Federal Reserve To Use Internet For Money Transfer 318
An anonymous reader writes "According to the New York Post, the Federal Reserve (i.e. Alan Greenspan and Co.) is going to change the way that it transfers money between banks so that transfers now take place over the internet instead of via a private banking network. They aren't specifying the types of security measures that will be used (security through obscurity?) Am I the only one who thinks that this is a very bad idea? Might a DDOS attack on the Fed's computers bring down the entire banking system?" The banks have put some thought into security.
First transaction (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First transaction (Score:5, Funny)
VPN and PGP encrypt! (Score:5, Informative)
Possibly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, encryption and such are fine, but just keeping everyone else off your network (the old method) makes the security model much simpler.
The more access there is, the more possible attacks there are. Which means that more attention has to be spent testing and checking these systems.
Which means more jobs! So it isn't all bad.
Re:Possibly. (Score:5, Informative)
a) the systems will be connected to the internet. Even if they are heavily firewalled, they will have to get their information somehow, so some port will be open listening for incoming requests; so watch out for buffer overrun exploits and spoofed packets.
b) targetted denial of service attacks
c) the network simply going down or being slowed; slammer slowed down the internet, not just a few machines. If that means some transactions get delayed, some people will be losing money.
d) the traffic will be intercepted, and, if not decrypted, at least the volume of messages will be interesting information for corporate espionage (though the fact that unencrypted e-mail is used in business all the time makes this less of a priority).
e) targetted BGP spoofing, DNS poisoning attacks and the like resulting in loss of service
That's not to say a private network is always more secure (especially since on private networks less thought is given to authentication and things of that nature), but it does make life complicated.
Re:Possibly. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I think that is a completely valid and important concern, it overlooks something key. If terrorists/gangesters/whomever want to damage US financial systems, it's good thing that slammer type attacks are the first thing to come to mind. One of the things that made the WTC such an appealing target on 9/11 was that private corporate networks were dependant on services provide in the towers. The hijackers managed to take down the New York Stock echange for five (?) days, by damaging critical infrastructure. If putting the federal reserve system on the public internet, encourages DOS attacks and decreases the incentive to blow things up (including people), I'm all for it.
Jeff
Re:VPN and PGP encrypt! (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked on FRB hardware (back in 2001, so things might have changed a little). 486 CPU. 56k modem. essentially just a automated BBS style dial-in to the central systems, very cheap, uncomplicated, almost nothing that can screw up, and if it does, easy to fix; completely disconnected from local networks, info fed in by floppy (usually only a couple a day).
So of course I can understand why they want to modernize; the maintenance budget for the whole system on a yearly basis probably hits $5,000.
Re:VPN and PGP encrypt! (Score:4, Informative)
MICR files have already moved, but wires and such have not.
Re:VPN and PGP encrypt! (Score:5, Informative)
This article is totally misleading. The Fed is not going to be transferring money over the Internet. Clearing and settlement will continue to take place over dedicated, leased, secured IP lines or in data centers with military-level security.
The change being made is how individual commercial banks interface with the computers at the Fed in order in initiate wire transfers and transmit data for bulk transaction processing. FedLine for the Web is a great improvement over the MS-DOS-based systems that are currently in use for small and medium-sized banks. Through these systems, banks do a variety of things, including initiate wire transfers, check intraday overdraft balances, submit batch files for overnight ACH payments processing, and many others. More info here [frbservices.org] on what the Fedline is and the various ways of accessing it. The Fed had been developing FedLine for Windows, but abandoned that in the late 90's. Doing this over the web is no more risky than online banking for the consumer, except that the sums are greater -- but so are the benefits -- as long as precautions are taken, such as one-time-use TANs (transaction authorization numbers), certificates, etc.
Re:VPN and PGP encrypt! (Score:3, Interesting)
The resulting floppy was then used to ftp the data to from my workstation to the main host [server].
Of course, there WAS a hardware crypto-card in the machine. If it got turned off [soft-booting was ok], it required 3 top level executives to come in and enter the keys to get the machine to boot up again.
It was an interesting combination of old-skool and new te
Cardboard boxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Just as an example, the computer that the data is being sent to has to be connected to the Internet. How secure is this computer from attacks? If someone breaks into that computer, can they get to the unencrypted data?
