Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Off-Topic discussion about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The narrative seems incoherent to me: both of you keep mentioning the dollar is going to collapse (which frankly is far fetched, but let's go along with it) - if that's the case then what is going to replace it if it's not Bitcoin?
And if the dollar is replaced with some form of hard money (since fiat is so terrible), how is that going to affect things like international trade, setting interest rates, exchange rates etc...
Because these are the pressure points of hard money: we have centuries of evidence as to the disadvantages of hard money, how it affect liquidity in the financial system, how it affects trade, how it affects interest rates and unemployment etc...
But I never see any arguments of substance that deal with these issues, it's all conspiracies about central bankers setting out to impoverish the people.
Richar i feel like you are still not gettimg properly one crucial fact about crypto. This market is evolving at rapid unprecedent pace. It's literally parabolic in all possible metrics. Information which were actual half year ago are often niw obsolete and what is actuall now, will be obsolere half year from now.
I learned a shitload new things even in recent 5 monts ! I changes some my opinions, i understand better things which i did not understand in january.. This is are where you need learn every day. (And not from loosers like Taleb or Roubini lol)
The US cannot inflate its way out of a $30 trillion national debt, which I believe is the current unworkable plan.
I lived through that, the pound was pegged to the ERM (as I explained in the post earlier), same problem you have on any fixed-exchange rate system. In a free floating exchange rate regime (ie fiat) there is no need to defend the peg so the currency can simply devalue, which is what happened after Brexit
Sorry, but this is just really basic fundamental stuff.
maybe you don't know but there sre also
other fiat currencies, and many countries are a bit more carefull in terms monetary policy :-)) Thus is not about dollar vs. bitcoin
Richard, 4:26pm: "Soros"
Richard, 7:21pm: "Black Wednesday"
Dendy to Richard, 8:22pm: "Oh and also, try google about how Soros send GBP to knees"
That's not the plan. The plan is to just let the debt be.
There are always two sides to a balance sheet: the national debt is made up of private savings. You can tax them away, but that just makes the private sector poorer.
Sure, the dollar could be devalued in Forex markets, that's absolutely possible.
The current plan is to inflate the debt away and print new money in the meantime. There’s no end to it because the hole keeps getting deeper, faster.
Well since most of the "new money" is in the form of QE there's no need to inflate (or indeed repay) anything at all. Why fear a debt that you owe to yourself?
I realize you will refuse to acknowledge this as a “valid source”, but I’m providing it anyway. The only proof of what are the downsides of a gargantuan unrepayable debt will be evidenced in the prices the normies pay for everything.
https://mises.org/library/who-bears-burden-government-debt-0
I'm familiar with Bob Murphy (I've followed Austrian econ in the past out of curiosity) so if I can find the required 45 minutes I'll take a listen. This is one of my favourite topics so I'm more than happy to hear different views.
He’s well worth the listen and he’s no idiot.
Seems to be a new surge today on the back of "El Salvador president plans 100% green bitcoin mining"
but maybe another blip...
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bitcoin-price-latest-dogecoin-crypto-ethereum-b1863118.html
Don't think its too related with this news ... this price movement (down to 30-32k area then bounce back a bit) was expected .. i guess now when we're around 38k we will go again back to 30-32k (possible short wick even lower) and then again up .. we're ranging ..
Actually shortly after revealing El Salvador price was moving down :-) Price in recent week is not much relate to any news, it is moving in expected technical levels, driven by mostly traders not by fundamental investors ..
I would expect something like this in next 2-3 days..
Would like to see hard bounce from 26-28k area back above 38k - this may create enough momentum to break range up ...
To be honest the El Salvador thing is another incoherent narrative as far as I can see. The law forces all businesses to accept Bitcoin as payment, but who is going to pay with Bitcoin? People who buy Bitcoin buy it because they think the price is going to go up, not because they want to spend it in the shops.
