Will the use of systemaccounting cause me to be vulnerable to hackers?


Is it possible that someone may discover and use a password that doesn't belong to them?

Sure, once in a while. However, if any firm out there is capable of warding off and reducing the frequency of inappropriate financial activity, it is the United States Treasury. Where resolving transaction issues is concerned, there ought to be no firm more competent than the one issuing the money in the first place.

While systemaccounting will use the most advanced but practical mechanisms to counter security breaches, it was designed to expel a much larger type of hack affecting the entire financial system. When software contains a flaw, it is said to be a bug—which are objects that allow for hacks to become possible. The United States Congress is similar to a software company in that it also produces intellectual property that users of the system must abide by, and unfortunately, it has released a bug in the form of a law that causes the whole of the financial system to be compromised and hacked.

Briefly put, there are private lenders, and then there are "banks". The word "bank" is not a technical word, but a legal one that refers to a business model defined by federal law. The difference between a private lending firm and a "bank" is that a bank may acquire capital for its business from people who walk into their building looking for safe storage and convenient access to their cash. In other words, when a person wishes to store their money in a big metal vault and receive a debit card from a "bank", they have no choice but to also lend that money to the "bank". Private lenders do not rely on bundling the services of storing and accessing money to acquire capital. In the private lending sector, capital must be raised like every other business: investors, or lenders, offer cash or other property strictly for the sake of investment, i.e. in hopes they will receive a return.

Another legal bug "banks" exploit is the ability to mix their receivables with cash to increase the money supply. First, mixing cash with receivables is to mix apples with promised apples—which are different units of measurement. Secondly, mixing financial instruments which contain market risk with the objects designed to communicate the market has cleared causes uncertainty, contagion, and systemic risk. Increasing the money supply through what is pseudo-technically called "the money multiplier effect" has no place in an economy that values its own scientific integrity.

Achieving the elimination or obsolescence of a business model by correcting the error that created it, or through the advancement of science & technology, is almost impossible when it is i) decreed to exist by federal law, and ii) continues to be enforced by a government chartering process. Does the magnitude of such an obstacle justify the abandonment of a solution? Of course not. Economic growth has both its citizens and its soldiers. The duty to expand growth's frontier is in part fulfilled by expelling bugs and facing down hackers no matter how superficial or deeply-rooted they are. Once an economy is secure within itself, it is no longer compromised into serving as host to the idle but volatile game of "Get Away With Whatever I Can" between its individual participants. An economy that is both stable and transparent shifts away what is not known from in between its participants, and sets it plainly before all participants to create a friendly game of "Together, We Will Discover" between mankind and the Physical universe.

Was this helpful?