Dlugar
Re:VPN and PGP encrypt! (Score:2)
I dunno...if some average person conducts their transactions via VPN/PGP almost noone would care. Now if you know that breaking into the encryption could result in embezzlment of BILLIONS of dollars, then perhaps a lot of people might want to cash in...
Re:VPN and PGP encrypt! (Score:2)
I know that technologies exist to make the transfers secure, but it still seems like a *STUPID* idea.
An internet-like network, sure.. But having intra-bank transfers going over the same networks that us common folks use is a bad idea. We'll hear about the banks going offline, becuase someone picked the wrong IP to DDoS. There's people out there with mad bandwidth. I have 3Gb available myself. If I were to stop all the servers, and fill up those lines with garbage traffic going towards the bank's
Re:VPN and PGP encrypt! (Score:3, Funny)
An interesting hack would be to distribute the entire government budget to every back account in America, inversely by the balance.
The guy with a $100 balance would score several thousand.
The guy with $99,999 would score $0.01.
Legal Note: I don't advocate doing this, or any illegal funds transactions at all, and it definately won't be me doing it, I don't like prison that much.
Private network == false sense of security (Score:2)
Mmmmm! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mmmmm! (Score:2)
Right around 2000, they were going to port the existing system to a Windows NT platform, but didn't get it to work.
Re:Mmmmm! (Score:2)
No, they just want to do what everyone else is doing and use the Internet. But the real question is whether or not something as fundamentally fragile as the In
Re:Mmmmm! (Score:2)
The $64,000 question is whether or not they've got the security thing figured out - and I think that the people running Fedline (as opposed to the rest of the FRB or government) have that as one of their highest interests.
Up until now, all of the services that are available on Fedline for the Web are "not critical" - services that don't transfer money.
DDOS paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DDOS paranoia (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DDOS paranoia (Score:2)
It's possible to take someone's bank account and sort code over a web page, set up a direct debit mandate on their account and start collecting monthly subscription payments without any pap
Why not? (Score:2)
Why shouldn't the banking industry uses industry-standard equipment and protocols? I'm sure that you can buy a lot of redundant routers at Frys for the price of one of their private-network routers.
It seems that they already do. (Score:5, Insightful)
The weird thing is that they're looking at moving to the Internet to get away from the limitations of their DOS system.
Why don't they keep the current, private network and just upgrade the machines and the software on that? Why do the upgrade AND move to a less secure network?
Re:It seems that they already do. (Score:4, Interesting)
Years ago, when computers first started coming in to general use, every small business wanted a computer. Not because they had any specific problem they thought the computer could fix, but simply because they wanted to "computerise the business".
My mother (now semi-retired) spent many years running a small accounting business, and attempted to computerise her office several times in the late '80s and early '90s. Failed several times, too. With one notable exception (Sage for DOS), it's only in the last 8 years or so that computing packages for small-business accounting have been any good. For many years, my mother (and her staff) prepared accounts by hand then typed them up - that was the "computer system". Damned if I can think what benefit that brought apart from producing nice-looking accounts.
Bottom line is, back then people wanted to put things on computers because computers were "The Thing". Now, the US Federal Reserve wants to use the Internet because the Internet is "The Thing".
Whether or not this is a sound basis for such important decisions is another matter altogether...
Paranoia is Useful, but .... (Score:3, Interesting)
AOL users' new message (Score:3, Funny)
Let the tin hats begin (Score:4, Informative)
First Hacked Transaction Receipt (Score:3, Funny)
Transaction complete.
Confirmation: All your bank accounts belong to us!
Re:First Hacked Transaction Receipt (Score:5, Funny)
All your bank account are belong to us!
You are on the path to bankruptcy.
You have no chance to withdraw make your time.
Fascinating (Score:2, Funny)
Gee, a terrorist is a bigger threat than a script kiddie, who'd have thought?
Oh, come on. You guys are so paranoid. (Score:5, Funny)
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
"Government, it does everything the stupidest way imaginable"
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why marketing? (Score:2)
The New Federal Reserve! (Score:5, Funny)
Even More Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Even More Interesting (Score:2)
When a bank creates money by issuing a loan, they don't print money, they just add a few digits to a counter in a program. Most times, this money is moved around via checks or wire transfers, moving money that never existed in the first place between "places"
This is the same thing just on a higher scale.
