Time: Wed Jul 16 05:58:53 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA23483
for [address in tool bar]; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 05:46:22 -0700 (MST)
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA09121;
Wed, 16 Jul 1997 05:45:39 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 05:45:16 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Year 2000 computer date crisis
<snip>
>
>This Year 2000 Computer Date crisis has about been beat to death.
>However, this is the most exhaustive analysis of the scenario that I've
>seen, and when you pursue the link to the site, it really goes to town.
>Discounting any potential motives for sensationalizing overkill, Gary
>North does raise some points I had trouble dismissing! HT
>
<snip>
>
> BLIND MAN'S BLUFF IN THE YEAR 2000
>
>
> What are you going to be doing for as living in the
>year 2001? Unless you're a fix-it man living in a small
>town, you won't be doing what you do today. If you make
>your living in financial services, you will surely be doing
>something else. If you're a journalist, you will be in a
>new profession. But what? What other useful service can
>you provide? You have very little time to make the switch.
>Let me show you why.
>
> We live in a world that depends on a high division of
>labor. That world has less than three years to go. In one
>gigantic collapse, the division of labor will implode.
>This implosion will begin in 1999. It will accelerate in
>2000 and thereafter. Those who work in highly specialized
>fields will find little or no demand for their skills, in
>the face of an enormous supply of desperate, low-wage
>competition. Any job classification that did not exist in
>1945 will probably not have a lot of demand in 2001, with
>one exception: computer software programming.
>
> The June 2 issue of Newsweek ran a front-cover story
>on the looming computer crisis of the Year 2000 -- called
>y2k (Year 2 K -- shorthand for a thousand). In the week it
>the article appeared (late May), the Dow Jones Industrial
>Average set a record new high. (It was beaten a week
>later.) If investors believed the information reported in
>the Newsweek article, the world's stock markets would have
>collapsed. Clearly, people don't believe it. That's why a
>small handful of people can get out now -- out of the stock
>market, the bond market, and any city over 25,000.
>
> Not everyone can get out at the top of a bull market.
>This includes the "bull market" known as modern industrial
>society. Pull the plug on the local power utility for 30
>days, and every city on earth becomes unlivable. What if
>the plug gets pulled for five years?
>
> How do you rebuild the shattered economy if the
>computers go down, taking public utilities with them?
>Without electricity, you can't run the computers. Without
>computers, you can't fix computers. How can you assemble
>teams of programmers to fix the mess? More to the point,
>how do you pay them if the banks are empty?
>
> Chase Manhattan Bank has 250 million lines of code to
>check and then repair. Citicorp has 400 million lines.
>All big banks are similarly afflicted. And even if this
>could be fixed, bank by bank, there is no universal repair
>standard. Thus, the computers, even if fixed (highly
>doubtful) will not work together after the individual
>repairs. A noncompliant bank's data will then make every
>compliant bank noncompliant. Thus, the world banking
>system will crash in 2000. When the public figures this
>out in 1999, the bank runs will begin.
>
> You will not have a job in 2000. Count on it.
>
>
> "It Just Can't Be True!"
>
> You don't believe me, of course. Not yet. But I have
>published the evidence on this Web site. You can verify
>what I'm saying. But you still won't believe it. Why not?
>Because it's too painful. In their new book, The Sovereign
>Individual, Davidson and Rees-Mogg make a very important
>observation:
>
> A recent psychological study disguised as a
> public opinion poll showed that members of
> individual occupational groups were almost
> uniformly unwilling to accept any conclusion that
> implied a loss of income for them, no matter how
> airtight the logic supporting it. Given
> increased specialization, most of the
> interpretive information about most specialized
> occupational groups is designed to cater to the
> interests of the groups themselves. They have
> little interest in views that might be impolite,
> unprofitable, or politically incorrect (p. 339).
>
> My views are all three: impolite, unprofitable, and
>politically incorrect. Impolite, because I am saying this:
>(1) those advising you are as blind as an eighth-century
>Israelite king; (2) they have given you information that
>will prove to be wildly unprofitable; (3) all the hype
>about your getting rich -- the world's getting rich -- is a
>clap-trap. We are heading for a disaster greater than
>anything the world has experienced since the bubonic plague
>of the mid-14th century.
