Time magazine: "If we remain unable to resume delivery within 24 calendar months..."
asked in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Q&A Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the current issue of Time magazine (issue dated March 15, with picture of Monica Lewinsky on the cover), look on the table-of-contents page. At the bottom is some boilerplate about trademarks and subscription information. Two sentences have been added this week:
Subscribers: In the event that we are unable to effect the delivery of your subscription to Time magazine for any reason beyond our control, our obligation is limited to the resumption of your subscription when we are able to do so. If we remain unable to resume delivery within 24 calendar months from the date of interruption, we will have no further obligation under your subscription agreement."
This warning hasn't been there in the past. That's quite a caveat from the lawyers of the world's largest media and entertainment business.
It's probably not coincidental that it appeared within 2 weeks of the GAO report criticizing the U.S. Postal Service on Y2K progress.
-- five (five@andcounting.com), March 12, 1999
Answers
Amazing observation Five. Note to self: cancel all subscriptions in October. I am going to check this observation out myself.
If this is accurate, at least we can see Time had the vulgarity to display its panic after making laughingstock out of the "little people."
-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 12, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is absolutely accurate! I work in a Library and we received the new Time today. I hadn't even noticed it until I saw this post. I went and checked for myself. There it is in black and white and it is even in bold print. Sharp eyes, five!
-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), March 12, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice would have been inserted at the behest of the "business" part of the organization. The editorial part of the operation is under separate control, and still seems to be clueless (see p. 26 of same issue).
"Respectable" media pride themselves on what is termed "separation of church and state"--to borrow a constitution al phrase--meaning that there is a firewall between business side and editorial side. The point being to prevent large advertisers etc from having any input in editorial decisions.
-- five (five@andcounting.com), March 12, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High five, five. A most astute finding. What does one with your perceptive abilities see in store for us re. y2k and economy?
-- a (a@a.a), March 12, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well for what it's worth... Aside from Y2K, I believe the world has been in a period of rolling disinflation/deflation for several years, and it is fast tipping into depression. The U.S. is only propped up by flight to quality as well as the open money-supply spigot that Greenspan has been manning--especially since the Asia currency debacle last summer followed by Russian default. And all that new money has been going to the stock market, which I definitely believe is a huge bubble about to burst.
More recently, durable goods orders have shown a huge increase in electronic-equipment purchases, driven, I think, by Y2K remediation and to some extent by people preparing. Auto sales are booming, driven by DGIs who are spending their stock-market paper profits as fast as their stocks tick up, as well as by those people who are worried that there won't be any new cars & trucks around this time next year.
However, this morning's release of monthly consumer confidence figures showed a sizable drop, I heard, both for current conditions and for the "expectations" component, which measures consumer confidence six months out. I think that is because Y2K fears are starting to seep into the broader populace.
And even if Y2K is mild, the economy will take a hit next year because of business and consumer "stockpiling" this year. Blah, blah, blah...
All this has been speculated on before. The unknown is the severity of Y2K. But I believe the Y2K issue will build in the media and in the public's mind. Consumer spending is a huge part of the economy--30%--if the consumer loses confidence because of Y2K, we will see money pulled out of the market and banks big time. Much of that will go to preparations, much under the mattress. The "island fortress" of the U.S. economy, which has so far weathered the economic woes of the world--indeed has even greatly benefited from them in terms of cheap imports--will be caught up in the depression.
Personally, I agonize about whether to quit my job so that I can cash out my 401k, much of which is tied up in company stock.
Needless to say, if Y2K is much more than a 3, the economy is toast, to borrow a Yardeni phrase.
-- (five@andcounting.com), March 12, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribute an answer to "Time magazine: "If we remain unable to resume delivery within 24 calendar months...""
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
timebomb2000@yourdon.com
greenspun.com |
