Was the Marshall Plan a Huge Fraud?

Check out our previous videos! ⬇️
🔴Why Do Rich Countries Face Demographic Collapse?
• Why Do Rich Countries ...
🔴This Is How Israel Became an Economic Mega-Power
• This Is How Israel Bec...
🔴Why Is the European Economy Sinking?
• Why Is the European Ec...
✉️ Business Enquiries → [e-mail]
#economy #visualeconomik #Europe

[@gorilladisco9108]

Indonesia are very thankful for Marshall Plan. Not because we received any cent of it. But because USA threated the Dutch to withdraw it if they did not negotiate for Indonesia independence. So I agree, the indirect impact was bigger than the direct impact.

[@Cy5208]

Then gave the Green light for the Indonesians to take West Papua and get to take their gold.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

The US insisted on all recipients to open up their colonial markets and relinquish their various debt control instruments that allowed them to hold said colony as a captive market, regardless of whether they were granted political independence or not (which didn't happen all at once cos of the Marshall Plan - decolonisation occurred over decades). The reason and result was so the US could displace their erstwhile colonial masters as the suppliers to these newly opened markets. It worked. At one point the US was responsible for nearly half the manufactured goods being sold around the world. The Marshall Plan made them rich.

[@gorilladisco9108]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn Doesn't matter. Get independent.

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn As an older guy not adversely impacted by China's manufacturing rise, their growth using a very State Controlled version of Capitalism, coupled with manipulation of the WTO has been fascinating to watch. I like to see different systems trialled. Hope I live long enough to see how their trial goes. Hopefully they can learn from disasters like Evergrande, and not keep repeating them like we do.

[@anthonykoller4459]

America screwed the British government on the first day of Peace talks between America and Europe and they demanded that the British government pays back everything the American government gave them in Aid with one Giant Check and if not then Britain had to drop the Gold Standard and adopt the American gold standard and to make the US Dollar the number one currency in the world.

[@tricksilver04]

TLDR: The marshall plan was a success with some nuances

[@pollutingpenguin2146]

They are such hacks. They are also owned by venture capitalists - so we shouldn’t be surprised.

[@tricksilver04]

@JG-MV No. The goal was met just not in a way we think it happened. Nobody was scammed

[@dorianodet8064]

An injection of cash and raw material in an economy that have the will, the capability, the correct intitution and the need to Build/rebuild will always work. You could sprinkle money around for people to pick it and use it and it would still bring result.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

​@JG-MV It was not "fraud," it was "self-centered/self-serving." It could be sold to the public as an act of kindness, whereas it was actually an old Roman Empire strategy to create dependencies. See the main comments section: PART I: The stragy to dismantle the British Empire, and gain Europe as long-term markets. PART II: How to undermine the grip the Old World had on world affairs.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@tricksilver04 They kinda were, depending on how you look at it. Europe was stabilized to rebuild, but in exchange the US made it so they purchased from it and demanded they relinquish all the barriers that kept both their and their colonies markets in a loop. In one move America took over the world market, making itself both the principal financier and supplier to the whole world. Europe basically gave up any power it could salvage to America, which struck it rich the world over.

[@mariusj8542]

Great video, but its somewhat interesting to note that it wasn't just financial aid that made a difference. There was also a significant technology transfer that reshaped Europe's industries. On a more personal note, my grandfather, who was a small farmer in Norway, benefited from this. Before the Marshall Plan, he relied on horses to plow his fields. Thanks to the Plan, he got access to a Ford tractor, which revolutionized his farming methods. I still remember him talking about the huge effects it had for him and my family. This anecdote might seem small, but it's a testament to the transformative impact of the Marshall Plan, beyond just monetary aid. It's these kinds of changes that are harder to quantify but were vital in rebuilding and modernizing post-war Europe.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

Note that Ford is an American company. The biggest beneficiary of the Marshall Plan, as is the case with a lot of other aid since then, turned out to be America itself. They kinda serve as an indirect American public to private financial transfer, which ofc eventually trickles back to the govt. via taxes. It's no accident that the US ended up dominant over both world finance and the primary supplier to the world economy for years afterwards. It wasn't cos of the damage to Europe, which was repaired fairly quickly, but cos Europe conceded on a lot of its semi-mercantilist policies which then allowed the US to take over not just their market but that of their old colonies as well. Later it also ended up establishing the dominance of the dollar in finance.