>
> Because the year 2000 begins on a Saturday, millions
>of victims will not be aware of their dilemma until the
>following Monday or Tuesday. They will pay no attention to
>advance warnings, such as this one, that they are at risk.
>
> As you read this report, I want you to think to
>yourself: "How will this affect me? Is my business at
>risk? Is my income at risk? What should I do?"
>
>
> The Origin of the Problem
>
> Here is the problem. Over three decades ago, computer
>programmers who wrote mainframe computer software saved
>disk space -- in those days, very valuable space -- by
>designating year codes as two-digit entries: 67 instead of
>1967, 78 instead of 1978, etc. Back then, saving this
>seemingly minuscule amount of disk space seemed like an
>economically wise decision. This may prove to be the most
>expensive forecasting error since Noah's flood.
>
> What the programmers ignored for three decades is
>this: in the year 2000, the two digits will be 00. The
>computer will sit there, looking for a year. At midnight,
>January 1, 2000, every mainframe computer using unrevised
>software dies. If old acquaintances are in the computer,
>they will indeed be forgot.
>
> Programmers who recognized the implications of this
>change did not care. They assumed that their software
>would be updated by year 2000. That assumption now
>threatens every piece of custom software sitting on every
>mainframe computer, unless the owner of the computer has
>had the code rewritten. In some cases, this involves
>coordinating half a billion million lines of code.
>(Example: AT&T>) One error on one line can shut down the
>whole system, the way that America Online was shut down for
>a day in 1996 because of a one-digit error.
>
> The handful of reporters who have investigated this
>problem have met a wall of indifference. "We're all using
>microcomputers now." "This is a problem only for a few
>companies that are still using mainframes." "Cheap
>solutions will appear as soon as there is demand." "The
>software will be updated soon, and I'll buy it then." "If
>this were a serious problem, we'd have heard about it."
>Yet this last response is given to someone -- a reporter --
>who is trying to tell people about the problem.
>
> I first read about this problem years ago in a book by
>the pseudonymous author, Robert X. Cringely: Accidental
>Empires. It is not as though the computer industry has
>been unaware of it. Only a few weeks ago, I read a Wall
>Street Journal column on computers that mentioned it. The
>writer wrote that his editor is getting tired of having him
>mention it. This is typical. The general public hasn't
>heard about it, yet editors are already tired of hearing
>about it. "It's old news." Well, it's new news for most
>people.
>
> What does it matter, really? We use microcomputers.
>Microsoft has solved the Year 2000 problem. So have most
>software companies. Everyone uses desktop computers or, at
>the largest, minicomputers, right? Wrong.
>
>
> Governments Rely on Aging Mainframes and Software
>
> On September 24, 1996, Congressman Stephen Horn, who
>is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
>Information, and Technology, submitted to the full
>committee a report on the Year 2000 problem. The
>Subcommittee held hearings on April 16. (Just one day of
>hearings. This indicates the degree of concern that the
>government has.) He said that these hearings revealed "a
>serious lack of awareness of the problem on the part of a
>great number of people in business and government. Even
>more alarming was the cost estimate reported to the
>Subcommittee to remedy the problem, which was said to be
>$30 billion for the Federal Government alone." Then he
>announced:
>
> Without greater urgency, those agencies risk
> being unable to provide services or perform
> functions that they are charged by law with
> performing. Senior agency management officials
> must take aggressive action if these problems are
> to be avoided.
>
> Yet despite Horn's valid warning, nothing visible is
>happening. He knows this. These agencies must shift
>hundreds of millions of dollars from their existing budgets
>to hire outside programmers to rewrite the code that runs
>these agencies. This isn't being done. More to the point,
>the longer they delay, the worse the problem gets. You
>can't just go out and hire programmers who are familiar
>with the code. As businesses find out what threatens them,
>the demand for these highly specialized services will soar.
>(If businessmen don't figure this out in time, payment will
>come due in January of 2000.)
> The Subcommittee's report warns: "This issue may cause
>banks, securities firms and insurance companies to
>ascertain whether the companies they finance or insure are
>year 2000 compliant before making investment decisions."
>It also says that companies will start demanding
>contractual warranties guaranteeing against Year 2000
>breakdowns.
