for a host of political and legal reasons that
some organizations will never report a business failure as "Y2K" while
others may report non-Y2K failures as Y2K failures - ironically, this
may be safer legally, given legislation passed last year by Congress.
In sum, we're in for a period of weirdness while we WAIT to see Y2K's
world impact (no, kids, 01/01/2000 wasn't the end of the "wait", just
the optimistic beginning).
Meanwhile, let's not expect entities to report hidden glitches. Let's
not assume that the absence of reporting means "bad" things are
happening behind the scenes. Let's not assume that the absence of
visible failures on 01/02/2000 means "good" things are happening behind
the scenes.
We've spent two to five years preparing for Y2K. Unlike "Joanne", yes,
we are now IN the window of impact. But even the fiercest pollies
(Koskinen at al) are looking for weeks of impacts. They expect minor
impacts. I expect major impacts.
Still hope they're right and I'm wrong. And still don't know more about
THAT than I did 12/31/1999.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 02, 2000
AEL
(1/2/00; 17:40:14MDT - Msg ID:22072)
2 January 2000: all clear!
It is now 2 January 2000 and obviously there have been ZERO
infrastructure disruptions, to everyone's relief, including mine. The
euphoria is so great, and my own gratitude so profound, that my
emotions are tempting me to think of this thing as over and done
with. This in spite of the fact that none of the most credible Y2K
analysts expected dramatic "show-stoppers" on 1 January, at least not
in the U.S. I almost believed them: I thought that there was at least
a small risk of a disastrous "big bang" on the Big Day, and that
there was a moderate risk of a handful (or more) of local or regional
disruptions and breakdowns, including possibly some pretty serious
ones (e.g. no heat in the north for a week, in January, is "pretty
serious").
Hence, I must admit that the *total* absence of infrastructure
problems worldwide -- power, water, sewage, etc. -- was a surprise. I
was certainly not alone in this. I think it even took most of the
optimists by surprise. My expectation of infrastructure problems was
one of the main reasons that I prepared and encouraged others to do
so -- in the event that we were affected by that "handful". The other
major reason was as an inflation hedge, and the jury will be out on
that for many months yet. The other (minor) reason was that I thought
that catastrophic infrastructure breakdown, precipitating still
more-catastrophic domino effects, was a small possibility, and I
thought that that was also worth preparing for, provided the preps
were of a "can-always-use-it-anyway" nature. And I still think that
maintaining such a low- or no-cost insurance program is a good idea.
Obviously, none of the infrastructure disruptions came to pass...
Thank Whoever... and it now seems that the embedded chips issue --
one of the biggest single wildcards, and the aspect of the problem
that would have led to dramatic infrastructure problems -- was vastly
overstated. (... just as it now seems that my basement tunafish
larder is vastly overstocked..... ;) )
But that does not mean that 600+ billion bucks (largely for software
remediation) were spent on nothing. Nor does it say much, necessarily,
about the success of that remediation. Most of the vulnerable software
was not even running over the weekend, and most of it does not control
stuff in which errors would become evident overnight, anyway.
The Gartner Group, one of the largest non-governmental groups
monitoring the Y2K phenomenon from the start, predicted that less
than 10% of all Y2K-related failures would occur during the first two
weeks of January; that might be about right. I am reminded of the
words of Dale Way (the IEEE Y2K guy; see further quotes below): "the
rollover fallacy [the expectation of dramatic disruptions on Jan 1]
has so skewed the dialog and the public consciousness that society
has been forced to focus on the 5% of the Y2K crisis that is least
dangerous and easiest to deal with and obscured from clear view the
other 95% of the problem that has the potential to do great damage to
the economic and social order." ... And the words of programmer Lane
Core (see excerpt below): "I spent ten weeks and more writing essays
to explain why obvious, spectacular failures at The Rollover were not
the real issue. The experts I cite and quote most frequently all
agree, and have for quite some time, that it was unlikely there would
be obvious, spectacular failures at The Rollover, by and large, and
that they weren't the real issue anyway."
With the infrastructure holding everywhere, the true doomsday scenarios
are, thankfully, moot; those scenarios were predicated on serious
infrastructure problems, which were in turn predicated on major embedded
chips problems. But millions of computer systems were idled over the
weekend and have yet to demonstrate functionality. There are potential
glitches in end-week, end-month and end-quarter back-office computer
runs, etc., with impacts that might not be evident for weeks or months.
Lots of question-marks loom ahead: banking, stock markets, oil, trains,
international financial settlements, enterprise computer systems in
general (the systems that run the big organizations), the postal
service, government programs, the IRS and etcetera.
Mainframe programmer Cory Hamasaki seems to have called the embedded
problem correctly on the day before the rollover: "The embedded problem,
if it is a problem, will happen fast and will be flashy. We'll know in a
week or two. It's the enterprise systems that will fail over months,
corrupt databases, kill organizations, put people out of work..." (see
below).
For now, I am thankful that the software remediation and fix-on-failure
efforts will proceed without being hobbled by infrastructure problems.
And I am hoping that the government and IT experts were half as wrong
about the software problem as they were about the embeddeds problem (...
and as wrong as I was about the availability of tunafish...)
To follow: some pertinent clippings.
-- Alan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(These are comments from Dale Way that I sent out to most of you in
November; pardon if this is repeated, but I think his comments are worth
a review for understanding where we are right now..................)
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001jnW
Dale Way, IEEE Y2K Committee Chairman
.....
BOTH the Chicken Littles and the Pollyannas ARE WRONG.
The Chicken Littles, who most often exhibit the hand-wringing/ embedded
chip/ physical control systems/ "we could lose power and everything!"/
utilities/ hazardous material plants/ Bhopal & Chernobyl trajectory are
wrong because they do not understand the basic mechanism necessary to
force a Y2K error and what relatively minimal opportunities in those
systems for those mechanisms to play out. They are wrong because they
have no concept of the nature of those systems and how, and under what
value and incentive systems, the overall, often life-critical systems
(the ones containing all the embedded components and subsystems) were
ENGINEERED to withstand regular failures of almost all of its parts at
one time or another without ceasing to function. They do not understand,
on top of these other advantages, how well these systems are understood
by their care- givers. How much simpler they are in comparison to those
systems we must be concerned about. Those that the Pollyannas cannot
see.
The Pollyannas are in denial not because they do not see threats that
are not really there, but because they do not understand and appreciate
the massive size and complexity of software-intensive, intensely
interconnected/interdependent/data sharing enterprise management systems
normally associated with accounting and administrative functions. They
do not understand how prevalent and long-lasting are the opportunities
for Y2K errors to emerge in systems here and how much more difficult and
time-consuming it will be to track them down and neutralize them. They
do not understand how resistant these systems are to remediation,
especially fundamentally flawed, "compliance-based" traditional invasive
software remediation that pushes its most difficult problems out into
the beleaguered testing phase. Pollyannas do not understand how little
these systems are really understood by their caregivers and how
ill-disciplined, how CRAFT and occasionally ART-based are the doings
here, having been carried on under a decades-long succession of trendy,
fashion-based technologies and methodologies however competently (or
not) executed by an equally long succession of different maintenance
teams.
But before the Chicken Littles (and everybody else) run over to the
other side of the boat, the accounting/administrative computing side,
threatening to tip it over in to despair, take great comfort from the
fact that most of these "errors" will not be very destructive, or that
destructive to things that really matter. We can, to a large extent,
isolate and contain, or compensate for in other ways, most of the
errors, including just slowing things down to the rate we can manage.
Some transactions will get kicked out, some systems will stop, but only
more frequently than they do now, not stop as if they have never stopped
before; most non-trivial systems fail regularly already. Plus, as I have
indicated, the problems will tend to correct themselves when the
vulnerability windows of systems close as all their data representations
clear the century boundary and inhabit only the 2000 side. Accounting
systems do not DIRECTLY threaten life and limb. We have more flexibility
in dealing with their short comings.
Do not think of me as a Pollyanna (more precisely a mealy-mouthed
apologist) because I know the electrical system is going to function
very close to, if not totally, normally through and beyond the rollover.
