Tonight, a debate series in NY (that I cofounded with Gene Epstein) called the Soho Forum hosted an awesome bitcoin debate with Peter Schiff vs. Erik Voorhees.
“Bitcoin, or a similar form of cryptocurrency, will eventually replace governments' fiat money as the preferred medium of exchange."
Debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein, and questions were taken live from audience members and from the live stream viewers.
For more interesting debates, visit thesohoforum.org
If you liked this video, please subscribe!
HUGE thank you to all my AMAZING Patreon supporters!
And a GIANT thank you to my sponsors Nelly's Organics (https://nellysorganics.com/), Decentranet (https://decentranet.com/), and HardFork Entertainment (http://hardforkentertainment.io/)
Thanks for watching!! Leave a comment below and come say hi to me on:
For those interested in Bitcoin I have another investment: Tulips. Those interested in Bitcoin have always made the point that the dollar is a fiat currency-- a currency with no intrinsic value. Bitcoin itself has no intrinsic value and its value is related to, and tied, to the dollar. So we have a double fiat "currency" if you will. At least tulips have some intrinsic value. Bitcoin is just a speculative commodity. That's all. It works on the principle of the bigger fool.
This was a good civil debate, hat off to Erik for being civilized unlike the very immature Max Keiser who debated Peter a few months ago. Banks create money out of debt, more than 95% of the money is created by private banks. He who creates the money controls the world. If you think banks are going to sit back and let bitcoin take their money creation process away then you are living in dream world. The banks will just lobby the government to ban cryptocurrencies, saying things like it's the terrorist, drug dealers or peodophiles using it. There is no conspiracy on how money is created just type into google "how money is created Bank of England" and they'll explain it to you, even the Bundesbank admits in the money creation theory or go over to positive money and they have some good information on how money is created. The Swiss just had a referendum on taking the creation of money off the private banks and giving the power to created money back to the government. The Swiss being a conservative lot voted in favour of the banks creating money. I believe Erik in what he says about Fiat money but the reality of life is once cryptocurrencies hit into the bottom line of the banks then it'll be banned . If you understand how central banks control the banks and money supply then you'll know Bitcoin is nothing but a pipe dream that is going to keep loosing value.
The government may well try to ban it. But they can't stop people using it, and there are always people who want to use a currency that can't be controlled. So bitcoin may not reach mainstream adoption if that happens, but it will never go away, and is very much a reality rather than a pipe dream.
I also enjoyed their civilized discussion! Both gave a great presentation :)
Everyone can debate for or against BTC but all we can do is wait and see how it all plays out that's it if you believe in BTC then invest what you can afford to lose if you don't believe then stay away the way I see it is gold and currency have been around for a long time and people have been able to see them work and interact with the economy so let's also give BTC the same level playing field that how we will see which is better for use.
They're both wrong. In a free monetary system (no central bank, no statutory legal tender, no state privileging one medium of exchange over another in any way), most money is still circulating credit, because free property holders can and will extend credit to exchange their property over time (as in home mortgages), and creditors can and will use promissory notes as money during these transactions, and the volume of these notes will exceed the volume of base money (the standard of value in credit contracts).
Neither gold (which has been a statutory legal tender [and thus fiat money] historically) nor Bitcoin is an ideal standard of value, and Bitcoin is completely unfit for this purpose, because its extremely inelastic supply makes its value highly volatile. This volatility is a consequence of the inelastic supply, so it will always exist. There is no equilibrium in which Bitcoin's value stabilizes as it becomes a widely accepted medium of exchange, so it will never be a standard of value in long term credit contracts, and it will never be a widely accepted medium of exchange for this reason.
A cryptocurrency could become a widely used medium of exchange and a standard of value (and the promissory notes could themselves be digital and secured cryptographically), but if "similar to Bitcoin" implies a fixed (or ultimately fixed) supply, the resolution is nonetheless false.