> A memorandum from the Library of Congress Research
>Service (CRS) has warned that "it may be too late to
>correct all of the nation's systems." So, the question
>arises: Which systems will survive and which ones won't?
>Here are some problem areas, according to CRS:
>
> Miscalculation by the Social Security
> Administration of the ages of citizens,
> causing payments to be sent to people
> who are not eligible for benefits while
> ending or not beginning payments to
> those who are eligible;
>
> Miscalculation by the Internal Revenue
> Service of the standard deduction on
> income tax returns for persons over age
> 65, causing incorrect records of
> revenues and payments due;
>
> Malfunctioning of certain Defense
> Department weapon systems;
>
> Erroneous flight schedules generated by
> the Federal Aviation Administration's
> air traffic controllers;
>
> State and local computer systems
> becoming corrupted with false records,
> causing errors in income and property
> tax records, payroll, retirement
> systems, motor vehicle registrations,
> utilities regulations, and a breakdown
> of some public transportation systems.
>
> I don't think these are small issues. They will
>probably start receiving media attention when it is so late
>in the process that there will be massive foul-ups in
>coordinating the revisions.
>
> Notice, the biggest one is missing: an international
>bank run, as depositors demand cash. From that day on, all
>exchanges will be local: the collapse of the division of
>labor.
>
> When the computers' clocks think it's 1900, it soon
>will be.
>
> I realize that there has been tremendous progress in
>microcomputer power, but does anyone really think that all
>of the Federal government's forms -- not an infinite
>number, but approaching infinity as a limit -- can be put
>on three dozen Compaq desktop computers and run with, say,
>Lotus Approach or Microsoft Access? And even if they
>could, how would you re-train all of the bureaucrats to use
>the new systems? How fast will they learn? How fast do
>bureaucracies adapt? The Subcommittee's report warns:
>
> The clock is ticking and most Federal agencies
> have not inventoried their major systems in order
> to detect where the problem lies within and among
> each Federal department, field office and
> division. The date for completion of this
> project cannot slip.
>
> By "cannot," the Subcommittee's report-writer meant
>"must not." The date can surely be allowed to slip. It
>almost certainly will be allowed to slip.
>
> Additionally, the task may be more difficult for
> the public sector, where systems have been in use
> for decades, may lack software documentation and
> therefore increase the time it takes from the
> inventory phase to solution.
>
> Did you get that? The software code's records are
>gone! Remember also that we're not just talking about the
>United States government. We're talking about every
>government -- national, state, and local -- anywhere on
>earth that has its data stored on an unrevised mainframe
>computer system or which relies on any third-party computer
>service that uses uncorrected software.
>
> As the year 2000 approaches, word will slowly begin to
>spread: "After the three-day weekend that will inaugurate
>the year 2000, there is going to be a hangover the likes of
>which we have never seen before." For some, it will be a
>time of celebration. For others, it will be the end of
>their dreams. It depends on whether they are being
>squeezed by the government or dependent on it.
>
> But it's not just government that is at risk. It's
>private industry.
>
>
> Kiss Medicare Goodbye
>
> Some 38 million people will receive Medicare payments
>in 1997. In 2000, an estimated one billion claims will be
>filed, totalling over $288 billion. This, according to a
>May 16, 1997 report of the General Accounting Office (GAO):
>"Medicare Transaction System."
>
> Problem: the Medicare system won't make it through
>2000. The same GAO report shows why. Medicare claims are
>not actually administered by Medicare. It's administered
>by 70 private agencies. These agencies have been informed
>that their contracts will not be renewed in 2000.
>
> The agency that officially supervises Medicare has
>plans for one huge computer system that will bring the
>program in-house. It is the same dream that motivated the
>Internal Revenue Service for the past 11 years. The IRS
>announced earlier this year that after 11 years and $4
>billion, the attempt had failed.
>
> Medicare now knows that it has a problem with its
>computers. They are not Year 2000-compliant. So, to make
>sure that they will be compliant, Medicare has issued an
>appeal to the 70 newly canned companies: please fix the
>year 2000 problem for us before you leave. As the GAO
>report puts it, "contractors may not have a particularly
>high incentive to properly make these conversions. . . ."