[@nelsonta00]

I thought he said Comic-Con 😄

[@ErelH]

Yeah I always laugh at that one

[@wilsonokoth1798]

"countries such as Latin America and Africa" What are you saying, sir?

[@donkey0542]

Brilliant stuff! I have been binging your videos they are incredibly well made and engaging I was really interested in the Luxembourg one and was hoping you could make a video as information packed as that video on Andorra's economy.

[@ycplum7062]

The Marshal Plan should be looked at as Phase I of the Bretton Woods Agreement. Using a crude health analogy, Europe had a heart attack and the Marshall plan was analogous to 1st Aid and emergency heart surgery. The Bretton Woods Agreement (the true economic development plan) was equivalent of the rehabilitation and lifestyle plan (the diet and exercise regime). The Bretton Woods Agreement created the new world order that was the true economic engine. It ceated globalization and made it the norm.

[@lours6993]

….and to secure the required market for US goods.

[@Emanon...]

Soft colonialism: Backed by excuses for military or political intervention that could facilitate the continued plunder of resources of former colonies

[@johnsch1988]

Hahha USA propaganda

[@ycplum7062]

@@lours6993 They pretty much had to buy the US goods no matter what, especially manufactured goods. The US was pretty much the only major industrial country (and the only advanced industrial country), that did not have its industry bombed back to the last century.

[@lours6993]

@@ycplum7062 Indeed. But they still had to have some means to buy those goods.

[@rolandnelson6722]

The most important aspect of the Marshall plan was the signal. Recall the Germans signed an unconditional surrender. ‘Unconditional’ means you can do whatever you want to us for as long as you fancy. The Marshall plan, showed the unconditional nature of the surrender was not going to be exploited. There was simply no other way to communicate this than to ship a convincingly large pile of money as a grant. Once the Marshall plan was received the fear of unconditional was lifted and Europe could proceed without that looming over them. Had the Ex-soviets received such an indication - although they didn’t sign an unconditional surrender they lost badly the Cold War - that region would most likely not be in a war now.

[@phyarth8082]

The Schuman Declaration was presented by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950. It proposed the creation of a European Coal and Steel Community, whose members would pool coal and steel production. Rebuilding Europe was not allowing again Thyssen support party that promise revanche and rebuild 16 inch naval guns that makes Thyssen ultra super rich again. Soviet by away not allowed east Germany revitalize steel industry too. Trabant car was made from plastics. Europe growth was fast because of that reason, Germany grew fastest because it was not allowed armament industry at all. When it join NATO armament industry been allowed in small portions same to Japan. EU - started as European Coal and Steel Community military (antimilitary and peace) organization when it grew into economical block.

[@Nordic_Aquarius.3-]

Anybody wanna go to Commie Con lol

[@ralphbernhard1757]

It was self-serving. Had the USA done nothing, and let Europe rot, it would have created an enormous sympathy for communism. Portraying this "aid" which kept Western Europe in the US sphere of influence as some kind of act of benevolence, is disingenious. PART II "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... *“We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1).* The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116) "By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. *At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally."* (Page 117) "Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized - and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003) In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers. ----------------------------------- "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] §§§footnote If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," the comments section below the "His-tory R00m Cha,nel" and "Kaiser Wilhelm ... documentary" is comprehensive, with regards to the technique used by Washington DC.

[@randomsalwran4063]

where is part one please ?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@randomsalwran4063 If you select the setting "latest comments first" on KZbin (a box under the video), it should be directly above this comment. Your setting is probably "top comments" which puts comments with many "likes" further up in the comments section. If you can't see Part I, please let me know.

[@randomsalwran4063]

@@ralphbernhard1757 I think it has been banned because I don’t find it

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@randomsalwran4063 I posted it here, and I can see it. In case you connat see it, try the following. Go to the original video and let it run, then scroll down the comment section until you get to the "timestamp" (1 month ago) and then open up this thread again, from the video (note, not from your "inbox"/notifications). In case that doesn't work, may I suggest following the suggestions I made in the last paragraph, because Dr... Ala(an)n Brow(w) n's channel __ doesn't have any restrictions on the comments section (except foul language). I also posted the same two comments there. ty and rgds

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@randomsalwran4063 OK, this thread seems to be "broken"...

[@KartoffelHundin]

$540 billion is 0.02% of US/Europe GDP? That is definitely off.

[@seneca983]

There must have been some kind of mistake. I think it's closer to 1%. Maybe they thought about an annual cost when the total amount is spread over several decades.