There is practically no-one on the planet who wants to use it as an actual currency, everyone who is into it is hoping to hodl and watch the number go up. That's not useful for a currency, so making it legal tender doesn't really make much sense 🤷♀️
I didn't really think it over but just as a first idea, can this help pull some black (drug, etc.) money back into the economy?
Yeah for money laundering it's awesome. 🤑
Not much, cash dollars are lot better for money laudering. Also banks have much more experience and skill in money laudering using dollars than crypto exchanges using bitcoin :-)
We got a use case right there!
So I watched it, there is a fair amount to untangle here, but I actually don't disagree with his reasoning overall, but there are a couple of assumptions he makes that I do disagree with.
Firstly he does a decent enough job of explaining rational expectations and Ricardian equivalence, which he rightly dismisses because they're idiotic (one area where I agree with Austrians is that stylised models of the economy are a waste of time).
On the second point though, "we owe it to ourselves" he does make a couple of mistakes in my view, firstly because he is looking at it from a purely monetary point of view rather than looking at resources, which is a pretty crucial distinction.
So firstly: can we borrow from the future, so that our grandchildren have to pay for our profligacy? In terms of resources, no. We can't grab resources from the future to use now, we can only use the resources we have now.
If Biden's infrastructure plan goes ahead, it will employ the people who are alive now. It will make use of the raw materials that are available now. These obviously can't be borrowed from the future.
Aha you say, but we're not paying for it now, we're borrowing the money by deficit spending!
That mindset assumes that the outcome is zero-sum, that what we do now can't possibly benefit the future. But of course the economy of the future can (and surely will) benefit from money spent now, if it means that people are put to work, and that businesses thrive from the reduced unemployment, and of course that infrastructure improves.
Better roads, bridges, rail networks, communications infrastructure all benefit the private sector enormously. It's not zero-sum.
And of course it will be better for our children to grow up in an economy where unemployment is low. So that's a direct benefit of putting people to work now, using deficit spending if need be, because their income will be spent in the economy, benefitting private businesses who will then be able to hire more people in what becomes a virtuous cycle. Maintaining demand by putting people to work is not zero-sum, it lifts the entire economy and has long-term benefits.
The second assumption he makes, and this is central to his entire thesis, is that the debt will be repaid in full. That is not what happens, the debt will be rolled over forever, just like bank deposits are rolled over forever from one generation to the next: some people withdraw their balances, but others will deposit new balances and so the cycle continues.
You have to remember that Bonds serve a vital purpose in the financial sector: they offer investors a safe asset for their savings. The demand for bonds will always exist, and so will the government debt, since one can't exist without the other. As long as investors want Bonds, the government will offer them for sale. It's a symbiotic relationship. The government is not a household, it's much more akin to a bank, and no-one freaks out when a bank takes on more deposits, the mechanics at play here are exactly the same.
So yes, he makes the point that when the bonds have to be paid back that will make future generations financially poorer - and that's a point I agree with completely, in fact that's the same point I was making when I said this yesterday:
The debt is a debt on one side of the balance sheet (the government side), but of course on the private sector side it's an asset. You can tax it away, but that necessarily makes the private sector poorer, so why do it?
When governments run deficits they are by definition spending more into the economy than they are taking out - that means that the private sector benefits from this additional spending.
When the government runs a surplus it is taking more out of the economy in taxes than it is spending back in - this by definition makes us all poorer.
The mistake lies in conflating a government with a household. Governments that issue their own currency are not fiscally constrained. They could QE all of their debt away if they wanted to - I'm not saying they should, just that they can. They have the power to eliminate the debt completely if they so wish.
But fundamentally it's about putting resources to use. Our children will be better off if they grow up in a world of high employment and working infrastructure.
To give a practical example: after WW2 the UK had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 250% (twice what the US has now), yet they built the National Health Service and the Welfare State. As one of the grandchildren of that generation would I be better off if they had "paid off" the debt instead? No, because I would have fewer real resources available to me now. The health service is a net benefit to future generations, and growing up with that debt was never a burden, no-one was even aware of it.