A price does *not* require a 'standard of value'. Your own comments even refute this claim. How could people possibly _choose_ a standard of value based on prices if prices already _require_ a standard of value?? Prices are not autonomous beings that exist outside of people's choices, they are merely the results of people's choices. And yes, to _make_ a price 'stable' when people in the free market choose otherwise requires 'fixing' (manipulating) that price _against_ the will of those people. If 'demand for the standard itself changes', then people _have_ settled on a standard, by definition (that's what the term 'standard' means). _All_ prices rising and falling _together_ would be impossible to perceive. The price _every_ person pays would remain exactly the _same_ since the price of whatever they're paying with would have risen or fallen simultaneously with whatever they're buying. This would be the absolute purest example of price *stability* .
Regardless of how preferable price stability may seem, it absolutely does not, has never, and cannot exist in any absolute sense. Relative price stability among certain goods at certain times certainly occurs but never for very long among the same goods. Of course people would rather their calculations remain consistent, but just because you see very similar prices advertised at the grocery store week after week doesn't mean the costs to produce, process, transport, store, and advertise those goods aren't fluctuating wildly. All of the parties involved aggregate their prices to some extent. They aren't inherently 'stable' prices, they are averaged with prices for others goods, services, and time-frames in order to _create_ more simplified and predictable financing and accounting procedures -- and they all do the same thing regardless of which currency their calculating with. The central planners who are constantly 'fixing' (manipulating) the number of currency units only make this task _more_ difficult. When the supply of currency changes, the price of the currency also changes (simple laws of supply and demand), so now all of these parties have to make _twice_ as many adjustments (unless the rise/fall in price of the currency and the rise/fall of their particular costs just happen to inversely coincide, which is what I suspect you believe could magically happen with _every_ party simultaneously). We expect the demand for money to be responded to with a supply of _goods and services_ . If the demand for money could just be met with 'magic' (simply imagining more into existence), then why would anybody ever produce anything to _exchange_ for money? And if nobody will exchange anything for money, what purpose does money then serve?
If/when any crypto ever gains enough market share, the credit market absolutely _will_ respond to the demand (they won't have a choice if they want to remain profitable). And as market share grows, suppliers _will_ aggregate their costs to simplify financing and accounting and their prices _will_ appear more stable relative to that crypto.
A price is the exchange ratio between one item and a standard of value, not just any other item. In a free monetary system, where a commodity plays this role because people voluntarily agree upon it, prices are stable, because people want stable prices and therefore choose a standard with stable prices. Again, "stable" is not equivalent to "fixed", but if all prices vary wildly because demand for the standard itself changes, people don't settle on this standard. "Price instability" means that all prices rise and fall together (inflation or deflation). If the price of dairy milk falls while the price of almond milk rises, because of changes in the relative demand for these goods, that's not price instability.
Again, stable prices for real estate and similar goods make long term credit contracts feasible. We expect the price of a house to change with demand for the house, but we don't expect the price to fluctuate wildly when demand for money itself changes, regardless of demand for the house. We expect the supply of money to respond to demand for money, so that changing demand for money is not reflected in the price of every other good. When prices generally rise together or fall together, these inflationary or deflationary changes distort other prices signals.
I trust a credit market to choose a standard of value for extending credit, and I don't expect creditors to accept, in exchange for a good that few people can buy except on credit, the promise of so many units of a commodity per month over many years when price of the commodity itself fluctuates wildly, like quadrupling in six months and then falling by 75% in the following six months. Creditors with a choice do not extend credit on these terms.
It's relevant because a price is nothing more than the exchange ratio between _one_ item and _another_ item. If you want 'the price' of a currency to be 'stable' (have a 'fixed' exchange rate), you'd need to cite *which* other item you want it to be stable with.
And then what does that accomplish?
...And who do you trust to 'stabilize' (artificially manipulate) that currency price?
