Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (6453)	7/10/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: O. H. Rundell	Respond to of 9818

jbe, Anyone here willing to risk making a forecast of Y2K's economic impact on Asia? "Toast" or was that "Burnt Toast" --Ed Yardeni O. H.

To: jbe who wrote (6453)	7/10/1999 5:25:00 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Since China doesn't use the same calendar as us ( I don't know about other Asian countries ), will they avoid the Y2K problem? In any case, China is much less computerized than the US. Anyone know anything more about this subject? I may be moving to Indonesia before the end of the year.

To: jbe who wrote (6453)	7/10/1999 5:44:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

>>I don't buy into the EOTWAWKI scenario for North America.<< Nor do I. But what about Asia? jbe, We'll know by Sept. That's when APEC will hopefully be receiving a coordinated series of reports about their status from various member nations. It seems there are some high-level people over at Foggy Bottom who are finally beginning to take notice of Y2K and the potential for a reoccurence of Asian Contagion. Rumour has it that Y2K is now considered Item #2 on Madeline's list of things to pay attention to this fall (lord knows what #1 is..:0). But my sense is that we're seeing an attempt to create an environment where it is ackowledged grudgingly that there will be problems, but that they have identified them and can present a list of workable contingency plans to perform work-arounds. It's just a damn shame that this wasn't being done 12-24 months ago. And we can not underestimate the obstacle that lies in the Asian sense of honor and "face". It is a real force which apparently has prevented more proactive steps from being taken until recently. They don't take too kindly to being told what to do, nor being found guilty of negligence or ignorance. Yes, I fully expect a repeat of an Asian contagion this fall which is likely to nip their recovery in the bud. The real problem is that information coming from Asia is spotty and unreliable. Some private sources, like people from IBM, are claiming that Japan is not as bad off as was suspected. But curiously, these private sources of information are not deemed "reliable" by gov't officials. Only reports assembled, analyzed, and presented by gov't agencies are deemed "reliable" for the purpose of deciding policy. And up until 6 months ago, few Asian countries even had the equivalent of a "Y2K Czar" as have here in the US and UK. So without a coordinating body empowered by their own gov'ts to obtain, organize, and disseminate data. And another interesting aspect of this effort is suddenly a renewed feeling of "what can we do to help"? But it has been US policy that Y2K problems overseas were the problem of the nation concerned, not the US (probably to avoid liability issues). Now it seems there is a push to assist Asian economies to work with one another in order to make necessary contingency plans on cross-border trade and finance and the US, Canada, and Australia are finding themselves in leadership roles in facilitating this. I can tell you all with a reasonable degree of confidence that Y2K is still a topic that many nations would rather face with denial, rather than resolute effort and action. And within the US gov't there is a battle ongoing between which paths to take in assisting Asia or any other nation. Some would prefer merely sticking to surveys where nations self-report their status, whereas others want to go further and actually assist in coordinating contingency plans and work arounds in order to ensure that nations can't remain in denial. With self-reportive surveys you immediately have data that all who read it will find suspect and exagerrated. On the other hand is a process where nations are provided a format where they can show the pro-active steps they have taken, thus letting the world know that they will have problems but are aware of where those problems likely will be and what contingency plans are being instituted to mitigate them. Some say, that both processes are lacking since time is so short. But at least the latter will show concrete efforts and not more paper-shuffling. Hope this helps. Regards, Ron