Re:Even More Interesting (Score:2)
My understanding of the matter --learned at the US equivalent of high school, admittedly-- is that there is, in fact, some physical money stuff going on, but not for every transaction of course. Transactions within a bank don't need a physical counterpart; transactions between banks do, and the transfers can be physically settled weekly or so, in actual money trucks, or accounted as debt, but in principle a physical settlement is done, as the 'vi
Re:Even More Interesting (Score:4, Informative)
I thought the people here were computer and accounting literate.
Re:Even More Interesting (Score:2)
They did in the past (Score:3, Informative)
Orignally it was precious substances, gold and silver being the most common, but salt and others
Re:Even More Interesting (Score:2)
probably a good idea (Score:2)
Now suppose they do it over the Internet. Someone DoSs a major backbone. I can't check my email, but the Fed has a lot of HIGHLY payed engineers rerouting their traffice over a satelite connection, or over a bunch of long-distance dial-ups to route around the busted backbone. In fact, they
The truth? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The truth? (Score:2)
Gives me chills every time I think about what happens if the illusion collapses.
Not all that bad... (Score:4, Informative)
Disclaimer: This is OLD stuff and might be different today. But, banks are stodgy and don't like to change things that work.
Most banks don't use the Fed wire for transfers all day long. They use private networks, like SWIFT to conduct their business. c.f Swift money transfer [google.com]
Back in the days before the internet, SWIFT used to require that you had an office in lower Manhatten (e.g. Wall Street) with a HIGH RANKING bank officer there. If something went wrong (and you stopped processing transfers for some reason), the SWIFT officers could meet and discuss the issue with you. They might float your bank for the day, keeping you from going under if it was something like broken computer equipment and not an insolvency issue.
Computers and networks got much better, and with SWIFT's desire to be truly global, that's no longer required.
So, what happens is that the banks all over the world do millions of transactions all day long on the SWIFT network, and no money really moves, it's just a bunch of credits and debits. Then, at an agreed upon time, they "fess up" and pay their outstanding balance (or get paid) on the Fed wire (or others methods in other countries).
SWIFT also provides the banks with a general message service like sending a TELEX.
Re:Not all that bad... (Score:2, Informative)
SWIFT is based in Brussels (Score:3, Informative)
SWIFT is an irrevocable payment transfer system. It doesn't guarantee liquidity, that is up to the Fed in the US, or whatever is the local Central Bank. For info on i
I just want realtime banking. (Score:2)
DDOS the fed? (Score:2)
And the chairman, walking away mid-shin in bills, trying to look not guilty.
This is really part of Check 21 (Score:2)
With the advent of Check 21, banks will now be able to exchange check images instead of physical documents for presentment. The existing Fedline infrastructure (old DOS machines on 16KBS modems (at best)) is insufficient to handle this kind of traffic.
Fedline for the web has been "happening" for some time now - each application in Fedline is being ported over to their web application suite.
The Evil of Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation operated and owned by private banks and given special monopoly existence by congress back on Christmas Eve in 1913. This is a very scary monopoly that has (perhaps unconstitutionally) usurped Congress's power to coin, issue, and regulate the American money supply.
While I won't attempt to proffer all of the observations (probably labeled as "tinfoil hat theories" because neither political party wants to call them into question) I will point out a very human readable web page that highlights some of these issues in a phone call to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco [rense.com].
I realize that the Internet is a public network and that the Fed has every right to switch its internals over to using it. But it will likely cause two bits of controversy.
First, they are a private corporation so if the receive a private set of Class A IP addresses or other special treats it will expose some flaws in the public vs. private issues of control of the internet. (This is probably of more interest to slashdotters.)
Second, The Fed may be exposing tremendous auditability and accounting problems that don't exist on the private network. While their books and procedures are publicly audited, they have simply "lost" money (both physical and transactional). The paranoid would suspect that perhaps they've been inspired by the Diebold voting systems which can apparently cause votes to simply come and go in an unaccountable manner. The less paranoid should still see that this change will need a great deal more publicly auditable security to keep robber barrons from simply coming up with a new means of screwing over those of us who rely on cash & credit.
