It's a western charity, not a government. They don't print the money.
More generally, many countries need to make sure they have enough foreign currency to buy imports. Poor countries especially need to worry about this. Printing money to give away doesn't make sense when you can exchange it for something valuable.
Right - it's a Western charity, but I'm asking - is it just solving a liquidity issue by pumping in the money? And if so, is the effect that different than if a central bank had done this?
I buy the "You need foreign currency as a country to purchase imports" point, but if we are talking about local money to support local demand, how is sending $30mm in, and exchanging it for local currency for local projects that different than the government just printing that same amount of local money?
There are inflationary effects of printing large amounts of money, but wouldn't this exist if you imported the same amount of money?
I recently reread the babysitting co-op story [0] and it got me thinking about these monetary implications.
Please note that I do agree that "giving people general support, and let them figure out what to do with it" is largely better than "I know what you need, so let me provide it for you" aid. II'm just working through the mechanics of this.