And don't think of me as a Chicken Little because I see the weakness in
the administrative computing infrastructure. I am a bell-curve centrist.
The extremists on both end are wrong. As Will Rodgers said "It's not
what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we know that ain't so."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kiyoinc.com/WRP134.HTM
cory hamasaki's DC Y2K Weather Report
December 31, 1999 - 0 Full days to go. - WRP134
..... "The embedded problem, if it is a problem, will happen fast and
will be flashy. We'll know in a week or two. It's the enterprise
systems that will fail over months, corrupt databases, kill
organizations, put people out of work. I'm worried about the big old
systems. Some big systems run daily but most are weekly, monthly,
quarterly, or annual jobs.... The poor fools at the various public
"Year 2000 monitoring sites" don't understand what goes on in the big
computer centers...."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Bld
Thousands of crisis teams are in place right now, in medium and large
businesses, overseeing their companies' information systems as they test
the transition of vital business systems. How are they doing? To judge
from the wire services, no one has bothered to ask. The country's
railroad network shut down last night, for safety. Did it come up again?
No one is saying. And of great concern, a huge number of oil and gas
pipelines, highly susceptible to the embedded chip problem, also shut
down to avoid trouble. Are they running again? How strange that no one
seems to know or care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002AzH
There hasn't been but less than 24-hours pass since the rollover (at the
most). Date calculations require date RANGES in most cases - there needs
to be at least a few days' space here. I'm going to be interested in
seeing how business systems deal with this once they are back online and
start making calculations involving "today" and "previous dates". Just
rolling a computer clock over to 2000 won't necessarily cause a problem
until some program decides to calculate a value based on the current
year and some previous year. Your PC games won't likely fail, nor will
your e- mail. Lets see what happens to all the payroll, order processing
and other business type systems when they hit their next calculation
interval. That's where we'll start seeing errors. -- Bruce
(broeser@ccgnv.net), January 01, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Arq
Until we see Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, I.R.S., to name a few,
operating with precision and dependability, we are very vulnerable to an
economic nightmare. Government accounts for a huge segment of employment
in this country. Add to this the incredible amounts of money that is
issued into circulation in the form of benefits and such, and the truly
amazing unanswered questions as to where the U.S. is at this point
remain unanswered. I have viewed my preps as not only "meal insurance"
against interruptions in the supply chain, but as an economic hedge
against rising prices in the months ahead. I cannot believe I am alone
in thinking this way. Interest rates are going to march upward; housing
may well take a hit. Mortgage brokers will be doodling on pads of paper
as they realize there is less and less business(to name but one example
of an industry vulnerable to rising interest rates).
Most of the really important problems, e.g. Def. Dept., pipelines that
were shut down (and may be pesky to restart), will be kept from public
view as a matter of national security.
And what about the many computer viruses that may be running around,
looking for infrastructure to disrupt? Seems there are MANY more things
yet unknown to hoist a victory flag over this country and y2k. (The only
victory so far is preventing massive public panic; well, there is the
additional victory of propaganda over a national audience--YECH!)
Two very alarming things to me are: 1) The overall complacency of our
nation (not going totally unnoticed by folks like China and Sadam) and,
2) HOW EASY IT IS TO STILL MAKE PRUDENCE TO APPEAR LIKE FOOLISHNESS! An
extra comment on this 2nd point is the incredible amount of folks
reporting they feel foolish and embarrassed. If you really want to
feel/experience both of these emotions, then chuck your preps and begin
running around trying to get folks who prepared for NOTHING, to accept
you back into their "fold of foolishness". Then, when fallout begins to
become apparent, you will realize the true meaning of foolish,
embarrassed, and UNPREPARED!
Just as the coverage of y2k was so incredibly shallow and simplistic in
the press for the past few YEARS, so too is the thinking that we are
over the worst of y2k. Just cuz my T.V. works, doesn't mean it is
"all-clear!". And one night of CNN pics. of lights on all over the world
hardly gets me feeling even remotely confident that things will not be
"so bad". (This line of reasoning wouldn't work on a 6 year old child.)
The most unfortunate side-effect of y2k roll-over so far (IMHO) is the
"innoculation effect" that is occurring among some who prepped. How
willing will they prepare or stay prepared for the unforeseen yet not on
this nation's radar screen?
In closing, I will add that this nation is in and will remain in a
window of vulnerability for some time. Just as a cancer patient never
knew the day, time and hour that a tumor began to form within
themselves, so too this nation appears to be generally clueless as to
our vulnerabilities to attack and outright breakdowns in necessary
infrastructure that are now present. When rollover occurred, every
unremediated line of code became a cancer cell in this country's
economy. Whether the Nation's "immune system" of bug busters can heal
all of these conditions, before they grow into a sizeable tumor remains
a HUGE question, at least to me.
I therefore will remain ready to "roll with the punches". Old habits are
hard to break: Why let CNN and the "crowd of fools" do your thinking for
you?
-- (He Who) Rolls with Punches (JoeZi@aol.com), January 01, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002B9C
So, where was I wrong?
Did I say we'd have obvious, spectacular failures at The Rollover?
No.
What's Wrong with the Way the World Thinks about Y2K --
http://users.sgi.net/~elcore/whatswrong1.htm
Indeed, I spent ten weeks and more writing essays to explain why
obvious, spectacular failures at The Rollover were not the real issue.
The experts I cite and quote most frequently all agree, and have for
quite some time, that it was unlikely there would be obvious,
spectacular failures at The Rollover, by and large, and that they
weren't the real issue anyway.
Since there were no obvious, spectacular failures at The Rollover, I'm
wondering exactly how it is that I (and they) have been wrong. Except,
of course, in the minds of those who never cared what I have really
thought or written, but who wanted to lump me in with the Collapse of
Civilization Crowd. And in the minds of Doomers who thought that they
were right just because Pollyannas were wrong.
As far as I can see, things are proceeding so far as I have thought they
would. And as I have been writing about for many months. You'll say I'm
backpedalling, but I'm not. I have maintained this position publicly for
months: but you don't know that, because you don't care what I think or
write, or you deliberately chose to not understand or to distort.
(Indeed, one of my motivations for getting it all on record in the last
three months of 1999 was that I knew the Pollyannas would try to distort
what I had been saying.)
I am more optimistic now than I was six months ago, not because there
were no obvious, spectacular failures at The Rollover, but because there
haven't been serious, widespread deleterious effects on business and
commerce from errors in the past three months. What happens over the
next month will be determinative of the future course of events.
-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), January 01, 2000
http://users.sgi.net/~elcore/whatswrong1.htm
What's Wrong with the Way the World Thinks about Y2K --
Essays in the WWwtWtWTaY2K Series
1. A Modest Endeavor
2. Y2K is Not a Crisis
3. Y2K is a Chronic Situation
4. Y2K is Not a Bug
5. Y2K is Not a Bug (continued)
6. Whispering "Fire" in a Theater Ablaze (US Senate version)
7. Whispering "Fire" in a Theater Ablaze (White House version)
8. Whispering "Fire" in a Theater Ablaze (mainstream media version)
9. Bits and Pieces, Odds and Ends
10. What Will the Future Bring?
Netking
(1/2/00; 17:23:10MDT - Msg ID:22071)
NYSE sets Circuit Breakers for First-Quarter 2000
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000102/bs/bonds_outlook_1.html
NYSE Sets Circuit Breakers for First-Quarter 2000;
Traders returning to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange Monday will have a new set of circuit-breaker and trading-collar trigger levels, effective throughout the first quarter of 2000. Circuit-breakers suspend trading for declines in the Dow Jones industrial average of 10 percent, 20 percent and 30 percent. As the Dow has escalated sharply since the circuit breakers were first implemented in April 1998, the circuit-breaker levels have risen as well.
Beginning Monday, a 1,100-point drop in the Dow before 2
p.m. will halt trading for one hour; for 30 minutes if the
drop occurs between 2 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.; and will have no effect if at 2:30p.m. or later. In the fourth quarter of 1999, a drop of 1,060 was necessary before trading was halted.