[@ycplum7062]

That is in the ballpark. US GDP is around $26 Trillion. The EU GDP is about $9 Trillion. Of course, he was not clear who was included in "Europe".

[@seneca983]

@@ycplum7062 "That is in the ballpark." Were you replying to me or OP? $540 billion is roughly 1.5% of $35 trillion.

[@ycplum7062]

@@seneca983 You are in the ballpark. At least you are at least in the same order of magnitude. LOL

[@Out_of_office2]

I wonder how similar the Marshall Plan is to the way charity is used in the US and UK. You don't pay taxes, but you make large donations to initiatives of your interest with sometimes very direct benefit. I would be interested to see a video on charity and tax benefits for the rich (if you haven't got one already).

[@austinpace5071]

I’m surprised they didn’t further discuss the financial mistakes from WWI that lead to the conditions that set the stage for WWII.

[@veselinivanov7208]

Ww2 is second part of WW1 .If Great Britain and France was NOT so brutal agaist countries which lost WW1 there would not be ww2

[@mpireoutdoors5274]

New guy is good. Reductionist video essay not my fav but will do.

[@samuelbair1644]

US GDP nowadays involves government spending as a long-term trend.

[@piotrstoppel2282]

I have had suspicions about all such "aid plans". You filled my suspicions with raw facts. I observed one of such process in Poland 1989-2010. I witness competition for helping Ukraine after the current war. I know powerful companies influences governments for financing the economic areas in which the companies would benefit the most. Providing "aid" (or even aid propaganda only) in a proper time (for example after a devastating was) guarantees success.

[@freshkicks23023]

I wonder why Germany grew more than Switzerland and didn’t get as much aid. What a mystery

[@danilolabbate]

Countries such as Latin America and Africa? Damn, that did hurt my ears.

[@stevealexander8010]

At 2:55 : "One thing is clear. If the Marshall Plan was indeed what boosted the European economy after the war, it would be reasonable to expect that the countries that received the most aid would also be the ones that grew the most ..." That is absolutely NOT what an economic projection would predict. For Long-term-Growth we have tools like the Solow-Swan growth model. Those would predict that the impact of capital on production would vary non-linearly based on the amount of manpower & the existing capital. Broad generalization about "Europe" are rubbish. Some locale's and countries had massive loss of manpower, others did not. Some locals and countries had almost 100% loss of pre-existing capital, others had moderate losses. So we EXPECT the LT impact of any added capital (like Marshall plan funds) to vary based on these factors, and also on how this non-market capital is spent.

[@frankt9156]

“No good deed goes unpunished” Isolationist is the way of the future.

[@moisesbessalle]

oh ok well I gues you can give it back then adjusted for inflation

[@brand8590]

Too many woulda coulda shoulda assumptions for me.

[@iehvad5891]

"countries" like latin-america or africa?

[@jasonfabo7126]

Maybe feature the narrator in the thumbnail

[@Gabby-bot]

Not according to the CCKW 353 In my driveway. (militay auction) Here in Norway there's a story still told about a fellow who bought a tank truck in such a manner, and the fuel in the tank was worth more than he paid for the truck! These vehicles are considered by the government to have histotic value and there's even a congressional directive that the equivalent of the DMV in the USA shall be very liberal in the registration of these. Mine is a 1941 model with the workshop 'Body'. These are quite rare today.

[@Campaigner82]

I thought the Marshall plan was decisive to help Europe rebuild.

[@AuslanderViko]

Where is Josh?

[@spadeespada9432]

Tens of millions of dead PEOPLE!, not bodies! I have no blood kin that fought I can name, so its not about me or my family. But it is about my teachers and coworkers. One coworker even fought for the Wehrmacht, and I think one for the Russians. It not numbers they are people. ... Wasn't most of the Marshall plan money spent in the US? Who else had the capacity fill the orders for the things needed to rebuild? Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Vatican City were the only European nations officially neutral throughout the war. This is not a list of industrial powerhouses 1948 - 51

[@occamsshavecream4541]

It is not reasonable or logical to "expect the countries who received the most aid would also be the ones that grew the most".

[@mr.stratholm4999]

"Latin America" is not a country. Do you mean a "Continent" named "South America"? It has many countries in it. Get your facts straight. Also, Europe was in ruins after WWII because of its own self and after the conflict it was realized that this part of the world was really important so the face of the initiative was called "The Marshall Plan" but it was that small catalyst that started the bigger boom. No one else in the world was willing to write that big check in the world of then and the U.S. did. Then they also did it for Japan too. Now look at them all... powerhouses...

[@ralphbernhard1757]

PART II "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... *“We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1).* The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116) "By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. *At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally."* (Page 117) "Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized - and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003) In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers. ----------------------------------- "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] §§§footnote If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," the below comments section is comprehensive.

[@patelfalak]

Great it doesn't apply to others but, for West it'll always work that's a lot hypocritical don't you think ? I guess you won't think it like that but still instead of giving aid believing in the free market would be better, it can solve the Ukrainian & similar issues in Africa & around the world creating a stable government is what the "great power" must help not in making terrorist outfits that tear countries & then provide help to a faction & saying MARSHALL PLAN DIDN'T WORK.

[@MrThePsychologist]

not really back when america was true america

[@egg174]

Nah

[@ericp1139]

Lol, so this was really just backdoor content to appeal for sending more money to Ukraine.

[@RazKino]

"Countries such as Latin America or Africa" Really...? Double check your videos before posting please...

[@philsophkenny]

😮

[@Emanon...]

Well, they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, if that's what you were thinking. It was a strategy that mostly ended in a win-win for Europe and what is now their masters in D.C.

[@svart7716]

And the winner is USA!

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

HELL YEA, without them, the world would be in chaos

[@seneca983]

If that's true then the Marshall Plan was a real win-win.

[@guydreamr]

And the winner is...Western democracy.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@nesseihtgnay9419 That's what every hegemon says!

[@Bolsonaro_em_Haia]

Plans such as those are always plagued by nationalist considerations. It is not wise to expect much from them - or, even, that they come into existence at all.

[@MarcaoPT]

Wherever there is money, corruption sets in. Ukraine is no different. Ukranians only need peace and expertise to rebuild their country in the way that suits economic development the most. Foreign handouts will only jeopardize that purpose.

[@ErelH]

If they give me the money, I promise to rebuild Ukraine with less corruption. Everybody wins! Your move, Biden

[@guydreamr]

Or, wherever there is money, it supplies the backbone to make the necessary restructuring toward a more prosperous future long-term, as happened in Western Europe per the video. And Ukraine seems to be taking the steps already in that direction.

[@MarcaoPT]

@@guydreamr It all comes down to leadership and independent public institutions in a political system with effective checks and balances. Before the invasion Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries in the world. A country's political elite does not change because its country was invaded by another. Russia's elite didn't change after the Germans's invasion and nor will the Ukrainian's. Besides that, we all have the example of Singapore. A port city where misery was widespread after Malaysia cut it loose and all it took was a level-headed leader (or a benevolent dictator) to turn a melting pot city-state into one of the most developed country in the world. No handouts were needed. And by being the "bread basket" of Europe, Ukraine has the resources necessary to lift itself out of its precarious situation post-war. Just let it work itself out.

[@guydreamr]

@@MarcaoPT _Before_ the war Ukraine was indeed quite corrupt, but now that war has come, Ukraine has launched numerous anti-corruption drives, including the recent sacking of over 75 conscription officials for accepting bribes. In fact, Ukraine initially showed its backbone starting with the Maidan protests of 2014, when the population took to the streets in the face of its thoroughly corrupt President Yanukovych's attempt at bringing Ukraine back under Russia's influence, who ultimately fled to Moscow. Your statement that Singapore received no foreign aid after world war 2 is flat-out false. Entering "did singapore receive foreign aid after world war 2 to build its economy up" in AI returned the following: [Quote] Yes, Singapore received foreign aid after World War II to build its economy. The country was in a dire state after the war, with a collapsed infrastructure and a lack of resources. The British government provided some aid to Singapore, but it was not enough to rebuild the country. *The United States also provided aid to Singapore as part of the Marshall Plan, which was a program to help rebuild Europe and Asia after the war.* Singapore was one of the countries that received aid from the United States, which helped to rebuild the country’s infrastructure and economy. [Unquote, with emphasis added] In fact, Singapore is a regular contributor to the International Monetary Fund for a variety of purposes, showing how much stock it places in foreign aid. Among the sources cited are "From Rags to Riches: How Singapore Developed Its Economy," The Urban Stuff and "Singapore to contribute $28 million to IMF to help low-income countries tackle Covid-19 pandemic". So until you can provide sources of your own, your statements are rejected.