Why is this not an option to end world poverty........?

Question

Moneys starts out being printed in a factory, right?
Therefore, couldn't an MEDC (more economically developed country) just print out billions of dollars from money factories and send it over to an LEDC (less " " ")?
I understand it would be economically damaging if a country did this for itself, but surely this could be a possible scheme in getting money into poorer countries?

Answer 1

While the idea at first seems to make sense, the development of an international currency market has made this idea invalid. If we were, lets say, to print up one billion dollars and give it to lets say Darfur. Well, if we print that much money, the value of a dollar would depreciated due to the influx of one billion dollars being introduced into market. Another problem is what are people in Darfur going to do with a billion dollars in American currency? Although we like to consider the dollar to be the standard in all the world, the euro right now is worth more than a dollar and is more widely used. Third, the problem with poverty is not entirely due to lack of money. It is the development of technology, infrastructure and a government that is progressive in developing itself on the international economic market. This is why people say "you cant just throw money at the problem"

Answer 2

The problem with this scheme is that people of low character from both countries would get the script back to the MEDC, causing economic chaos. The better solution would be for the MEDC to actually mentor people and communities in the LEDC so they could move toward being a MEDC. If we put the money from one Brangelina visit toward a school and teachers, we could produce 1000 viable global candidates from the LEDC.

Answer 3

That would be the same as us printing up tons to hand out to everyone. If you flooded the countries with a large supply of paper money (or even coins) then the money would become worthless over there. You might as well send them monopoly money because it will have the same worth. The value of printed money in of itself is nothing. There is a perceived worth to this money. If there is too much of it this worth goes down.

Back in this country, people would see that there are now billions of extra dollars floating around outside the country. They can still see that there is too much money. This will damage the perceived value of money.

Also, how would you prevent all of that money from coming back into this country? The people would want to exchange your printed money with their local currency. Why would someone do the exchange if this outlander money could not be used back where it was from?

Answer 4

Hmm...many moons ago in one of my courses, this topic was covered...has a major negative effect on inflation, really decreases the worth of a dollar (or whatever form of currency is appropriate), that sort of thing. I'm not a rocket scientist nor a financial genius but there are truly plausible explanations for why your idea is not a good one.

Answer 5

It would devalue the money regardless of whether it was sent out of the country or not.

Your solution is no different from send them "Monopoly" money - worthless stips of paper.

Answer 6

good idea, send a letter about it to your local congressman