The "market value" of a good is an equilibrium between the subjective preferences of buyers and sellers (bids and asks). A single good can have different values in different markets, but in a single market, the "market value" of a good, at an instant, is meaningful, because every buyer wants the lowest ask, and every seller wants the highest bid. There is no "target value". There is only this equilibrium at an instant. None of this is relevant to my point, which involves the necessity of stable prices in a currency for long term credit contracts. Bitcoin prices are incredibly unstable and always will be. Prices in one currency can be more stable then prices in another currency. Central planning has nothing to do with it. "Stable" is not equivalent to "targeted" or "planned" or "fixed".
I'm using this topic for my final essay in my critical thinking class. Mr Voorhees's argument is very well structured and easy to follow. He was by far the more articulate speaker, however it looks as though the crowd/venue is heavily biased against Mr Schiff.
Thanks for your reply! I've flushed out the position I will take for this paper. My position is that states will attempt to co opt the idea of cryptocurrency in order to facilitate a move to a cashless society. As a side note tinfoil is a regular part of my wardrobe.
The crowd was heavily biased: It's a libertarian debate series and usually attracts regulars every month, with most libertarians being very pro bitcoin. That being said, I agree that Voorhees was incredibly articulate and I think had the best argument
I get the feeling Peter has secretly acquired some BTC' - just as Erik probably has a nice stash of Gold. Both still use fiat, right?
Good debate anyway, but I'd like to see a pro-fiat guy too - say, Krugman, with his "“Fiat money, if you like, is backed by men with guns.” (Quite an honest answer I think!)
This was fantastic! Super informative, and I researched all the events and topics discussed by both Erik and Peter. I hope more people actually watch the entire thing because it was quite captivating! Please post more videos like this!
Amazing. Erik Voorhees at the 1:03:28 admitted that if something better would come up than BTC he would be convinced to walk away from BTC. So, it means, he does not trust BTC in the long term. that means you cant save in BTC for the long term, for e.g. 5-10. It means BTC is not money for the simple reason- YOU CAN'T DO THE SAVING IN BTC! no saving=no capital investment= no capitalism. SUCKS!
We just need Andreas Antonopolous to debate Peter Schiff to get a decisive win and he's good enough to wake Peter the hell up. Eric's voice is not forceful enough and he's a bit too polite. That said he did a good job.
All you fools need to understand that yes bitcoin is superior to the dollar in the sense that it is decentralized but anyone can replicate the exact format that bitcoin uses. In fact they have thousands of times already. Let me see someone replicate a bar of gold. I'll wait. Bitcoin is not the future. Money needs to be physical, somewhat finite, and impossible to replicate. Bitcoin fails on 2 of those vital points. I understand that many of you are invested and maybe short term bitcoin will have success but if we are looking for something that can't be created by anyone than bitcoin is not your option. In before someone who knows nothing about networks tries to tell me about "network effects" that bitcoin has. LOL please bitcoiners many of you were dedicated libertarians that lost your way. Re read this post for your own sake a few times.
Kevin Lisi What a completely moronic comment. Please let me know how to replicate bitcoin so I can make an easy few million. Perhaps you should learn how it works before you come to such ignorant conclusions.
Bitcoin is just too complicated for the average non tech savvy people to understand. If you have a mass population who really does not understand it then it is hard for this to be money. I cannot put my money into something I cannot touch or see. Bitcoin is more faith based than fiat or metals. I have to trust people who I never met and hope this will work out. Too much volatility to be money. Money needs to simple and easy to use that everyone agrees on it. If there are so much disagreement on this with ups and downs in prices so fast, this isn’t going to work. How will you convince governments to use bitcoin as money. At least most governments still trust gold and own gold. we still have to pay taxes. If we start paying taxes in bitcoin then there is a turning point for this cryto otherwise this is all very much speculative
George Maximus That's because the marketcap is still tiny. There has been hyperinflation multiple times in multiple countries throughtout FIAT currencies history. Millions if not billions of people have lost there entire worth holding a currency they were told is safe. Bitcoin costs so much because they are finite. You can buy a few dollars worth to hold as it's divisible to 8 decimal points. You think you own the money you put in the bank? I wonder what would happen if everyone tried to withdraw their money at the same time?
