The problem is that, starting with Nasser and the Arab League, most Middle Eastern governments developed essentially socialist economies, owing to Cold War alliances with the Soviet Union. Egypt, amongst others, has the same disease which did for Eastern Europe in the 1990s: corruption, autocracy, and inability to adapt. Western Europe's influence steered development towards democracy and capitalism, and (with exceptions) former client states were able to raise the standard of living for their populations. In the Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan ... autocracy, theocracy, and command economies are viable alternatives. Democracy and capitalism don't get a look-in. As Greg Sheridan noted recently in The Australian, we need to push Egypt in the direction taken by Malaysia and Indonesia — Muslim countries which have adopted democracy and made space for free enterprise. Don't quite see how it can be done, but I don't see any alternatives, either.

"we need to push Egypt in the direction taken by Malaysia and Indonesia — Muslim countries which have adopted democracy and made space for free enterprise." donkeygod

Malaysia is not a democratic country because

(i)they practice race-based politics in that Malay Mulsims are given special status like preferrential admission to universities, subsidies in housing, economic privileges in many things.

(ii) Like their Muslim brothers/sisters all over the Islamic world, it is either against the law for a Muslim to leave his/her religion or the Islamic government has made it almost impossible for them to change their religion.

Even if the government finally agrees to a Muslim leaving Islam, the imam (Muslim religious leader) would get the person murdered in the name of Islam and the police just close an eye to the murder.

Indonesia is worse than Malaysia because there are parts of it under sharia law where they stone to death adultery suspects and cut off hands for shop lifting.

just..e-gypts last pharro ...has accumulated between one billion to two billion ...*per year for each of his 30 years running his zionist friendly fiefdom..

here we have your typical armed forces plutocracy
we have the haves ...and the have nots
a de-liberated perversion

franchised planed prison
run by colluding cartel and usefull idiots or yes men
via rigged eletions and biased media fear and by threat of force

the state of play indicated the have-nots are increasing...and the have it all's are decreasing...and its now the educated feeling their riches slip from their grasp..

the thing is you need many serfs to supply the needs of one elite

thats the basic problem..[globally]..and as many have revealed..at its root is greed and lust for credit..[not so much money...as having credit to avail availability to all the money many could only use in multiple lifetimes]

govt does not issue money..that franchise was gifted to the money changers longago..and yes they can make as much as they can lend[at intrest]..to those aspiring riches...but the fact is while they can create it..they dont create the intrest that needs be repaid..[by others defaulting]

but that is only part of the problem in e-gypt
the true issue is outside meddeling...[yes usa and israel..world bank arms industry and many other quasi govt/private..agencies]

israel needs a puppet
willing to betray his own people..!

willing to faculitate the erradication..of semites..by impoverishment and starvation and genetic mutative arms use..in builtup areas..[prison camps/gulages]..where the aim is directly at the indigenous poor..or fast bering impoverished middle class..

its global

as the scum runs who caused the real problems...run from the wars
they move to cuntries like australia..who even sends jets to get out the guilty..[often holding mulitple [passorts...and usually having mulitple credit cards..and fiends in low places..but high office]

“Debt is the price of money.
No it’s not. Interest is the price of money. Debt is an amount owed. "

Actually, it's neither. Under the world economy, Money and Debt are the same thing. Without debt, there would be no money and while there is more debt than money in the economy, interest can never be fully repaid.

good point wobbles

but lets egsamin this further
in the news i hear the egypt pound?
has devalued..[30 percent?]..

this indicates a lot of egyptian pounds are leaving egypt

further that public servants
and pensions shall rise [35 percent]
this is through inflation

inflation as we all know..is theft of those owning/holding the devalued currency...ie the very people trying to achieve the inpoossable..[ie remove the pharro] or is it parriah

anyhow the devaluation is great
it indicates the powers that be are moving stuff out of egypt

further the devaluation will make things harder for the poor
thus they will rebel in larger numbers..meaning even worse oppresioon..meaning more shall see the scum for what it is

the rich think the poor are mindless
oh well never mind..it couldnt happen here...lol

what goes on in egypt couldnt possably affect us here
couldnt possably go global

thats what we/they bought out the media for
bankers aint they clever

> “Debt is the price of money.

>>No it’s not. Interest is the price of money. Debt is an amount owed. "

>>>"Actually, it's neither. Under the world economy, Money and Debt are the same thing. Without debt, there would be no money and while there is more debt than money in the economy, interest can never be fully repaid."

That is incorrect. It is true that under a fiat money regime, governments *monetise the debt* and in that sense money and debt are "the same thing". But that is neither in the nature of money, nor in the nature of debt. It's in the nature of government ripping off the population.

There is nothing about money or debt that intrinsically requires the monetising of debt. It would not happen if people were free to choose. It is entirely an artefact of government, not of money or debt.

For example, if government's monopoly were abolished, the money that would most probably emerge from people's voluntary choices is gold, silver and copper. So it is not true that "Without debt, there would be no money". Without fiat money, people would most probably choose precious metals as a medium of exchange, and this would have no *direct* bearing on the amount of debt. The current direct relation between money and debt is entirely an artefact of government criminality.

As for, "while there is more debt than money in the economy, interest can never be fully repaid."
how would you prove that? And how does that prove or disprove whether debt is the price of money?

In any event, the cure for the problem of excessive debt being cranked up as part of the creation of money, is the same: to abolish government control of the money supply.