>
> What if the system fails? (What if? Are they
>kidding? When!) The report says that the Health Care
>Financing Administration (HCFA), which is responsible for
>running Medicare, has not made contingency plans. "HCFA
>officials are relying on the contractors to identify and
>complete the necessary work in time to avoid problems. Yet
>the . . . . contractors not only have not developed
>contingency plans, that have said that they do not intend
>to do so because they believe that this is HCFA's
>responsibility."
>
>
> Kiss the IRS Goodbye
>
> The IRS has 100 million lines of code. Their code is
>not year 2000-compliant. After the failure of the 11-year
>project to upgrade the system, Chief Information Officer
>Arthur Gross announced that getting the IRS year 2000-
>compliant is the "highest priority for the IRS." The IRS
>has nearly 50,000 code applications to coordinate and
>correct. This task will require the IRS to move 300 full-
>time computer programmers to the new project. (Reported in
>"TechWeb," April 21, 1997).
>
> For comparison purposes, consider the fact that the
>Social Security Administration began working on its year
>2000 repair in 1991. Social Security has 30 million lines
>of code. By June, 1996, the SSA's 400 programmers had
>fixed 6 million lines.
>
> What if the IRS isn't technically equipped to pursue
>tax evaders after December 31, 1999? What if the IRS
>computer system isn't fully integrated with all of its
>branch offices? What if the system's massive quantities of
>forms are not stored in a computer system that is Year
>2000-compliant? More to the point, what if 20% of
>America's taxpayers believe that the IRS can't get them if
>they fail to file a return?
>
> In 1999, the IRS may find a drop in compliance from
>self-employed people. If the IRS can't prosecute these
>people after 1999, there will be a defection of compliance
>by the self-employed. When word spreads to the general
>public, there will be a hue and cry -- maybe at first
>against the evaders, but then against employers who are
>sending in employees' money when self-employed people are
>escaping. Meanwhile, cash-only, self-employed businesses
>will begin to lure business away from tax-compliant
>businesses by offering big discounts.
>
> This will start happening all over the world. Once it
>begins, it will not easily be reversed. The tax system
>rests on this faith: (1) the government will pay us what it
>owes us; (2) the government can get us if we stop paying.
>Both aspects of this faith will be called into question in
>the year 2000 if the governments' computers are not in
>compliance.
>
> Big Brother is no more powerful than his software. On
>January 1, 2000, this strength may fall to zero. Actually,
>double zero.
>
> If the IRS cannot collect taxes, and if all the other
>mainframe computer-dependent tax collection agencies on
>earth do not fix this, what will happen to the government
>debt markets worldwide? To interest rates? To the
>government-guaranteed mortgage market?
>
> Kiss them all goodbye.
>
>
> "No Problem! Trust me!"
>
> There are a few conservative financial newsletter
>writers who have heard about y2k. They deny its economic
>relevance. A shut-down of all mainframe computers would
>mean that newsletter writers will be out of business after
>1999 -- a thought too terrifying for them. So, they brush
>y2k aside with some version of this rebuttal: "Of course,
>the government may not get its computers fixed." This is
>supposed to calm you. It should terrify you. Ask
>yourself:
>
> What happens to T-bills and T-bonds if the
> IRS computer breaks down and a tax revolt spreads
> because taxpayers know the IRS will never find
> them, and that if they pay their taxes, they
> won't get their refunds?
>
> What happens to money market funds and bond
> funds that invest heavily in government debt when
> investors realize that if the IRS can't collect
> taxes, the government will default on its debt?
>
> What happens to the banks when depositors
> figure out that the FDIC is bankrupt and that
> nobody insures their accounts any more?
>
> What happens to your job when the banks
> close because of bank runs, and no business can
> borrow money or even write a check to its
> employees?
>
> What happens to the delivery of food into
> cities when money fails because the banks are
> busted?
>
> What happens to the delivery of public
> utilities when money fails because the banks are
> busted?
>
> What happens to your retirement fund when
> ERISA, the government pension guarantee program,
> goes bankrupt?
>
> What happens to the 38 million people in the U.S.
