Muharrem: When government gives 100m euros in aid, they go to consumption

He writes:

The effects of two scenariated aid vs government policy investments

Sconario A: When giving 100m euros to aid has 100 euros it mainly goes into consumption, that people should buy food that the purchasing capacity of households has been dimmed by inflation for two years. Then this relief money, because we have a negative balance in goods trading almost five billion a year, goes out of the economy and the country through import. The potential of the economy fades further. This choice is like not to cure the economy but to drink xanax as soon as I am relieved. Long-term effects of economy and state.

Scenraio B: When the government invests 100 million (which has been given in aid) with the empowerment of local production, farmers and farmers then reduce prices in the market for increasing offers on local prices. Citizens have the same economy as taking 100 euros directly, but in this scenario the economy and local businesses were strengthened. The negative trade balance decreased. The economy grew, more ducks remain on the local market to achieve potential.

He wrote earlier today:

Population and clientlitism is when decisions are made to benefit citizens and economy policy

To reduce the cost of life, it needs to support production, and especially farmers, that the prices of vegetables and trees are higher as they systematically demonstrated monthly inflation rates. Relief subsidies only stimulate inflation and deplete the economy and the purchasing power of households, on top of a ball that takes money out of the country through chronic import. Such assistance does not benefit pensioners or children. But “aid” brings more votes perhaps, yes. Also with “The aid transfer” is easy, but with development projects developing, we don't want to be out of our way. Popularism and Britology are not manifested by actions to benefit politics and the harm of citizens and economy. /Periscopi/