A 2,250-point drop in the Dow before 1 p.m. will halt
trading for two hours; for one hour if between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.; and for the remainder of the day if at 2 p.m. or
later. In the fourth quarter, the level was set at 2,150.
A 3,350-point drop will halt trading for the remainder of
the day regardless of when the decline occurs. That's up from 3,200 in the fourth quarter.
The NYSE also imposes trading collars, which restrict some
computer-driven trading. Those will be triggered when the Dow moves 220 points or more above or below its closing value on the previous trading day and removed when the Dow is above or below the prior day's close by 110 points.
When circuit breakers were first imposed following the market crash of October 1997, trading was suspended for a half-hour if the Dow dropped 350 points and for one hour if the index fell 550 points. Under the old rules, the market would close for the day if the 350 level was reached at 3:30 p.m. or if the 550 level was hit at 3 p.m.
Chicken man
(1/2/00; 17:10:12MDT - Msg ID:22070)
How come the BIS plays with REAL gold chits
http://www.bis.org/
Go to the annual reports.....notice that even the dividend to the "members" is figured in gold francs.....and this is at gold valued @ $209/oz.....why aren't they playing with bank numbers like all the rest of the banks...?
Netking
(1/2/00; 17:04:19MDT - Msg ID:22069)
Bill Gates; Y2K Comment
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000102/bs/yk_gates_2.html
"...Bill Gates, chief executive of software giant Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - news), said he expected some relatively minor year 2000 computer glitches to crop up in the coming weeks, even though no major disaster followed the changeover to the new year..."
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 16:56:46MDT - Msg ID:22068)
RAP
Don't pay attention to those numbers for a few days. End of year book squaring always creates a momentary anomaly, and, with Y2k this time, who knows what they mean.
RAP
(1/2/00; 16:40:32MDT - Msg ID:22067)
Fed Funds
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates.html
Can anyone tell me why the Fed Funds are down to 1.5%?
Is this important, or is it just due to low volume?
canamami
(1/2/00; 16:15:03MDT - Msg ID:22066)
Thx MK, FOA, the Stranger - USAGOLD Rules Again!
I would like to thank MK for maintaining this excellent site and inviting the Stranger back, FOA for welcoming the Stranger back and thereby impliedly accepting the Stranger's apology, and the Stranger for apologizing to FOA and agreeing to return. This generally seems to be a friendlier site among the gold internet sites (one gets a sense of the personality of the posters here), and the analysis is almost always of good quality and often of excellent quality. This has always been my first choice for posting on general issues concerning gold, and now my comfort level with the site is greatly restored.
I'm presently fighting off a (not-Y2K) bug, but will aim to reply to to FOA before Tuesday, and perhaps post and repost on some other points.
Cavan Man
(1/2/00; 15:34:05MDT - Msg ID:22065)
Cavan Man 22051
complement: 2.the amount or number needed to fill or complete 3. an entirety; complete set 4. something added to complete a whole; either of two parts that complete each other.
I meant to say FOA and Stranger complement one another not, compliment; although in due course I hope they will do that as well.
It requires a leap of faith (which I have made) to agree with FOA. Regarding Stranger, his analysis is of course more conventional and RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
I hope the case for gold becomes as clear to all as it has become for me thanks to these two fine minds.
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 14:47:33MDT - Msg ID:22064)
Leigh and Michael
Leigh - Hello, dear person. No, I did not see that at Kitco,
but, if it is true, then Hooray for hormones!
Michael - Thanks for everything. It is great to be back among people I care about.
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 14:40:09MDT - Msg ID:22063)
Jon
Thanks for asking me about this Jon, but I am afraid I haven't got a good answer for you. I have bought gold and Japan in the last 18 months because I thought both were at or near major important long term historical bottoms. I still believe I was right. I, as yet, see no reason to sell either one. To show you how dumb I am, though, I actually visited Singapore at the very bottom of their stock market in 1998 to check out the opportunity there. It is without a doubt one of the most wonderful countries in the world and has an economy which just about anybody could envy. Yet, coward that I am, I failed to buy a single share there, while you obviously did not. Bravo!
We actually have had an occasional poster from Singapore here at the Forum. I do not recall his handle, but, hopefully, he will see this conversation and share his thoughts on the market there. Meantime, I wish you all the best, whatever you decide!
Leigh
(1/2/00; 14:37:26MDT - Msg ID:22062)
Stranger
Hi, Stranger! Did you see this post on Kitco this morning?
Sunday Jan 02 2000 10:34
yellowcab (barron's commodities columnist chick to hatch!)
einhorn is scheduled to pop, on maternity leave till july. YEAH! HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Perhaps hormonal fluctuations are causing Ms. Eichorn to behave in an uncharacteristic way.
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 14:25:15MDT - Msg ID:22061)
"Get Real"
Cheryl Strauss-Einhorn, "Barrons"'long time commodities bear has begun to change her tune. Towit, from today's "Barron's":
"The new millennium should begin well for most industrial commodity markets. Bloated inventories have largely been drawn down amid capacity closures and, more recently, re-emerging Asian demand.
"Against this positive backdrop, there is growing evidence that, for the first time since 1996, the world could be largely recession-free. We may experience synchronous economic growth in 2000 as all the major regions of
the world pull in the same direction at roughly the same time.
Yet given the length and strength of the current business cycle in places likethe U.S., which accounts for 28% of global output, such robust economic
activity could stretch manufacturing limitations, causing inflation to rise as stocks of essential raw materials continue to fall.
The result is an environment potentially ill-suited for financial assets, such as stocks and bonds, which perform best when economic conditions are poor
and the potential for improvement is highest. Commodity prices, which tend to rise in periods of high activity given their direct exposure to the physical economy, should on the other hand find such an environment quite hospitable."
Strangers Note: A lot of people read Strauss-Einhorn. She is interviewed almost daily on CNBC. Who knows, perhaps inflationists will start being invited to parties again!
Mr Gresham
(1/2/00; 14:17:31MDT - Msg ID:22060)
FOA
Wow! First read amazing. Like walking between rows of trees in a great forest, going through those sentences was. Tangible, it felt like I was holding something in my hands the whole way.
This must be the process of undoing a lifetime of propaganda, to see things so simply again?
I'll start in on another read, if my 3-year-old calling me allows me to deflect her for another half-hour (unlikely :) but my slow absorption rate could take a couple more reads today at two-hour intervals anyway.
I used to get this in school, when something finally jumped out at me out of geometry or calculus from a favorite teacher who loved teaching.
oops gotta go, wife back, sunny day, you know the next moves!
USAGOLD
(1/2/00; 14:16:18MDT - Msg ID:22059)
Once in Golconda.....More Parallels: Soaring Averages a Rousing Spectacle/Decay Underneath
"When the crash finally came, it came with a kind of surrealistic slowness -- so gradually that, on the one hand, it was possible to live through a good part of it without realizing that it was happening, and, on the other hand, it was possible to believe that one had experienced and survived it when in fact it had no more than just begun.
The market did not all crash at once. Large segments of it had been depressed for a year or more. The 1929 boom was, in fact, quite a narrow and selective one. It was a boom of the handful of stocks that figured in the daily calculation of the Dow-Jones and New York Times indexes, and that was why those well-publicized indexes were at record highs. It was also a boom of the most actively traded stocks bearing the names of the most celebrated companies, the stocks mentioned daily by the newspapers and millions of times daily by the board-room habitues -- and that was why it was constantly talked about. But it was emphatically not a boom of dozens of secondary stocks in which perhaps as many investors were interested.
As a matter of fact, a good part of the stock market had been more less depressed all through 1929.
The soaring of the averages made a rousing spectacle. Yet the highest September, 1929, price of Celanese was 66; its high in 1927 had been 118. The September high of Cluett, Peabody was 46; its high in 1928 had been 110. The September high of Consolidated Cigar was 62; its high in 1928 had been 100. The September high of Freeport sulphur was 43; its 1928 high, 105. The September high of New York Shipbuilding was 27; its 1925 high, 88. The September high of Pepsi-Cola was 10; its 1928 high, 19. The September high of Philip Morris was 12; its 1927 high,41. The list, even if confined to well-known stocks, could be extended to astonishing length. The motor stocks, in particular, were in a virtual industry-wide depression. Studebaker, Hudson, Hupp and Graham-Paige, at that peak of the most celebrated stock boom in history, were down from their previous highs by 22, 25, 43 and 55 percent respectively. And even General Motors, the very bellwether of the boom all through the decade, was down over 10 percent. The persistence of the idea that all stocks were going through the roof in the autumn of 1929 is a monument to the power of popular myth."