> who are dependent on Medicare? (Medicare is
> administered by 70 private firms that have all been
> told they will be fired in 2000 when Medicare installs
> its new computer system, but in the meantime, they
> have been asked to do the year 2000 repair on their
> own, to deliver a fixed system to the government in
> 1999. Does this sound crazy? Of course. It's the
> government. See my Web site for confirmation of this
> story: a May 16 government report.)
>
> What happens to 42 million people on Social
> Security?
>
> What happens to every state government?
>
> What happens to crime rates when the state
> cannot imprison violent criminals and may have to
> release those who are locked up because they
> can't be fed?
>
> What happens to the world economy when this
> scenario is multiplied across every government?
>
> Kiss you job goodbye. Especially if you're a
>journalist. I know. I am one. I figure I'll be out of
>work -- forced retirement -- January 1, 2000. I'm making
>plans to be in small-scale agriculture. I'm out of debt.
>
> What about you?
>
>
> Psychological Deferral
>
> Those in authority prefer to defer thinking about
>this. They are playing Scarlett O'Hara: "I'll think about
>it tomorrow," followed by, "Well, fiddle dee-dee."
>Deferral is a normal response to distant problems. The
>question is: What can we afford to defer? People defer
>making this assessment. The fact that you have not read
>much about this looming problem doesn't mean that it isn't
>a problem. If your employer has not actively sought
>solutions to this problem, your firm had better not use
>mainframe computers or be dependent on suppliers that rely
>on mainframe computers.
>
> Everyone assumes that someone else is doing something
>to solve these problems. "It's being taken care of." The
>problem here is the passive voice. Who, exactly, is taking
>care of it? What, exactly, is this person doing? Is he on
>schedule? How do you know for sure? Are you taking his
>word for it? Anyone who takes the word of a computer
>programmer that he is on schedule is a person of very great
>faith. If the programmer says "Sorry, I didn't make it" on
>December 31, 1999, you're dead in the water. Meanwhile, he
>moves on.
>
>
> What You Should Do, Beginning Today
>
> First, you investigate whether what I'm saying is
>true.
>
> Second, think through what happens to you if the local
>power company and the local water and sewage company shut
>down in your city for six months. "Who ya gonna call?"
>Especially if your phone is dead? And if you do get
>through, how ya gonna pay if your local bank is defunct?
>
> Third, here is my personal strategy. I have adopted a
>question:
>
> "Can I prove on paper that he owes it to me?"
>
> I want hard copy print-outs of everything I do with
>the government. If you are owed money from Social
>Security, and you're dependent on this income, contact the
>Social Security Administration every year and get a letter
>telling you what you're owed. This is true of every
>government pension system.
>
> Do you have a copy of your birth certificate? If not,
>write to your place of birth and get it. Even if that
>community has not computerized the records, do it now.
>Even if it keeps the records in a desktop, do it. If word
>starts to spread, they may be buried in requests in 1999.
>You want your paperwork completed before word gets out.
>
> Do you have a copy of your college transcripts? If
>not, get it. The same goes for your work record history.
>Assume that your records are in some company's mainframe
>computer. Assume also that the company has failed to
>update the software.
>
> Do you have a print-out of all of your insurance
>records? Would they stand up in court? If not, get what
>you need, now.
>
> Have you spoken with your local insurance agent? Is
>he fully aware of the problem? Ask him straight out if he
>has scheduled an update of his software if he relies on
>vendor-supplied software. He deserves to know what is
>coming. So do you. (If you want to photocopy this issue
>to send him, go ahead.)
>
> Think through this problem in advance, before it gets
>out and creates a banking panic, all over the world. This
>story will get out eventually. In 1999, when reporters are
>running around looking for sensational Year 2000-third
>millennium stories, this one will at last surface. It
>already has: in Newsweek. At that point, every government
>bureaucrat whose agency is at risk will start playing the
>"No problem" game. "It's being taken care of." The
>bureaucrat's number-one rule is to evade responsibility.
>No one with any authority is going to admit that his
>malfeasance in office is going to create a disaster on Jan.
>1, 2000. The basic response will be this: "There's no
>problem here, and furthermore, I'm not responsible when
>everything collapses next year!"
>
> Keep visiting my Web site for updated information:
>
> http://www.garynorth.com
>
> E-mail this report to anyone you care about.
>
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>
<snip>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail