Y2K Worries

CAMBRIDGE: The passage to the year 2000 involves more than the usual end-of-century doomsday fears. Even those who are comfortable that we are not approaching the end of the world and civilization anticipate a serious bump in the road. Information technology, the blessings of which are sung day in and day out, not least by investment gurus, may spoil the party. Payments systems may fail, transport systems may fail, even security installations might malfunction. But empty shops and banks are perhaps the least of the risks we face. Should we get out of the markets and into cash early, build inventories of food and simply hunker down until the uncertainties pass?

Preparedness for Y2K varies substantially around the world. Surveys show that the US is best prepared, that Japan has prepared very little, and that emerging markets basically not at all. What can go most wrong and where is the weakest link? A first useful distinction in judging the economic effects of Y2K is between what might actually happen and how people act, as a result, in anticipation. Two important areas come into play, production and inventories on one hand and financial transactions on the other. For production and inventories the story is simple: businesses fear the disruption of the supply of intermediate goods or final goods and, as a result, they increase their inventories. That way, if something goes wrong with their suppliers' systems, at least they will have something on their shelves. This effect means that there will be more production and inventory building in the run-up to the year 2000, and correspondingly inventory run-offs and less production in the beginning on next year. In the US this effect is estimated to be about one third of one percent of GDP, not small at all.

What appears appropriate for business will also be adopted by households. No one, of course, wants to face empty shelves. We know this perfectly well; anytime there is a snowstorm or other threatened disruption, households build stocks. They will act in this way even more so this time because it is in the nature of Y2K that no one can anticipate the scope and duration of the problems it will cause. All this is sound economics. But imagine if things don't work out this way. Imagine if households don't plan ahead, don't build up reserves. Clearly, we would see overproduction and unsold inventories resulting in a far sharper cut in production early in 2000.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.


Log in

  1. Television sets showing a news report on Xi Jinping's speech Anthony Wallace/Getty Images

    Empowering China’s New Miracle Workers

    China’s success in the next five years will depend largely on how well the government manages the tensions underlying its complex agenda. In particular, China’s leaders will need to balance a muscular Communist Party, setting standards and protecting the public interest, with an empowered market, driving the economy into the future.

  2. United States Supreme Court Hisham Ibrahim/Getty Images

    The Sovereignty that Really Matters

    The preference of some countries to isolate themselves within their borders is anachronistic and self-defeating, but it would be a serious mistake for others, fearing contagion, to respond by imposing strict isolation. Even in states that have succumbed to reductionist discourses, much of the population has not.

  3.  The price of Euro and US dollars Daniel Leal Olivas/Getty Images

    Resurrecting Creditor Adjustment

    When the Bretton Woods Agreement was hashed out in 1944, it was agreed that countries with current-account deficits should be able to limit temporarily purchases of goods from countries running surpluses. In the ensuing 73 years, the so-called "scarce-currency clause" has been largely forgotten; but it may be time to bring it back.

  4. Leaders of the Russian Revolution in Red Square Keystone France/Getty Images

    Trump’s Republican Collaborators

    Republican leaders have a choice: they can either continue to collaborate with President Donald Trump, thereby courting disaster, or they can renounce him, finally putting their country’s democracy ahead of loyalty to their party tribe. They are hardly the first politicians to face such a decision.

  5. Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron John Thys/Getty Images

    How Money Could Unblock the Brexit Talks

    With talks on the UK's withdrawal from the EU stalled, negotiators should shift to the temporary “transition” Prime Minister Theresa May officially requested last month. Above all, the negotiators should focus immediately on the British budget contributions that will be required to make an orderly transition possible.

  6. Ksenia Sobchak Mladlen Antonov/Getty Images

    Is Vladimir Putin Losing His Grip?

    In recent decades, as President Vladimir Putin has entrenched his authority, Russia has seemed to be moving backward socially and economically. But while the Kremlin knows that it must reverse this trajectory, genuine reform would be incompatible with the kleptocratic character of Putin’s regime.

  7. Right-wing parties hold conference Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

    Rage Against the Elites

    • With the advantage of hindsight, four recent books bring to bear diverse perspectives on the West’s current populist moment. 
    • Taken together, they help us to understand what that moment is and how it arrived, while reminding us that history is contingent, not inevitable

    Global Bookmark

    Distinguished thinkers review the world’s most important new books on politics, economics, and international affairs.

  8. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin Bill Clark/Getty Images

    Don’t Bank on Bankruptcy for Banks

    As a part of their efforts to roll back the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, congressional Republicans have approved a measure that would have courts, rather than regulators, oversee megabank bankruptcies. It is now up to the Trump administration to decide if it wants to set the stage for a repeat of the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.