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 14:12:38MDT - Msg ID:22058)
Jim Grant on ABC's "This Week"
In an Interview on ABC's "This Week", Jim Grant said this morning, "Never before have corporate values been quite near where they are now. This is an extraordinary moment in American financial history and a dangerous one."
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 14:08:27MDT - Msg ID:22057)
Inflation Update
1. In addition to Fed Ex, three more shippers
announced either "fuel surcharges" or just
plain rate increases last week. They are TWA, AMR and UPS.
2. New claims for unemployment benefits in the
U.S. dropped last week to a level below 300,000,
which indicates businesses are scrambling to find
workers."The only way for employers to get skilled
workers for job openings is by stealing them from other
companies," said Wells Fargo's chief economist, Sung Won
Sohn. "So we are seeing more and more employees willing
to jump ship to get wage hikes."
3. Major U.S. steel producers now are in the
process of raising their prices 8-20% on cold roll steel.
4. The top performing stock in the Dow Jones
Industrial average for 1999 was not Home Depot, Microsoft,
Intel, Hewlett Packard or IBM. It was Alcoa,
reflecting increasing prices for industrial metals which
continued throughout the year.
*****
I have posted many times in the past year about why the argument for gold does not rest on such transitory boogeyman events as Y2k. What it does rest upon is the historically significant reinflation of all currencies which has been taking place since the Asian Contagion. This process is now
well-entrenched and is irreversible in any short term sense.
Anybody who bought gold because of Y2k would be
well-advised to stay the course in my opinion. You
may have bought for the wrong reason, but that doesn't
mean you own the wrong thing. What is happening in oil,
aluminum, copper, etc. is coming to gold soon enough. You
can depend on it.
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 13:59:56MDT - Msg ID:22056)
I Thank The Members of the Forum and Apologize to FOA
I wish to apologize to FOA for the very derogatory remark I made about him last month. I recognize that such behavior violates the important rules by which we comport ourselves here at the Forum. To all, I am sorry I have not
always exercised the best judgement in expressing my views. I will try to do better in the future.
I am aware of everything that was posted about me during my absence. Out of humility, I will not present here a list of all those who deserve my gratitude. However, I want to say to everyone who argued publicly for my return that I know who you are, and I will not soon forget the kindnesses
you have expressed. "No man is a failure who has friends."
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 13:55:35MDT - Msg ID:22055)
Hello
Hello
TheStranger
(1/2/00; 13:30:24MDT - Msg ID:22054)
TEST TEST TEST
Technical Problems. Thanks.
The Stranger
(1/2/00; 13:13:05MDT - Msg ID:22053)
Test
Test
Aristotle
(1/2/00; 13:07:43MDT - Msg ID:22052)
A New Year's Resolution -- Allow yourself to own more Gold
Happy New Year to everyone, as we leave the 1900's to the historians!
Most Americans are justifiably proud of their country due to its history and prominent role in the world scene. However, this tends to lend itself to an Americentric perception that the world revolves around America, that America's problems are necessarily the world's problems, while the world's problems are deemed to be nothing of consequence--reported on the evening news inconveniently between sports and weather. Being an American is an end unto itself. But if we do pause to give a thought to the greater world, it is only that they should strive to accomodate our preferred easy existence. At the very least, they should conduct their foreign affaris so as to be no burden to our consciences--limiting their visible levels of suffering at the hands of want...want for adequate nourishment, for quality shelter, for safety from violence at the hands of others.
Living in a land where these common necessities are found in abundance, it is too convenient to suspend the disbelief that the entire world shares and rejoices in our own good fortune. Thus deluded by our own fantasy, we are like the person sitting at the kitchen table as they play Monopoly with their family. Although this game and its rules are distinctly limited in both time and space, playing this game dictates our decisions, actions, and emotions--the real world is forgotten while we remain at the table. The dishes in the sink need to be washed. The car needs to be filled with fuel. The snow on the driveway needs to be shovelled away. The bills need to be paid and envelopes mailed. All of these real-world concerns are dismissed as we 'Pass "Go" and Collect $200,' as we 'Take a Ride on the Reading Railroad,' as we build houses on Baltic Avenue, or clutch our hair as we land on a Boardwalk replete with commercial development.
It does not matter however long we may play at Monopoly, nor does it matter how well we fare in the game; the real world still exists, and in the real world the car still needs to receive fuel, the snow must be cleared away, and bills must be paid.
Now imagine, if you can, the clever player who is not so absorbed by this game that he may yet still see the truth of the wider world, and in doing so properly recognize the limited value of his Monopoly money beyond the scope of this game. Imagine this player to be playing the game well enough that he is in a position of wealth--having acquired one-sided money, 2x3" squares of property, little green plastic houses, and little red plastic hotels.
Now imagine that there were an extra space on the gameboard (called USAGOLD next to 'Free Parking'?) where players with awareness of the real world could exchange some of their game-wealth for wealth that endures in function beyond the scope of the game. It wouldn't surprise you to see this special space on the gameboard being being rigorously used by the wisest of the participants (the parents) while the kids remain content to see their piles of one-sided money grow and grow, and their lines of green plastic houses get ever longer. We would see the wise parent maintain only enough Monopoly money and Monopoly 'investments' to remain viable in the game so that they might continue to utilize that special space to accumulate enduring wealth for use in the real world.
The fact of the matter is, regardless of how competitive the game of Monopoly becomes, the necessities of real life will remain, and they won't be satisfied by Monopoly money...even though you might (at this time) manage to bribe your son or daughter to shovel the snow for a crisp, one-sided, orange $500 Monopoly note.
So it is with playing the good game called American Life. Regardless of how blinded we become in the American competition to keep up with the Smiths and Joneses, the problems and necessities of the real world remain and will be resolved whether we choose to take notice or not. Just as our son or daughter will one day acquire the wisdom to refuse the one-sided $500 enticement to shovel the snow, so too will the lines become more distinct between what is fine within the American game, but increasingly unacceptible for international settlement.
Make a New Year's resolution to have a greater world view. Be intelligent, light on your feet (adaptive), and aware of the distinction and growing separation between popular perception and universal reality. Prepare (through wise choice of assets) to live as well in the greater world as you have lived within this thriving but distinctly American game. Eventually the kitchen table must be cleared away for the next meal, Monopoly money doesn't play very well at the Main St. Bank, and it doesn't play very well at the Bank for International Settlements, either.
Gold. Get you some. Dress yourself for a good seat at any table in the world. ---Aristotle
Cavan Man
(1/2/00; 12:40:44MDT - Msg ID:22051)
WELCOME STRANGER
Whew! Glad you are back. I maintain your views and FOA are of different origins yet complimentary! A great treasure is found (here) again. God bless and thank you.
FOA
(1/2/00; 11:39:33MDT - Msg ID:22050)
Welcome!
Welcome back Stranger. There are two sides on every trail.
FOA
Jon
(1/2/00; 11:39:25MDT - Msg ID:22049)
Welcome back, Stranger
Happy new year to you and yours. I've been tracking your EWJ, which is doing alot better than my EWS [which has doubled in value for me]. Do you think I should switch? Again, glad to see you're back.
FOA
(1/2/00; 11:36:40MDT - Msg ID:22048)
Reply
Mr Gresham (01/02/00; 02:30:24MDT - Msg ID:22030)
FOA -- 30k?
++++++++++++++++++
Good stuff Gresham! Re-read your post for a refresh then come here. This is something we can air out. I'll just rummage around some and see if any of this hits home. Will place some of your post comments inline where usable.
Two additional observations came into play years ago when this whole timeline was being worked out. One of them:
---A major flaw in the fiat system was in selling people the idea that money need not be wealth.--
This is something Martin Armstrong pushed a great deal in his pronouncements. I made an open post to him on this forum because his position was in direct conflict to human nature. Lo and behold his personal clandestine actions later proved out my point. Truly, most modern thinkers don't trust
contract fiat money and understand "things" much better. Only they try to hide their perceived weakness. Indeed, he quietly owned a bunch of gold!
Onward:
In real life, everything is our wealth and simultaneously our money. Houses, cars, furniture, pots
pans, you name it, it's all tradable in a duel format as money. In fact real things were what people traded in the beginning. Modern economist love to regress this function and use the term "barter" in a way that "dirties" it in the eyes of modern educated man. The use of things as money has always been the natural way people trade and the most understandable method to compare value by applying an "efforts to acquire" worth to unlike items.
Advancements in our infrastructure brought on the need to use contract wealth (receipts for delivery) as a means to trade efficiently. (You know, the old receipts for gold in the vault story bankers started.) Over time we lost the grasp that by using money to buy and sell real wealth we
were still just trading real wealth as in the beginnings. Only now we are using money to denominate the trade. Again, modern economists contradict the facts by trying to convince us we are really trading dollars, not the wealth they represent. As if I buy a house from you, I get the house and you get the dollars as the end trade. In reality you have only taken what the dollars can buy, "real wealth", not the subjective paper value. I could have just as easily given you ten cars for the house and we both would know exactly where we stood.
So, in a larger sense the entire world economy is in effect trading "things wealth" for "things wealth". The nation state's moneys have nothing to do with how rich we are. Today, the grand illusion of paper money has evolved into -------we equate our life savings with how much we can
buy, not how much we have------. The concept holds little reason for most people to worry as long as the world works. But, if the world changes, our savings are suddenly not what our wealth really is!
Further:
The second flaw arrives in the form of: --------"currency inflation slowly transforms fait money into a futures contract"-------
In a broad sense, IF the money supply is created in "lock step" with the ability of the economy to produce, everyone could take their money and buy a "newly made" item the first day,,,,,,, And the persons that received those paper dollars could turn around and buy another "newly made" item the next day and so on. In time, more and more items would come into ownership and there possible supply on the resale marketplace would increase. But, as the money supply was only fixed to the new production ability these increases in real goods, the increase supply of "owned" goods in the
marketplace would drive up the value of paper money.
This would not be a problem except that our money makers decided to name this affect "deflation" as the paper value of goods in existence fell as the money value rose in direct converse fashion. This process would not effect anyone if it was a known effect that everyone planned for. But bankers and governments never plan for it nor do they want it.
So, along the way path to money inflation, someone decided that the money supply should increase in somewhat matched step, not only with the production of new goods, but rather with the total supply of owned goods. This was accepted as good economic practice and it's application
ordained an ever increasing world money supply to match the perceived world wealth in existence. Our constant building money supply is always viewed as a good thing. Indeed it is even a major component of all relative tools that measure our economy. An illusion that says "if our money is
increasing, our economic system is growing". Again, at the very least, this guaranteed that the value of money would not "increase" on it own (hence the need for a "return" on cash in the form of interest) and the money denominated value of "goods" would not deflate. But, perceptions changed
and the process evolved further.
In time, the perceived purchasing power (and worth) of dollars was extended to include what goods could be produced and therefore brought in the future. Not just today's production plus the existing supply of owned things, but also future delivery from a perceived infinite economic
production base. This is where they justified the long term, massive debt build-up that has leveraged our economy far into the future. And done so on a scale unknown to mankind.
In effect, the world has accepted a money supply that created a money supply in gross excess of the worlds present things. Truly, this present reserve system does not price our real wealth of today, rather it prices our "perceived" wealth today as if it is produced or purchased today. Yet,
this "real trade" for "real wealth" cannot happen until far in the future. This is the fundamental reason why dollar inflation on a massive scale has not produced a matched price for wealth owned today. People hold the ideal that any amount of US debt is as good as "real wealth in the bank", also known as "money in the bank". All the while lacking the grasp of any tools to measure just how far out of reality "existing debt money" is in relation to what it can buy, in mass.
-------------Your words:----They see it as wealth storage, FOA says. It also turns out to be a wise use of Gresham's Law, encouraging the use of a wisely-managed ("I only have to run faster than you," said the Euro to the Dollar) fiat currency in trade, and keeping the gold slightly off-stage
(or well-displayed in the bank window as in the old wildcat banking days in US) for effect in earning world respect. Kind of trying to blend the best of 19th & 20th centuries. ---
Our present financial structure and debt leverage was built on a platform that said " " "the dollar would always be credible as a "contract money" far into the future. Lost in this credibility is the risk that any move from world dollar use would force this contract into a bookkeeping change that revalued the dollar in present tense. In other words, a huge price inflation that matched the dollar to
current goods and production. Such a change has happened to other currencies and peoples all through history as money power moves from nation to nation. Only never before was it done when gold had not "marked to the market" the currency value loss on a regular, ongoing basis before the fact. Today, this transition of real wealth buying power from a single reserve system to another will force the dollar price of gold to soar to levels, we cannot understand. From this stance we can understandy why many have viewed gold as a riskless holding that will be revalued. If it was part of
your mix, the transition would always make up for any return lost from not holding other assets. Indeed, it is the very untimate in a super leveraged investment. No other currency today could expect a 1,000% to 10,000% rise in value against the dollar, none.
Now, if one can look closely we understand the need for gold in the background of a new reserve currency. Only gold has the ability to carry the load of this perceived wealth transfer without a catastrophic loss of world economic process. And do so in a format as common as any stock of treasury bill asset. Gold at $10,000+ will be as common as Yahoo at $400+. Just like a US treasury bill at $10,000 face, one ounce will be just another "money in the bank"!
-------Your words again: -----Most of us would settle for protection against inflation of things in general, in a time of crisis. And that is something we assume gold would give us, whether the inflation increment turns out to be 2x or 10x. FOA says the dollar supply is out there for the 10x
inflation of things in general (?), but is the same pool of dollars being "counted twice", once to go into things in general and the other into gold as a default crisis insurance?--------------
My friend, count it at least once+ for the present and ten times+ for the future. This will match the lost future buying power of dollars held in savings today. Then you will know where the real dollar value of gold in transition lies.
Thanks FOA
USAGOLD
(1/2/00; 11:13:43MDT - Msg ID:22047)
Once in Golconda, Continued.....Flannel Throated Fanatics
"On the seventeenth the Ile de France and the Berengaria depart on transatlantic trips, the former eastward and the latter westward, each fully equipped for speculations with floating brokerage offices; when the Berengaria arrives in New York six days later, passengers tell of how every day the office on the promenade deck has been so mobbed that quotations had to be passed by word of mouth to passengers who couldn't get near enough. The same week, there is much favorable comment on a new book, "Wall Street and Washington", by the renowned Princeton economic authority Joseph S. Lawrence, in which he scores off the Federal Reserve for its insolent meddling with Wall Street ("an innocent community" mercilessly persecuted by "flannel-throated fanatics" in Congress) and suggests that anyone who favors stronger regulation of the stock market is undoubtedly an all-around bluenose and probably an advocate of Prohibition to boot. This is the kind of talk the tape-watchers dote on, and when it comes from a cloistered professor, so much the better. As the month draws to a close and the Stock Exchange decides to forgo its usual Saturday session and declare a full three-day holiday over the Labor Day weekend, there is further cause for jubilation. There are rumors, cited even in the Times, of many large pools being formed to buoy the market during the autumn, and it is said that a single brokerage firm has received invitations to join no fewer than five of them; meanwhile four important railroad stocks, Santa Fe, Union Pacific, Chesapeake & Ohio, and Norfolk & Western, are all near the magic price of 300 in what appears to be a race. Nobody doubts that they will all reach it; the only question is which will reach it first.
So, assuming one can get a hold of a reservation -- the railroads and the Trimotor airliner to Boston are overlooked -- one can take that three-day weekend with fears for the future. And yet -- can one really believe it."
From Once in Golconda by John Brooks, 1969
To be continued....
