It's difficult to claim that any system is 'certifiably broken' until you can actually point to an actual effective real-world implementation of a 'better system' (pareto or otherwise), no?
Nah, it's definitely possible to point out failings in systems even before they're implemented, without having to prove that a better solution exists. It might not exist! You might just have to put up with an inadequate solution if it's better than nothing.
Nope. That's a really weird way to think about when you're allowed to call things broken. You can observe the effects, and with clear precision explain exactly what's broken just by looking at the thing itself.
The US financial infrastructure is remarkable in how far behind the rest of the world it is though, which is one of the reasons I think Bitcoin took off in the first place. Fast and free transfers of money never seemed quite so magical when every bank in your country already offered that service.
Pix money transfer/payment system. Fully digital, easy to use, fast, cheap, available 24/7, launched by Brazil Central Bank and with massive adoption in the first year.
"I have failed to invent a light bulb" Broken implies it was working to begin with, or can be compared to something that works, as the post you're replying to states.
sure, but the thing that's broken was just that, a "thing". It wasn't a "lightbulb", because it was never able to produce light. It's a broken "bulb", at best, and that's a correct use of the word "broken", because it can be compared to other bulbs that aren't broken, in this case the glass bulb itself.
Say you're selling a lightbulb and millions have bought it and then one day the millions of bulbs you've sold to millions of people all explode at the same time.
