It is certainly so, yet how is your explanation that money is not broken different from me saying that anything at all is not broken given that it serves someone else's agenda in its current otherwise disfunctional state? To propose a tangible example: a car works as intended when it goes from A to B efficiently. Somebody very powerful who doesn't want to me to go from A to B removes the driving seat and makes the steering wheel very hard to handle. I can still go from A to B, albeit with great discomfort and at my own peril. Money in its current form serves the cartel known as central banking and government first. It works for them. Yet I'd like to argue that it's broken, since we can think of an ideal form of money and the qualities that it would have, and we can clearly see that fiat money doesn't possess any of those. Why would you argue that's not broken?