Phos
(1/2/00; 10:21:18MDT - Msg ID:22046)
Canuck (1/2/00; 6:37:06MDT - Msg ID:22033)
First, I would like to thank MK for The Stranger's return. The more good discussion here, the more I learn. That is a bit selfish I suppose, but I like to learn and I have learned much (and forgotten a lot of it!) from this site. I have been dragging myself to the computer over the holidays despite having the flu (Sydney?) so as not to miss anything.
Canuck raises an interesting point. Will there be a market correction? What I have been reading elsewhere suggests money has been sitting on the sidelines waiting for Y2K to pass and, now, that money should come rushing into the market driving it to new heights but possibly not for long. I would like to hear the opinions of some of the sages here on what may transpire.
I would think the FED will have a large impact on where the markets go from here. Are they going to start reducing the huge money supply bubble they created in the latter months of 1999? Are they going to raise interest rates in February to rein in potential inflation? I think the ball is very firmly in Mr. Greenspan's court and what he does with it will affect us all this year. Seeing that it is an election year, the politicians are going to want some input to the process, I would assume. They would not want the economy tanking due to a major market correction brought on by higher interest rates. And, of course, Y2K has not shown much yet but it may still. Let's see what happens over the next month or so.
May I wish a very happy New Year to our host and fellow round table members. The best for 2000 (especially gold).
Canuck
(1/2/00; 10:00:37MDT - Msg ID:22045)
I relieve my post for awhile; talk to you soon.
Y2K : The Non-Event
I send this to anyone feeling duped.
Look's like Y2K will come and go with very few problems. This is a good thing, a very good thing. I'm glad we will avoid the catastrophic scenarios painted by the extreme 'doomers'.
I took painstaking measures to protect my family amd myself from any harm. It was my job. It was obvious to me to take a position of safety than to take a position of risk. I have too many canned goods and way too
much macaroni in the house but I don't care. It will be used. In the next few weeks I will 'unwind' this position and carry on.
The U.S.A. also has its 'line of credit' extended too far so I foresee an 'unwinding' in the financial arena as well. We may well see volatility in the markets but this will not affect me much because in line with my 'position of safety' I liquidated all equities Dec. 31. I don't think I can stomach the stock markets any more.
It has turned into a guessing game.
Today I sit a free man with few worries; I have my wife, my children, my home and my insurance. That insurance, my friends, is a yellow metal extremely undervalued today but ready to battle any bug.
When the next 'rollover' occurs, I will play it EXACTLY the same way.
P.S. : Cheap firewood and generator for sale!!
rsjacksr
(1/2/00; 9:23:29MDT - Msg ID:22044)
y2k and Brainless management
This not the time to become complacent
Happy New Year to everyone.
From my previous post, you should know that I'm not a doomer.
I don't believe we'll lose water, sewage or any of the essentials in a well serviced areas.
But here's what I do know…….. If companies have handled the y2k problem in the same manner as related to me by friends …… we are in for a rough ride. And you won't know that until the problems can work their way through the system. At minimum, the next couple of weeks. So don't be in a hurry to breath a sigh of relief. The game hasn't even yet started.
------- canamami (01/01/00; 20:39:05MDT - Msg ID:22011)
Also, several cousins have "lost" their New Year's holidays because the government put them "on call" in case there were emergencies. My cousins are now convinced Y2K was a scam thought up by computer people looking for $800 a day consulting fees (said contracts continuing for several more months). -------
I'm glad their systems stayed up. But the night is young and the proof is in the pudding. It take time for problems to work their way thru the system. Associates of mind have been put on "call" for the MONTHS OF DECEMBER AND JANUARY.
-------- Journeyman (01/02/00; 02:19:24MDT - Msg ID:22029)
A COBOL programmer friend of mine, now in upper management of a company that services Fortune 500 Cos (and others), was on Y2K watch over the weekend. He reports things as largely uneventful. --------
Lucky him.
My friends were put on call Friday and some have disappeared into the black hole of system crashes ever since. Some have been gone for more than twenty four hours. The problem, as related to me, is largely companies that did little or nothing. This includes hiring temps to write code and then not test it. Brainless management. LOL (lots of luck). Take care.
Mr Gresham
(1/2/00; 9:18:17MDT - Msg ID:22043)
Stranger
Good for you both, and for us all. I look forward to making a valuable new acquaintance.
The Stranger
(1/2/00; 9:07:50MDT - Msg ID:22042)
Test
Test
USAGOLD
(1/2/00; 9:04:15MDT - Msg ID:22041)
The Stranger
I have asked The Stranger to retake his seat at this noble table and he has accepted. I have done this not only because of the public requests posted here, but also because of the strength of his contributions in the past which I feel warrant handling this situation differently from similar situations in the past. The other reason for reinstating The Stranger's code is the stature of some of the posters requesting his return through private correspondence -- posters who I know have a high regard for the rules of this Forum and maintaining its integrity. I want to thank those who publicly spoke in The Stranger's behalf in this hall for the concern displayed and the class with which the requests were made. The advice, be assured, has been taken in the spirit it was given. I also want to thank those who spoke in behalf of the integrity of this Forum and its rules both publicly and in private correspondence. Please be assured that the rules stand as published now and in the future. I personally have enjoyed The Stranger's presence here and welcome him back whole-heartedly. It will be good to once again hear his voice in this hall.
Stranger, please take your seat, Sir, and thank you for graciously accepting my invitation to return. I look forward to your contributions, and I know I speak for many when I say that we have missed your participation.
Let the discussion continue.....MK
Bonedaddy
(1/2/00; 8:20:17MDT - Msg ID:22040)
Hipplebeck
Beautiful logic, man! No wonder they call it Times "Square".
Bonedaddy
(1/2/00; 8:10:10MDT - Msg ID:22039)
Steve H, on protecting GOLD
Steve, thank you for yesterdays post. As a society, I think we have difficulty seeing how interconnencted our rights an responsibilities truly are. Over the course of time, rights not asserted or claimed are certainly lost. Personal arms have not changed much since since the turn of
the last century. But, many of the American people have since sold their birthright for porridge.
As citizens, we have been allured by dreams of safe, cushy retirements on 401k dollars and medicare. If our "benefactors" had truly cared for us, they would have provided a tax free means for us to take delivery of physical GOLD. (A gold backed 401-k? Who holds the gold?)
Bottom line, there are as many criminals in government "service" as there are in society. The same holds true for organized religion. (Was it Descartes who said, "Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"?) For this reason collective rights will always be subject to corruption. The only true rights flow to the individual. The blood of Christ was shed for the one person who would believe. But any person may choose to be that "one". Therefore, let us stand together, as individuals, and assert our rights. And take possession of physical gold while we can still do so openly.
The one caveat: the individual must act responsibly at all times. The price for any mistakes must rest soley with that one individual. Costs cannot be shared with the crowd.
Hipplebeck
(1/2/00; 7:50:46MDT - Msg ID:22038)
freedom
In Times square, streets were locked down, dogs were sniffing, people being searched, military style police everywhere. No alcohol, no packages, etc.
In Red square people were firing pop bottle rockets out of their empty champaigne bottles.
Canuck
(1/2/00; 7:00:56MDT - Msg ID:22037)
Embedded chips date sensitive; maybe not??
Copied from elsewhere
---------------------------
After the rollover I put my brain in gear, rather than relying on the "experts" as I have done to now about what goes in the embeds. I'm not a hardware guy, but I went back and thought about my only hardware project from 20 years ago in university (back when memory was expensive).
Any thing that is in hardware that deals in time is going to use counters to determine when time has elapsed. They are not going to use dates because you have to use more memory to store it and then convert it to a number to do the calculations and then more memory to convert the number back to a date. So they'll count seconds or days. The point of storing a date calculation is know when a certain amount of time has passed. If you use counters (even thousands of seconds for many days) it is the simplest, cheapest, and bug free way to do that - regardless of date. Now some of the more fancy hardware that is newer may have some date functions for things like maintenance (since memory is not a problem now) that has been arbitrarily decided to be done at month ends rather than on a fixed interval, but my guess are those are very few and between.
