Translation:How would the country have a strong trade without money to buy?
Honestly this sentence doesn't make much sense (in English) anyway, but "buy" in English usually requires an object, and so it is here. I reported this but since the sentence doesn't make sense... what is it trying to get at? Should it be more like, "How would the country have a strong economy without money to buy things?"
I agree. I am almost wondering if "money" is the direct object, as in people from other countries investing in that country's currency. But that seems unlikely and therefore it's still very awkward. I would imagine a version of "to buy" should be transitive in virtually every language.
I agree with infofarmer - "money to buy with" makes more sense in English. Actually, the sentence as a whole does make sense. Countries need either foreign exchange - money issued by other countries, e.g. dollars, euros, or yen - or they need their own currency to be readily convertible (exchangeable into more established currencies). If a country lacks both of these, it will have great trouble engaging in international commerce.
Also trade is not singular...the answer should be How would the country have strong trade without (a strong currency???) not A strong trade....
I also got marked wrong because I didn't add the article as it didn't seem appropriate to me either to use with trade.