People will start using bitcoin when it doesn’t drop 50% in a matter of days or weeks or even months. Can you imagine your hard earned money losing that much value after someone telling them its more convenient to use this new money instead of fiat? Sure there us inflation, but at least they are slow and steady. Huge Price swings like this just isn’t where regular folks can stomach. Bitcoin is one of the most expensive commodity you can imagine with $7000 to buy one and I don’t even know if I really own it.
George Maximus and does the average person understand how interest rates work, or what QE is? Does the average person understand how the linux operating system works? No but they use it everyday. Eventually we'll be at the point where the average person won't need to understand, they'll use it because it's better and most importantly it's more convenient.
The problem is trust. Bitcoin is a new currency idea trying to convince the masses to start using it as currency. It is hard to understand for normal average individuals. Not everyone invests in stocks but everyone uses money for daily activity. Unless everybody agrees bitcoin is the new money and we all trust bitcoin as money then bitcoin has a future. Especially if bitcoin wants to be a world currency which is a big huge deal that requires lots of trust. We need some kind of Guarantee that its value isn’t going to fluctuate so violently, it feels like you have everything to gain but also everything to lose as well in bitcoin. These are healthy debates and with lots of great points and meetings of great minds.
Omg so stupid, he actually said that the fact that bitcoin is really hard to mine is bad, he said it would be better if it cost noting to produce. Omg how stupid can he get, if it cost nothing to mine how would you protect against inflation. The fact that bitcoin gets harder and more costly to mine as the value increases is the best way to protect against inflation. Bitcoin is valuable cause it cost resources to produce. Of course in the future it would be far better if the process to mine bitcoin included calculating stuff that helped researchers to invent cures etc. But thats something to think of later.
cryptos are not safe from those holding the power of communication networks that give life to cryptos via.......world wide web and communication networks and satellites and the cables going under the oceans....
All this centralized infrastructure of communication does not belong to Mr. Satoshi but to the same oppressive cabal that has been backing fiat monetary system.....
Consider that it is possible that 50 could be worth 50k or 5 milion some day, i say its a small risk for a big possible reward. If he bought something for 50 bucks he would have a nice dinner or maybe a fun evening and thats it. I agree taking out loans to buy would be stupid, but investing what you can let ride for long time is really wise.
gold wasnt confiscated in the 1930s . see this erik guy doesnt even know his history . and gov will crack down on cryptos . so dont get ahead of the game . and then what will you say that cryptos will never work either ??? i just cant take this erik guy seriously his debating points arent even logical or right .
Going through these comments and you're about 40% of the comment section with erratic posts and horrible grammar. If you dislike cryptocurrency and think it will go to zero put your money where your mouth is open up a short position and shut up.
that it was never confiscated . and never will be . the government just made it seem like the confiscated it but thats just too scare you so you wont buy any gold or silver . also alot of citizens didnt give any gold up because it wasnt a full blown out confiscation .
It may not have been confiscated. I don't know. But the government was definitely extorting the citizens to turn in their gold for bank notes.
I am not trying to attack you, I was just pointing out what Erik was referring to. 14 min is a long video to sift through without knowing what your point was you're trying to make.
Jake: for the people that dont know what happened in 1930 . it wasnt confiscated like people though it happened . and i know most retards dont even have a time span of 14 min to learn valuable stuff . ignorance is high in the bitcoin community
Schiff doesn't understand that Bitcoin is software. It is constantly being improved. Bitcoin (BTC) has the mindshare and the best scientists and developers. This is where things happen (slowly, but safely) and will continue to happen. It's the safest store of value the world has ever seen.
What a weak, pathetic closing statement from Schiff. You can tell he had nothing good or original left and was broken down by the ending statement portion going out in a cliche whimper of non sequiturs.
Why does Peter keep adding gold into his weak argument. Were comparing bitcoin to fiat which bitcoin wins every time. We are not debating bitcoin vs. Gold. If the dollar was still backed by gold we wouldnt be 100 trillion in debt.
Like myspace was the one, true social media ... until it wasn't, and arc was the one, true compression software ... until it wasn't, and what was good for General Motors was good for America ... until it wasn't.
yea yea. thats what everyone says when they got nothing else to say haha . highly suggest you educate yourself on something you got no clue wher its head too . #1241# fucking retards. you guys are going to be considered money launders
you still gotta transact those bitcoin into fiat idiot. idc about a micro chip . and so what if you can use it around the world . they just consider you a money launder . senate bill 1241 . good luck money launder. and that micro/wallet can still get hacked .smh
It is mind-control to rob people of their precious metals and to eventually draw them into crypto whereby they can be booted out like a virus from virtual paying network by money-masters(now crypto-moneymasters)...and if the digital currency is acceptable the true libertarian shall even not be able to get his coffee from centralized-controlled money from which he is banned to log-on...who controls internet................who????????? blockchain or governments????????????????
People do not have to sell precious metals to get into crypto. You can plant a garden and let it grow while you go to work and earn fiat to pay bills. I say we spread out our risk and get into a bunch of things. I should learn how to download bitcoin transactions via satellite (which is possible now without the internet).
I'd like crypto to go 6x so that I can get 6x worth of precious metals. There is more holding metals down than crypto. They are just resting before the next run. We will need to leverage crypto to get metals to move,
It is mind-control to rob people of their precious metals and to eventually draw them into crypto whereby they can be booted out like a virus from virtual paying network by money-masters(now crypto-moneymasters)...and if the digital currency reaches complete penetration the true libertarian shall even not be able to get his coffee from centralized-controlled money from which he is banned to log-on...who controls internet................who????????? blockchain or governments????????????????
The Theory of Objective Value (a.k.a. 'intrinsic value') was thoroughly debunked over 100 years ago. This fundamentally flawed myth also served as the entire premise for the Labor Theory of Value (a.k.a. Marxism), which has been empirically proven wrong over the last 100 years. Peter seems to be nuancing his previous 'intrinsic value' argument now by instead citing 'utility' (direct-use) value, but this also contradicts economic principles. Monetary value is precisely the _opposite_ of direct-use value. Monetary value is placed _solely_ on the expectation of future _exchange_ , not consumption. This is obvious even with gold. The typical holder of gold has no direct-use for that gold. The ONLY reason they buy it is to _sell_ it later.
You just thought you were being sneaky! But you irrefutably exposed yourself:
"remember again the key to all communication networks is with them [Central Banks]"
You're OBVIOUSLY just their PUPPET since you're using 'their' communications network!!! :-O
The gold despite all ups and down is serving to protect value since I was born...The money-master must be hating it as he could not rob gold like fiat and cannot catch most of the population holding on to it all across the world.....guess what he comes up with cryptos to get all the fish in the same NET......Central Banks shall succeed with cryptos where they failed with gold.....remember again the key to all communication networks is with them...............
Because the central banks have left others incapable of buying the metals and those who have the ability to buy them are being baited to go to cryptos so the population puts all its eggs in the world wide web and the oppressive slavery reaches another level when the communication networks and the satellites and the underground and oceanic communication cables don't belong to Mr. Satoshi a.k.a CIA
im just trying to help you into waking up wtf is going on . nobody knows because they are blinded by the hype . like you . but its ok you can get out now tanner . anyways have a good one thanks for letting me educate you .
you arent going to wait that long ... feb 2020 bye bye cryptos . you got one year and a half to play around with digital illusion of wealth and take that risk . remember they can track and tax even as of right now . so becareful of what you do .