Can we make audiobus coin? Or one for the next forum? We all know music making on iOS is going to grow
Not that complicated :-)
https://www.codementor.io/@vahiwe/building-your-own-ethereum-based-ecr20-token-in-less-than-an-hour-16f44bq67i
Question is what will be use case
))
Right. Anyone can create the next Dogecoin or Shiba Inu. Those trashcoins offer nothing of value to cryptoholders and their creators delight in that fact. Even those who hold those trashcoins seem to delight in holding garbage. It’s very odd.
I think I’d like a douge coin. I might sell that but I wouldn’t sell my Audiobusforum coin
Glad you watched it.
You appear to be saying so-called “infrastructure spending” is an unambiguous benefit to businesses. But that’s not reality. Bills are cobbled together among members of Congress through a process of bargaining and members will only support a bill which benefits their political interests first, therefore layers of waste and corruption are pre-built into bills prior to becoming law. How do businesses benefit from kickbacks to unions, the building of “bridges to nowhere” or the like?
(Article from March 2021) https://fee.org/articles/9-crazy-examples-of-unrelated-waste-and-partisan-spending-in-biden-s-2t-infrastructure-proposal/
Are all bills hopelessly full of waste and corruption? Some spending may theoretically be necessary, but what is “necessary” cannot be determined as political interests are permanently attached to their imagined value like a parasite.
Governments misallocate resources because they are a monopoly. Full stop.
That's incorrect in this case. Bitcoin has emerged over time as a good alternative way to send money to El Salvador. About 10% of El Salvador's economy consists of money being sent back there by family in other countries, primarily the US. This can be costly and dangerous for El Salvadorians. You have to understand more about the country than I have time to explain here, but it can involve high fees, travel over not so great public transportation, braving gangs (and sometimes corrupt police), and also having a way to keep the money safe when many don't have access to banks.
Conducting money transfers via Bitcoin has been increasing as it can be done with little to no fees and much less effort and risk. Many businesses, even local stores, accept Bitcoin already. Many Salvadorians don't even have access to a bank. The Bitcoin is generally being transacted,not held.
This isn't a case of speculators and investors, it's an adaptation to something that has already been emerging. The government's motivation is simply to encourage as much as possible the inflow of money that is so important to the country. In this case Bitcoin is being used as a "currency" not an "investment".
Practically nobody, true, but in this case, for this country it has been emerging already and may make sense. Mexico also relies a lot on foreign transfers. We may even see them introduce ways to encourage this as well. Time will tell. The risks are real, the benefits not sufficiently proven.
(Oh, and by the way, I am very closely acquainted with a family from in El Salvador who understand confirm what I've said above about Bitcoin use both as a safer and less expensive way to send money "home" and the ability to spend it already. I could provide many details of the risks and hassles that must be overcome for many to receive money but I this post is too long already.)
Fair enough that's actually a genuine use case, but I don't think it's directly related to the law that was just passed in El Salvador, because people could already do that. Maybe the "legal tender" aspect of it changes the tax situation but I'm not familiar enough with the details to comment.
The law that was passed was to mandate that businesses accept Bitcoin as payment, but I think my original point still stands, hardly anyone sees Bitcoin as an actual currency so I would be surprised to see it take off here. Maybe time will prove me wrong
Also the fees for Bitcoin payments are generally way higher than they are for fiat.
I don't see any corruption in that list of proposals, just because you might not agree with them politically doesn't mean they are corrupt. Legislatures are elected to deliver an agenda, and obviously it's impossible to separate that from ideology, since that's what politicians are elected to do: deliver a political and ideological agenda.
What the law does is encourage (force?) more of a nascent activity that benefits the country. So, yes, it's related.
Not in this case. It can be very low cost using the Lightning network.