I can understand the need to migrate from old proprietary technolgies to new ones, but this migration should be watched VERY closely and where possible should be opened up for further audit and regulation.
Neither private nor unconstitutional nor evil. (Score:2, Informative)
First it is not "a private corporation operated and owned by private banks" Frequently Asked Questions about the Fed [federalreserve.gov]
"The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."
Second, there is no confusion over public / private control over the internet. It is publicly controlled. Congress can revoke IC
Re:The Evil of Monopolies (Score:2)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Syst e m [wikipedia.org] for non-hysterical/factually inaccurate information about the Federal reserve.
Re:The Evil of Monopolies (Score:2)
I can't get into wether it is constitutional or not (I'm not american), truth is that your federal reserve is doing one hell of a good job.
The federal reserve is actually one of my favourite example
New Horizons (Score:2)
It is an awkward entity though. It can offer small dividends to investors which is something that other independent government authorities don't do (Supreme Court
Obscurity (Score:3, Insightful)
Obscurity does not decrease security in and of itself. If you have a truly secure system, obscurity may increase the security somewhat. However, if your system is insecure, obscurity won't stop a determined adversary.
Security By Bad Slogan (Score:3, Funny)
Of course you're not the only one that thinks that is a very bad idea. There are hordes of technical people who think in terms of bad slogans.
The problem with "security through obscurity" is that when that is your primary, or only, protection, it is usually very poor security.
On the other hand, if you start with very good security and don't publish any details of additional steps, and you guard your network as if everyone does know the details anyway, then obscurity enhances your security.
In other words, obscurity does not provide much security, but it can enhance your security.
Legacy software (Score:2)
As some have observed, with these kinds of transactions, denial of service is probably a bigger threat than fraud. These are huge transactions between banks that you couldn't exactly route into you Citibank personal checking account and withdraw at the nearest ATM, and they can be reversed if something goes wrong.
So the question is, is the risk of some
A good idea, probably (Score:3, Interesting)
A private banking network is the ultimate level of security through obscurity. In such a closely "protected environment" one could get away with being very lazy, but we don't know if they have or not, becuase it's private. All we DO know is that it seems to have work reliably for a long time. Generally, this would give me faith in the architects ability to construct a well built, resilient network.
Might a DDOS attack on the Fed's computers bring down the entire banking system?" The banks have put some thought into security.
Not likely. A well thought out network pan can prevent this from happening.
They aren't specifying the types of security measures that will be used (security through obscurity?)
Why should they? For "peer review"? I'm thinking that the banks have this one covered. In their case it is in their best interests to have the best security possible. In fact, I read somewhere that banking institutions are testing the use of entangled particles for use in secure transactions, sorry no link.
Am I the only one who thinks that this is a very bad idea?
Probably not, but I think so far they have done a good job, I'm not worried.
Already have been doing this (Score:3, Interesting)
I work for a decent sized bank data processing center. We have been using the web-based FedLine for quite some time now. We do transfers to and from the Federal Reserve in Minneapolis (sp?), St. Louis, and Kansas City. We have been trying to migrate from the old modem based FedLine method.
I feel as confident about the web-based system, as I do about non-web based version, that we have used in the past. The old system is very outdated, it connects to the Fed at 9600 Baud or less, and there really is no reason as to avoid the web-based version, as opposed to the old dial-in version. I think they would both be as succeptible (sp?) to any sort of hacking attempts, just two different methods.
This is really not a big deal, and its really not all that new. I for one will be happy when the Fed moves away from their old FedLine though.
Re:Already have been doing this (Score:2, Insightful)
The DOS based system uses a 19.2k modem connection back to the Fed, and the data is encrypted using a Jones Futurex hardware encryption board. Security is rather tight, requiring both a loca
Account Number? (Score:2)
Bring it down? Not likely... (Score:3, Interesting)
7--Core Principle VII:
The system should have a high degree of security and operational reliability and should have contingency arrangements for timely completion of daily processing.