like i said man , once people know of this senate bill and congress comes public with this senate bill bye bye crypto's . not just bitcoin all crypto's . everyone will take their money out because no one will want to take that risk of being consider a money launder or a terrorist found group . good luck man tanner i hope you can keep making millions on your digital illusion of wealth HAHAHA
haha just like erik said bitcoin can get regulated much easier than gold . even a bitcoin fanatic said so haha . bitcoin "dont give a fuck about rules " hahahaha ok money launder . you are a fucking fool if you think you can go up agents gov hahaha
bitcoin another lost debate . idk how these idiots can compare digital with physical . remember you need silver to keep blockchain thriving . oh , bitcoin community look out for Feb 2020 #1241 bill congress has for cryptos haha (money laundering )
They talk about the ability to transfer the bitcoin to any part of the world...if the gov. simply switches off the internet you woudn't even have it to be transferred........Your computer gets tracked ffrom one room in pentagon and if you rebel against gov. all your wealth is locked in cyber for ever...vs Gold where gov. needs to go to every home to find it and confiscate...who you kidding here....the teenagers wanna be millionairs????????
Naomi I dont know why liberals cannot think freely...why you dont realise the limitations of crypto and defend it by coming up with the limitations of fiat............anyone who is against the crypto does not necessarily support fiat.................its not just the central grid.....its the gov. controlled communication networks that can kick you out along with all your cyber money at any time.....
fiat is bad....very bad....crypto is worse if not equally bad.....
eventually when crypto is adapted. it is the death of freedom loving people to be trapped in the cyber space with their wealth controlled by the communication networks held by multinational giants and freedom curbing gov......
Gold price can be manipulated but cannot be made zero..... getting gold from all population and hence robbing them is difficult.....Crypto is a perfect tool to rob and trap all at once at the click of a button ............Gold didn't allow so.....
look it is difficult for you to imagine but in India and Indonesia silver is being used as tender....Love Freedom and don't allow all human kind to welcome financial slavery by putting all their wealth in crypto....
I am not looking for a credibility certificate, and you are wise enough to make your decisions without relying on anyone's credibility.....................................
Internet is a good medium of communication certainly when you may have a healthy debate.......the old form of post office communication was not bad either ....
In the times of physical mail delivery system if I was told that invisible Satoshi had created something in post office where I could put all my money in a locker which I could use only when the pony was standing outside my door then using that tool shall mean relying on the pony at the express for my financial future.............
Keep your money with you the donkey is gonna run away.......The gov. tried but failed and are still failing to rob gold of all its value.....cryptos are easier to rob.....y
ou are invested in cryptos so good for you....
in near future you may get paid well since more catch is required through increase in the price of cryptos serving as a bait..........
If you want to appear even the slightest bit credible, you might want to refrain from using what is, by-far, the most technologically advanced electrically powered achievement in human history (the internet) to proclaim how horrible technology and electricity are. From now on will you please correspond by -Pony Express- <edit: They use horseshoes, which are obviously CIA controlled> *carrier pigeons (that have not been subjected to man-made Carbon emissions, obviously)?
I love Bitcoin and hope that it succeeds but WTF? - this was the most biased debate set up I have ever seen. Peter Schiff makes some valid points but he is being ridiculed by both a biased audience and moderator. Come on grow up - if you want Bitcoin to succeed and I do hope it does you have to be able to look at both sides of the argument and come up with logical and reasonable argument. Watching the comments and listening to the audience is like watching a bunch of kids that cant get their own way
If you are going to have a debate then yes you should screen the audience. It should be 50/50. I have been involved in Bitcoin for years and love the technology associated with it. However like any discussion you can't ridicule valid argument. Bitcoin does have a lot of problems and I wish the devoted fans (so to speak) would acknowledge this more. Listening to Peter talk is just like whenever Donald Trump says anything - it is laughed at and ridiculed for the sake of it without there always being a reason. Now I am not saying that I am either a fan of Peter's or Donald but sometimes I get sick of mob rule trying to force others in what to think
"Biased" - Should we have screened attendees for their opinions before allowing them into the debate to make sure the audience was balanced? It's a libertarian debate series, so naturally most people there would like bitcoin. I think Erik did a great job at coming up with a reasonable and logical argument, even if the audience members were having fun with their responses. Peter put up a great effort regardless, I think both men put on a great debate and were tremendous sports about it. We're grateful they came!
