It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Foreign financial aid and how it can create US jobs

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:42 PM
I was reading a thread about our gov threatening to stop aid to a group in the Middle East because this group wasn't negotiating with another group. The aid we send is monetary. It's our tax dollars and it will most likely never be repaid.

One argument is that "why do we spend all of this tax money on Them instead of Us?"
Another is "why do we give them money when all they do is buy weapons or corruption?"

Well, I had an epiphany. Please comment (be kind) if you have anything to add or correct.

Instead of giving "group X" money to spend on "product Y," why don't we simply CREATE and GIVE them "product Y"?
If some backwoods yucks in Ethiopia need grain, instead of giving them money to buy it, why not just give them grain?
If "country Z" needs lumber for homes and bricks for schools, why not ship them loads of lumber and bricks?

The cost-accounting would work this way:
A request for X amount of assistance for "product Y" comes in from "country Z". The US, having already allocated a set amount monetarily for "country Z", valuates the pricing of their request and if available, fulfills it at RETAIL VALUE.
The items are created, packaged and shipped.
This will then put people to work by making these products for shipment, not only as hands-on manufacturing but also shipping and logistics.


It will save money in the long run if I'm considering this correctly. I'll build an analogy here to better explain my point.

Say Billybob needs some lemonade.
He goes to his favorite soda-shop and orders 10 dollars worth. The soda-shop, not having anyone there to make lemonade, hires Buffy the Lemonade Slayer to make his order. She buys a dozen lemons at $2.50, adds 50 cents worth of sugar and gives it to Billybob. It took her 10 minutes to do this and she makes around $12/hour.

Total cost to make $10 worth (retail) of lemonade = $6 dollars give or take.
Buffy also has federal tax withheld from her wages so the realized savings are even greater.

So - which makes more sense?

edit on 29-6-2011 by TXRabbit because: spelling

edit on 29-6-2011 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:48 PM
Holy #!! This would keep money in the US thus bettering the country while still providing help for other countries.. I wander why we don't do this.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:26 AM
I think I'll send it to my local congressmen/senators. The replies should provide good entertainment value :-)

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:39 PM
It will be really good like that i think.
But how if scenario like this. From US inflation every year that should become standard of how much money gov will add and printed so it keep balance between GDP and amount of money. With all US$ spreading around the world since WW2 mostly since 1960s, seems the growth of money is more than inflation value. Printing money that more than inflation value either should be backed up with gold or other valuable things or they need to put some value on the over printed money.

If the second choice they took, gov would need other party to give some value to dollar and the easiest way to do that just printed some money with no back up and it will only cost much less than money nominal. Let say for example to print US$ 100 it will cost 40 cent each time and it need to replace, and reprinted 5 times for a 10 years to keep money in acceptable condition incase it get burned, rip off etc. So the total cost is US$ 2 plus some additional cost.

And then gov give a loan to a country for example US$ 100 millions for 10 years with interest about 2% flat a year. The real cost will only about US$ 2 millions , but in the end of 10 years, they will get US$ 120 millions that the real cost only 2 millions and if inflation rate each year 4% and it is 40% for 10 years, the real money value will be US$ 70,8 millions and already given value by that country s GDP. An easy free money isnt it.

To make it looks smooth, just donated US$ 10,7 millions to that country freely in advance, and image would looks great and most 3rd world country will be hard to reject it. Still US$ 60 millions free easy money with real GDP back up. Good thing this over printed money wont affect micro and macro economy inside cuz it never add the amount money circulating inside US.....................until loan start returned.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:29 PM
Why would they want to create jobs in the US when collapsing the West has been the plan all along?


posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by TXRabbit

Well, as someone who spent 8 years working in "over seas" construction, I can tell you why. In the past, (before the 90s) money that the US spent in the mid east DID come home to the US economy. US workers did most of the work and made great money doing it. Which they then sent home to be spent, stimulating the US economy, etc.

Then as globalization really picked up speed, US companies figured out they could hire what ex pat workers call TCNs, (third country nationals) for dirt cheap to do the work American workers did and make a bigger profit. And so they did.

Its not that no one has ever thought of what you bring up. (Which is not to say it wasnt good thinking on your part) its that companies who rake in the tax dollars we spend over there want double digit profits all the time, and they dont mind ruining the US economy to get it, by locking out US employees.

Its deliberate, in other words, that Americans arent getting their own tax dollars back in the form of wages. Big business wants ALL the money. Not just a good cut of it. In fact, in a nutshell thats the reason for the collapse of the US economy in general. Big companies were not content making great money, they wanted to make sinful amounts of money and they simply began a process which ended up with wages at home being cut and good paying jobs being sent overseas to be done more cheaply.

Corporations pretend that the American workers were bleeding them dry, but thats not true. Those companies were doing fine in that time frame. They just wanted more. They wanted x amount increase in profit a year to please the blood suckers on Wall Street, and that meant they had to progressively cut costs and that destroyed the American economy.
edit on 1-7-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Thanks for sharing that.

It's pretty sickening to face the reality of things. It truly shows how our government is run both directly and indirectly by corporate interests. I would take a total rewrite of our leadership to get them out, and judging by how those in congress/senate just keep getting richer and richer and their portfolios grow larger and larger, that it ain't gonna happen anytime soon

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by maung

Some good points and thanks for breaking that down. Let's also not forget the non-secured loans we make to countries like Israel. You know - the type that never have to be paid back..

new topics

top topics


log in