Should the US give more than 50 billions to Egypt when Egypt can't create economy?

Last year, the US gave Egypt nearly 2 billion in aid. Every year, the US gives billions away to hostile islamic countries. Should we continue to give aid away to those whose people are traditionally hostile to us?

Here's an article from a few years ago:

$50 billion later, taking stock of US aid to Egypt

Conversely, Israel's (as pointed out by our resident hater of Jews) economy is thriving, despite being constantly attacked by surrounding countries full of muslims whose religious ideology commands the killing of Jews.

Give aid to Israel and it thrives, makes contributions to the world and creates an economy for itself. $50 billion later, and Egypt is virtually no where. Interesting observation.

 

i am opposed to all military aid to all Arab countries
but one must be careful not to let fanatics take over egypt

 

US is bankrupt, it doesn't have anything to give to anyone

(Off-topic - your assumption that there are hostile Islamic countries is wrong)

 

QFT. The US borrows money to give to someone else

 

All aid to hostile countries should be stopped immediately, especially when they don’t even put it to good use, I fully agree with you Gtech.

In fact I would also input all our money (the west) into alternatives to oil, then we won’t even have to give these hostile countries any money at all, then they can sink or swim.

 

umm.....let me think.

If US wants another base or two, with them anti super wooper radars on Egypt (Bush is flying there too, right? Once in 2 years, why not plant them there )))), then the answer is yes!

 

or better than alternatives, lets start drilling!! We have the gulf of mexico and ANWR! That ought to last us for a few hundred years till we really get something better.

 

BTW, this is a "parody" of the following thread:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=492147

Since the poster of that thread pretends it's about the money that US tax payers are giving out in foreign aid, and others are following suit, I wanted to see to what level of hypocrisy this thread could extract. So far, it's going pretty good!

 

did you really think it wouldn't???

 

Nah, I knew it wouldn't, d16man. That's what makes it so rewarding

 

Actually, the money is taxed from the American people by devaluing the currency. In times like this, when the government is spending more than they bring in (which income tax only pays the interest on the national debt anyways), and cannot borrow more, they inflate M3 through the Federal Reserve.

By inflating the money supply, our dollars lose value.

So if you had $20k in the bank, and M3 increases dramatically, you still have 20k physical dollars, but only $15k of buying power.

 

...and rewarding it is. Obviously it's not about the money, as some have pretended.

 

This is incorrect. The Fed will not buy government securities at the command of the government. The Fed buying those securities have very little to do with the fact that budget deficit exists. They only hold about 8% of the total debt, so the government could easily borrow more.
It's called an open market operation. The Fed is buying securities that's already been sold. Common sense could've told you that...

 

The Fed prints more money, inflating M3 to cover government spending shortfalls. This creates inflation.

Is this statement incorrect?

I seem to have mentioned "when they cannot borrow more".

 

I voted 'No'. Nice copycat thread. I am flattered.

 

Yes, it's incorrect. The Fed does not print money. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing Does (part of the Treasury Department). The Fed buys the notes at the cost of printing, but there is no seigniorage to be collected, and I'll tell you why:
The printed notes will show up as a liability on the Fed's balance sheet, and when banks request cash from the Federal Reserve, the bank's account will get debited in exchange for the notes. Therefore, printing money has no effect on the money supply and no one profits from it.

You don't know how the money supply is adjusted, do you?

 

The Fed controls the money supply and it is not a free market.

Just ask the maestro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfuTMexCePE

The printing of money per se is not the point, as I imaging most people here know.

 

Can you explain how M3 has moved from $6 trillion to $9 trillion in under a decade?

I was using "printing" in the figurative, not the literal sense. Our overruns are created out of thin air. There is no end to the amount of money that our government can spend.

 

Money supply grows relative to the expansion of our economy and not the spending of the government. Monetary policy is independent of politics, and it's important to distinguish the difference from fiscal policy.
I'll say it again: the practice you are referring to is called an open market operation. In other words, the Fed is buying securities in the secondary market. If that's not clear enough for you: there are already people/organizations/countries that are willing to lend money to our government. The Fed doesn't have to do anything; the government still has the ability to borrow and spend.

The M3 money supply grew in the last decade because real GDP grew roughly from $8 trillion to $11 trillion.