It is mind-control to rob people of their precious metals and to eventually draw them into crypto whereby they can be booted out like a virus from virtual paying network by money-masters(now crypto-moneymasters)...and if the digital currency reaches full penetration the true libertarian shall even not be able to get his coffee from centralized-controlled money from which he is banned to log-on...who controls internet................who????????? blockchain or governments????????????????
Bitcoin was released in January of 2009, just months after the climax of the financial crisis brought on by decades of unsustainable debt accumulation. I can't help but think that God planted the idea of Bitcoin in Satoshi Nakamoto's mind to save humanity from the disaster of government issued fiat currency. We've had nine years to improve upon Satoshi's technology, while central banks around the world continue to prop up a teetering massive house of cards. May the transition to crypto from fiat be as peaceful as possible.
Very good debate, educational on the bouth sides..
I just wonder why always comparing to gold?
There is some very expensive other metals like platina, or stones like emerald or diamonds...
Ppl can "mine" bouth of them...
And accept them as payments...
But you have to " carry" it or some body can steel it ...
And not because of your stupidity...
Btc can be lost only because stupidity..
Thats why you should b smart enought to know how to keep it that no one can steel it...
And also there could not be a replication of the btc
No any other "coin "
Because there is allready enought ppl decided that its have value...
Also u cannot harm btc / the btc block chain
But you can harm thees or that way any of other crypto curences or gold, silver, dimonds
Well if that is true how were payments made when gold was money? You don't think people bought real estate under when we were on the gold standard. You don't think the Romans made any sizable purchases.
The same reason they always show bitcoin AS GOLD LOOKING COINS ..... they are desperate for legitimacy & try to cling to someone with legitimacy or fake people out that it is gold coins ( also real value ) .
Many bitcoin fans forget that silver is for strippers & a cup of coffee ........ gold is for wealth preservation . 10 million weddings / yr in India , when you get this Bride to use bitcoin in her wedding , bitcoin may have a chance . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZpevhsLv4s
Facilities for business continuity may include alternate workspace equipped for continuation of business operations. Alternate facilities may be owned or contracted including office space, data center, manufacturing and distribution.
Systems for emergency response may include detection, alarm, warning, communications, suppression and pollution control systems. Protection of critical equipment within a data center may include sensors monitoring heat, humidity and attempts to penetrate computer firewalls.
Every building has exit routes so people can evacuate if there is a hazard within the building. These exit routes should be designed and maintained in accordance with applicable regulations.
Business continuity resources may include spare or redundant systems that serve as a backup in case primary systems fail. Systems for crisis communications may include existing voice and data technology for communicating with customers, employees and others.
Equipment includes the means for teams to communicate. Radios, smartphones, wired telephone and pagers may be required to alert team members to respond, to notify public agencies or contractors and to communicate with other team members to manage an incident.
Many tools may be required to prepare a facility for a forecast event such as a hurricane, flooding or severe winter storm.
Materials and Supplies.
Materials and supplies are needed to support members of emergency response, business continuity and crisis communications teams. Food and water are basic provisions.
Systems and equipment needed to support the preparedness program require fuel. Emergency generators and diesel engine driven fire pumps should have a fuel supply that meets national standards or local regulatory requirements. That means not allowing the fuel supply to run low because replenishment may not be possible during an emergency. Spare batteries for portable radios and chargers for smartphones and other communications devices should be available.