Let me quoth for those who don't read the articles:
Fedwire Data Centers
Three data processing centers support the Fedwire services. One site supports the primary processing environment with on-site backup. A second site serves as an active, "hot" backup facility with on-site backup. A third site serves as a "warm" backup facility. The three data processing centers are located a considerable distance from each other (i.e., hundreds of miles) in order to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, power and telecommunication outages, and other wide-scale, regional disruptions. In addition, all three data centers have appropriate security and include various contingency features, such as redundant power feeds, environmental and emergency control systems, dual computer and network operations centers, and dual customer service centers.
Take a read through it, and its a really dry read by the way, it looks like they've got it pretty much figured out. Good luck finding those servers and then trying to DDOS them out of existance. Then again, if someone almost got the worldwide DNS root servers offline, then this could be just a drop in the bucket...
I just hope... (Score:2)
This is just WRONG (Score:3, Interesting)
During the early days of the Web, before Java, scripting languages, and Active X controls, people knew that running remote code on your computer was simply wrong. Now look at all the viruses and worms that propagate through the Internet simply because remote code can be loaded onto a computer and run so easily.
Any banking network must be completely physically separate from the Internet. And It must use an entirely different system, incompatible with the internet as well, using different hardware and protocols, just in case somewhere along the line some connection is inadvertently made. This would provide the same "security through obscurity" that Linux and Mac users enjoy in an internet full of Windows viruses.
Any attempt to somehow integrate banking with the existing Internet will eventually result in security breaches. No matter what kind of encryption or even hardware methods of security are implemented, there will constantly be new vulnerabilities discovered if there is any physical line of access from the public internet.
Hardware firewalls have already been proven to be succeptible to network attacks via DNS [slashdot.org]. Some people have a clue about this, given the example of a two headed hard drive [slashdot.org] previously mentioned on Slashdot, to physically separate the hard drive writing process from public access.
Re:This is just WRONG (Score:2)
You're suggesting that they design all new hardware and software for the banking system? For example, a bank on a dialup line wouldn't use POTS, but would use a line totally seperated from the TELCO network? And, the MODEM would
....what? (Score:2)
The private bank networks have seem to have worked fine for the last decade or two, so why fix it if it aint broke? hell the internet is the LAST option I'd go with for transfers, the fact the internet has an open nature, if they're using a Secure VPN then I dont see too much of an issue, but why change from a private system without any known issues to a system that is open to the entire world and the public no less? isnt this a flawed idea?
or
Not security questioned but reliability (Score:4, Interesting)
Today's Internet is much more dependent on large pipelines and due to increased traffic is more vulnerable. Worms like Code Red and others effectively shutdown the Internet making it essentially useless. This lasted for days and weeks as new viruses spun off from the older viruses.
The question would be not so much the security of the Fed's connectivity but the reliability of that connectivity. Say you have another worm outbreak due to some flaw in WinXP SP2 that causes the Internet to literally flood with massive amounts of traffic that ends up consuming 90% of the bandwidth and ends up bottlenecking and strangling the connections in highly populated areas. The Internet as it exists today needs a serious upgrade in the next few years in regards to bandwidth, encryption, and protocols.
Just look at what happened in NYC to both the cell phone networks and the landline's when 911 happened. They were so overwhelmed by the network traffic that many people could not make a phone call. Millions of people in NYC picked up the phone and Millions more outside NYC tried to call family and friends in NYC.
Internet Based? (Score:3, Informative)
If they're running an Encrypted VPN over leased lines on an airgapped network, then this story is nothing but "Fed to update network protocols to TCP/IP, just like everyone else has done."
serious conspiracy-theory question (Score:3, Interesting)
Question: in view of everything which has changed in the last three years regarding powers to do secret searches and wire-taps without a warrant, how does this news change what kinds of banking data will now be secretly sniffable by the DHS & FBI without technically violating inter-agency restrictions?
The Fed, the internet and Check21 (Score:3, Informative)
Why the internet of course. google Check21 to see more info on how this in being handled. Oh, and don't expect your checks to take 2-3 days to clear cross country anymore.
Ray
This is my field... and it's not a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
Going over the Internet is no different than using a modern frame PVC or ATM link, particularly if you're using C&W infrastructure as their GIN architecture *is* the Internet with VPNs over it.