End of story.
IT and database are a different matter altogether and we will see those effects start at the end of the first day, first week (a few) and end of the first month (many) because those systmes will now be calculating things based on days transpired which will now calculate to negative days (so we should get interesting usage billing and interest billings). Similarly penalties won't be applied because the number of days in the calculation will be negative so the penalty period would not have expired yet.
Overall I think these will be minor problems too as I don't think too many functions will be affected (they'll be things like extra negative intererst, no penalties, billing for execessive negative usage, etc.)
Yourdon, I'm surprised you fell for this in such a grand way, you're supposed to be one the "experts" who investigated all this. Why Mr. CEO said all his teams were being sent home was because his clients along with all the other companies with embeds found out the above and realized that the "consultants" were swindling them by just investigating and investigating and investigating but actually doing very little else. I'm willing to bet that 99.999% of all embeds are like what I describe above. That's why the world could tollerate a 0.001% hiccup in the number of embeds out there and not blink at all.
Canuck
(1/2/00; 6:51:40MDT - Msg ID:22036)
Oil Report ?
Giant Gulf oil producers exterminate Y2K bug
]DUBAI, Jan 1 (Reuters) - After months of preparation for possible Y2K] ]mayhem in a strategic region that sits on nearly half of the world's oil reserves,] giant Gulf producers appear to have squashed the dreaded millennium
computer bug.
Shipping and oil officials said on Saturday that it was business as usual in the Gulf, where wells were pumping crude for supply to the West and Asia after fears that the millennium bug could wreak havoc.
OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia -- the world's biggest oil producer and exporter -- moved quickly after the turn of the century to reassure its customers that oil was flowing.
State oil giant Saudi Aramco reported that production, export terminals, refineries and pipelines in the kingdom were running smoothly. Shipping sources said they had so far heard no reports of any disruptions in oil exports.
``Everything is working normal now and it was during the rollover,'' said an official with one of the region's biggest shipping agents. ``It has all been under control since yesterday early morning until now. There has been no stoppage.''
Concern had been growing in huge markets such as the United States that the Y2K bug could undermine crucial supplies from the strategic Gulf. U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson underscored worries when he said he would be speaking to the oil ministers of Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the head of the International Energy Agency to discuss Y2K conditions.
Saudi Arabia had said it was ready to replace any oil supplies that my be disrupted because of Y2K computer problems.
PRODUCERS REPORT NO PROBLEMS
But key Middle East producers faced no serious problems in their huge oil and gas fields, export terminals and refineries.
Big OPEC players such as Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Libya and Algeria escaped any Y2K disruptions to exports to huge markets in the West and Asia, shipping sources and officials said.
Egypt said supplies from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean along its Suez Canal and SUMED pipeline suffered no disruption. In Ankara, Turkey said it had put back the date on the monitoring system on ,the Iraqi pipeline that delivers oil to the Meditanerrean to 1995 to circumvent
the bug.
Many questions had been raised in the countdown to the turn of the century amid the global Y2K hysteria. Would Iran's energy industry, for instance, escape the possible wrath of Y2K because the country's computer systems are older?
``The loading of tankers at Iran's ports is continuing on schedule and without interruption,'' the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Mohammad Saadatvand, Oil Ministry representative at the state Y2K headquarters, as saying.
Saadatvand said operations were also normal at refineries and other oil installations.
Gulf states which belong to the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries were especially sensitive to any damage to oil exports that could undermine the delicate balance of supply and demand in the world market.
After all, 1999 was the year when OPEC returned to the world oil stage spotlight with a production cut deal that has doubled prices and given the cartel renewed prestige after years of quota violations.
Even smaller, non-OPEC producers in the Gulf said they managed to exterminate the Y2K bug and safeguard oil exports that are their economic lifeblood.
``Everything is fine in production and the oil fields. There are no problems,'' Nabil al-Qawsi, an official at the oil ministry in Yemen, told Reuters.
overton
(1/2/00; 6:49:28MDT - Msg ID:22035)
Canuck ********* black gold report report
http://www.kitcomm.com/comments/gold/2000q1/2000_01/1000102.041417.sharefine.htm
see sharefins 04:14 this morning kitco
Canuck
(1/2/00; 6:40:53MDT - Msg ID:22034)
Question #2
CNN, in a 3 second update yesterday, declared," Kuwait rolled over fine."
I still haven't heard/see a 'bit' on middle east or Venezuala(sp)?
Anyone?
Canuck
(1/2/00; 6:37:06MDT - Msg ID:22033)
Question
The information this week-end has been most interesting.
I have a question regarding Y2K.
If Y2K is over, we sense there will be an exodus from USD and an ensuing market correction/crash.
If Y2K is not over, there will be fear/panic and there will
be a market correction/crash.
Is this to say that regardless of the Y2K outcome there will be a correction/crash?
Mr Gresham
(01/02/00; 03:03:45MDT - Msg ID:22032)
Argentina
No sign of Argentina troubles on Yahoo or Buenos Aires news, Journeyman.
WAC -- Welcome back!
g'nite
WAC (Wide Awake Club)
(01/02/00; 03:01:09MDT - Msg ID:22031)
Which direction for the £ - Euro or $
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=002254602319209&rtmo=pb1lBhpe&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/99/12/31/wnaf31.html
Happy New Year All. I'm not sure if this article as already been posted. It's the first public suggestion I've found (in a reputable newspaper)of the suggestion of the UK joining the US $.
Mr Gresham
(01/02/00; 02:30:24MDT - Msg ID:22030)
FOA -- 30k?
FOA
This was first scribbled while reading Holtzman's latest. Still raw; I can't seem to get all the paragraphs to lead to one another, (it's still new imagery for me), written at different times, and it's late, I'm tired. I'll get it out now or it may languish for weeks…
He wrote: "There seems to be some misunderstanding about what would happen were the world were to universally abandon euros, dollars, yen and pounds and adopt a literal gold standard. Contrary to the hopes of many, the purchasing power of an ounce of gold in such a circumstance would not change much at all. It's not that the relatively fixed number of above-ground ounces would be rationed out to replace all the paper money and bank deposits. Not at all. Instead, things would simply be repriced in terms of units of gold mass. "
For all my appreciation of Holtzman's wit and wisdom – and I could have written a LONG appreciation – he seems vulnerable here while deflating a common truism among Goldhearts.
The disappearance of one entire class of "money" would leave the field open to, yes, repricing in gold units, but that class of gold units would then be able to buy all things presently being traded in fiats, probably at a very low gold price giving a substantial premium to gold holders. (How would velocity affect exchange value?) But that won't happen, at least for now.
The question is: Exactly what IS the money supply?
The money supply is made up of the things including gold, bank balances, and pieces of colored paper, that various groups of people are willing to labor for and sell their belongings for. Currencies of various types are great pools of trust among particular (national) groups with some overlap between groups accepting the same currency. Most persons living in the world develop a connection primarily to one currency, and accept others only with the intention of converting them to their primary "squeeze".
Things that have value as money exist as great pools (I'm picturing different-colored puddles meeting on a sidewalk) bumping each other, mixing, pushing, contending for the "non-money" goods of the world. They are pools of confidence, and their value rises en masse as the estimation of their overall purchasing power rises, and diminishes as the money-printing agency creates more of that currency and is discovered doing so.
If the world grants dollars-as-a-whole the right to buy, say 50% of the world's good and services, a single dollar depreciated by money supply inflation will buy less of that share, but the aggregate of dollars should (what is it – cetis paribus? All other things remaining equal) still buy the same 50% share. The other moneys of the world as a whole have been allocated among them in the contending marketplace of public confidence the other 50%.
A fiat currency is backed not by its government, which has NOTHING to give but other paper, but by its citizens’ willingness to work and sell for it. Residents of other nations may form an estimation of the worth of the currency pool of a nation, and want to hold some of it, usually for their own reasons of hedging the untrustworthiness of their own currency. A dual loyalty is a survival skill in many places. (You get a little taste of that as a tourist if you ever encountered moneychangers near borders of nations with exchange-controlled currencies: Poland-USSR, Cote d’Ivoire-Ghana-Togo).
