Are you American? Have you lived abroad? Here in Thailand (a "poor" "third-world" country) all individuals and businesses can send instant money transfers with no fees at all 24/7. It's an incredible system. I think the truth is that it has less to do with corruption and more to do with the fact that people who implement technology first end up later with, on average, worse technology. (If you build the first rail system in the world you'll have the worst rail system in 50 years.)

The US banking system is lightyears behind the rest of the world in banking, where they still use paper checks and transfers take multiple days. I show my family (who still lives in the US) my banking app and they gawk as if it were some magical thing they'd never even imagined. With a tap of a button in my bank account, I can split a restaurant bill in however many slices I want. Restaurants don't even split bills here (like they do in the US), someone just pays the full amount and splits it in the bank account.

Read my comment again but remove any reference to countries or even credit systems. My comment would apply to any thing that the parent was arguing for. The logic is "corrupt and evil country did x. Therefor anyone can, and should, also do x." The sentence correlates "x" with corruption. If "x" isn't corrupted, then the argument should be different. But I'm just saying that the argument, presented in that way, is unconvincing.

I said it’s something even a corrupt country was able to do that is universally loved and accepted. The fact that the US isn’t able to do it suggests it’s in someways far more corrupt than even India.

> I said it’s something even a corrupt country was able to do that is universally loved and accepted.

I still don't understand why this is a convincing argument. As an example, many countries with dictatorships have people that love and support the dictator (no matter how cruel they are). Dictators will also try to make this look universal.

This isn't a comment on the banking system (or even India), this is a comment on your argument. You're trying to convince others that a thing is good by connecting it with corruption. For me, this just doesn't follow.

The U.S. has legalized corruption in the form of lobbying. This wasn’t so bad as long as donations to politicians were capped, but since Cotizens United there is no limit, so the corruption has gone through the roof as well.