Properly risk assessed, and with appropriate key management, going over the Internet has only one major failing - quality of service. If you can work around that by using multiple providers, there is nothing really wrong with using the Internet as a transaction medium.
So I walk into a bank... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard it said that any system is only as strong as its weakest link.
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Fed is a system including twelve regional banks throughout the country, which can issue stock, etc. but are not really privately run.
The main job of the Fed is to adjust interest rates as the governing board deems necessary to keep the economy stable.
See the Wikipedia articles about the Fed [wikipedia.org] and central b [wikipedia.org]
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean that they adjust the interest rates to ensure that the US Gov't will never be able to pay back the debt that they owe to the Fed, thus keeping all of us normal citizens forever enslaved to pay back a loan that we never even asked for.
It's convenient for the people closest to the top of the pyramid...
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:2)
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Informative)
Deflation is bad because your average person will hold off on making purchases (bec
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:2)
In reality it's just a pyramid scheme to support the little brats of families who haven't put a decent days work in for several hundred generations.
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:4, Informative)
The Federal Reserve "creates" (or "destroys") money by regulating how much money a bank is required to keep on hand. If a bank only has to keep 10% of its deposits on hand, then the rest of the money can be loaned out. The person who deposited the money doesn't lose their money and the money that is loaned out is still real so the bank has created money. In reality the bank didn't print up new dollar bills and hand them out, they are just allowing better use of the money that is in circulation. When the federal reserve changes the Reserve Rate (percent of deposits the bank has to hold) they increase or decrease the amount of money in circulation. Changes to the reserve rate are pretty rare and are the Fed's overkill method of controlling the economy.
The Fed also makes overnight loans to banks when they have a shortfall of cash on hand. The rate of these loans is the discount rate that is always talked about in the news. This rate is also used by individual banks to set the rates of their loans. Changing the discount rate has the effect of encouraging banks to keep more or less cash on hand and changes the "cost" of money. Setting interests rates are the prefered method of the Fed to control things like inflation or deflation.
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:2)
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:2)
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people do... Putting money in gold and other precious metals has been the hallmark of "un-patriotic" money management for years.
Basically your choices are:
a) put faith in a completely made up system run by "the authorities".
b) put faith in continued scarcity of certain once-precious resources.
Neither is really all that appealing. Personally I put faith in my ability to make computers do stupid tricks. Other than that, I figure ride the tides of fortune that come your way.
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Interesting)
And continued need and want of the resource by others. What if we don't need gold in the future?
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Both efficiency and accuracy would have been better served if you had just replied "I have no idea." in the first place and left it at that.
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Informative)
techniclaly, printing additional money just increases the amount in circulation, increaes inflation and reduces the 'buying power' of the money already out there.
Eg.
The US has exactly 100 dollars in circulation, and a load of bread costs 1 cent. If the government prints another 100 dollars, you now have twice as much money, but.. bread no
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:2)
I think you'll find there's more than that out there
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
Where to start? OK, what do you mean by saying that money should be given directly to individuals? If you are saying that citizens should just be handed free money on a regular basis (a la Alaska), that's just nonsense. The economy would respond by making that amount of money worthless: if everyone can suddenly afford stuff, prices will rise hard and fast. Not fun. If yo
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:2)
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the founding fathers of the US thought that central banking was a bad idea, and Madison even said that central banking was more of a cause for the war than taxes.
Thomas Jefferson:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
James Madison:
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance."
Henry Ford:
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Alan Greenspan:
"[The] abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit.... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holdings illegal, as was done in the case of gold.... The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.... [This] is the shabby secret of the welfare statist's tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is the Fed? Everyone is very off base (Score:2)
Like, if you could audit your bank manager, would you? Would you issue a bad audit knowing that he could foreclose on your house and send you, your wife, and your children into homelessness?
Quit hiding behind idealities. This is REALITY.
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What is the Fed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Off-Topic Request.... (Score:3, Funny)
... uh, never mind. There's a couple of suits at the door waving badges ...*
*It's a joke. No, really, it's a joke. Hey, motherfucka, I SAID it's just a freaking JOKE! Ouch. Take these damn cuffs off me you "mffff"...