When USAmericans find they must develop that dual loyalty, then the dollar will shake. The value of the dollar pool externally has come less from the goods and services USAmericans are willing to provide to others, but from the collection of different branches of that pool outside the US for local purposes. The chief attribute earning trust within and without the US has been the perception that creation of dollars has not been grossly abused, until now. When and how the recent splurge in dollar creation is noticed is the denouement we shall watch.
How much money is contending for non-money? If you removed – or devalued – one class of money, then others should grow in their powers to bid for non-money goods. Right now, the EC is attempting to create a class of money that combines the prior value of all DMs, francs, etc., and represents the pool of currency that existed in Europe. That fiat currency purchased goods before and it shall in the future. It represents a pool of shared value for which people will deliver their services.
The Europeans therefore possess TWO pools of value: their fiat currency and their gold reserves. It is not necessary and would do them no good to back their currency with gold. It would do them no good to nullify the value of one entire class of present value (fiat) that people now respect and will work for. It would not add very much to the value of the gold reserve, and would only cut the amount of goods and services that Europeans could bid for. At the same time, bringing the gold out into open spending would inflate prices unnecessarily. They see it as wealth storage, FOA says. It also turns out to be a wise use of Gresham's Law, encouraging the use of a wisely-managed ("I only have to run faster than you," said the Euro to the Dollar) fiat currency in trade, and keeping the gold slightly off-stage (or well-displayed in the bank window as in the old wildcat banking days in US) for effect in earning world respect. Kind of trying to blend the best of 19th & 20th centuries.
Gold, at this point, sits on the edge of the bench as a possible substitute, but it doesn't yet have much of a share of goods and services that expect to sell themselves for gold. Instead, gold gets bought and sold for dollars. Dollars brought gold to the party, but will gold leave with someone else?
It is the _overall_ loss of credibility of a class of money that would open the way for gold (or the other fiats) to encroach upon its share. That loss would never likely be total, but it might be surprisingly large.
The question of gold rising to $30,000 led me to explore the question: "How much 'money’ is contending for 'non-money’?
The hydraulics behind FOA's assertion come in two stages, as (was it Canamami?) once asked: Is it 300 to 3000 based on price inflation of "things-in-general" going up by 10 times? And then another 10 times from other factors.
I think FOA is saying the first 10 times, even preceding the inflation of "things-in-general", will be a special case (one-time) as externally-held dollars with "nowhere to go" in fear of being cut off from buying ANYTHING, will quickly bid for gold just to get _something_ that dollars can still buy and get them out of nervous pockets. It is really hard to believe in such a run, without seeing the dollar figures now in advance of it, and thinking about other exits for those dollars. But gold would certainly be the foremost candidate.
Most of us would settle for protection against inflation of things in general, in a time of crisis. And that is something we assume gold would give us, whether the inflation increment turns out to be 2x or 10x. FOA says the dollar supply is out there for the 10x inflation of things in general (?), but is the same pool of dollars being "counted twice", once to go into things in general and the other into gold as a default crisis insurance?
I would like to pick this up at another time, because now I seem to recall figures like those this article seeks have passed under our gaze before, and perhaps a better figure-filer than I will be kind enough to bring them back up. Plus, this is still new material to me, having MY questions clear for the first time, and I would probably waste both of our time to go farther into it tonight. I'm grateful to be in a group (class?) where we can explore together without having to appear to be "know-it-alls."
Journeyman
(01/02/00; 02:19:24MDT - Msg ID:22029)
Argentine banks declare holiday???
Unverified rumor, repeat, RUMOR!!!!
A cobol programmer friend of mine, now in upper management of a company that services Fortune 500 Co.s (and others), was on Y2K watch over the weekend. He reports things as largely uneventful.
HOWEVER, he reported that the Argentine banks had declared a bank holiday, as there were massive bank runs. I have done a cursory search of the web, using the Drudge site only, but can't verify this story so far.
Anyone else heard about runs on Argentine banks????
Regards,
Journeyman
Number Six
(01/02/00; 01:11:34MDT - Msg ID:22028)
Interesting post on tb2k...
Even though 10% of the world is experiencing minor glitches randomly in the basic infrastructure now, it should be noted carefully by all IT professionals and computer experts that the other 90% of the system hasn't yet been fired up in real-time testing. As people will go back to work on Monday fire up those systems and then we will soon see what kind of interconnectivity problems surface as the whole system is then put into full operation. If we start seeing snowball effects happening over the next few weeks we wil soon know how far the system can cope without collasping on itself.
The small glitches that we think are 'minor problems' now can easily at any time start escalating through the infrastructure, so its a waiting game to see how many of these glitches will surface. If there is enough of those little tiny glitches or outages happening all at once this can clog up or collaspe the infrastructure and grind it to a halt, but only time will tell if the glitches start increasing in their accelerations or remain at a stable level that the system and the programmers are able to cope with, for this is the big hidden danger of the y2k issue now.
I am sure there will be an increase in the amount of glitching when the other 90% of the code is put into operation when people go back to business as usual and with those systems that couldn't get their embeds upgraded because not enough time, in the meantime last minute fixing is probably being done during the holidays to try to turn back the glitch bomb before people go to work. We must also take into account that this is where the "non-compliant or incompleted systems" around the world start to play the part in provoking a interconnecting glitch snowball effect for nearly half the world's computer systems did not make it to the deadline of 31st Dec 1999 and so technicians hope to try to fix things in 2000 after the glitching starts for the danger is far from over, if the glitches snowball, it may outdo the number of technicians and programmers to fix it, it's just the beginning, wait and see.
Now it all depends if there is enough glitching to outdo the number of programmers patching the systems up, this will be quie interesting. The bomb has gone off, but it hasn't quite detonated fully yet, its a Year 2000 Timebomb, not a Day 2000 Timebomb. So many think that because everything in the basic infrastructure is still operational so far with only minor glitches that this y2k bomb is only a fizzler.
We will know if the infrastructure stands once it starts going into full real-time testing, we can't know if the system is going to pass the test until the whole thing is tested. Before we celebrate thining the y2k bug has been beaten, not everything was put in full operation on New Year's celebrations, because we see the power and phones still working or basic utils, this don't mean that the whole system has jumped the hurdle over y2k.
TO SUM UP
=========
The immediate effects of y2k are not really immediate but over time, its a timebomb, not a daybomb. Not until the whole system is put into full real-time operation will be begin to know of the ramifications of y2k over the next few weeks. y2k is not a day event, its a year event, possibly even longer. Pollies can gloat all they like about the rollover event, for it dosen't matter to the billions of glitches and unfixed systems around the world, they don't take day events. If there are problems with embeds, they might take a while to show up. The non comp ones though would probably crash as soon as they are fired up. But the y2k in the software code plus the billions of glitches will prob slowly detonate over time.
Number Six
(01/02/00; 00:59:26MDT - Msg ID:22027)
@Shifty
Yes, all markets are open in the USA on Tuesday, though I believe Monday elsewhere, especially the far east/Oz...
I wonder if money will flow out of US equities as Canamami predicts, remember also that a lot of folks did not cash out last week because of the tax hit - this week they may decide to bail.
If there are any y2k-related bank glitches, the bailing could turn into a stampede for the exits... maybe :o)
SHIFTY
(01/02/00; 00:34:38MDT - Msg ID:22026)
monday gold
I just did not notice that gold was closed on monday.
Too much y2k prep.
I would do it all again. It let me see just how tuff it can to be 100% self-sufficient.
SHIFTY
(01/02/00; 00:10:00MDT - Msg ID:22025)
gold closed 1/3/00
I did not know that gold was closed on mon.
Is this new or did I just not notice it the other day.??
Click Here to view yesterday's discussion.
Permission to reprint is hereby granted where the USAGOLD name is cited along with our web address, mailing address and phone number. For electronic reproductions, citing the post heading and the http://www.usagold.com/cpmforum/ website address as the source is sufficient.
|
Centennial Precious Metals Gold coins & bullion since 1973 Denver, Colorado 80246-0009 We educate first-time investors! |
for quotes and purchase information.
|
