That's all you have to do. I am currently selecting folks to send my hard-earned money to, with no strings attached. Request $1, $10, $100 or $1000. No amount is too big or too small, and I will read every e-mail and consider every need and want. I know this is a bizarre concept. But no, I don't want to send you information. I don't want to sell you anything. I don't want anything in return. Call me crazy, but I want to make people happy. Just send me an e-mail explaining why you want or need money. I may or may not decide to reward you. I will decide the amount and select the recipients.
Why hasn’t the helicopter money option already been enacted? The main reason is simply that until very recently we thought we had cured chronic shortages of aggregate demand, so no one was really thinking about these issues. The other reason is that Congress has not yet gotten it together to pass a law allowing the Fed to cut checks to the American people. Federal Government New Year Grant
Earmark Grants are the last type of grant that the government doles out, although these grants have come under fire in recent years. The grants are determined by appropriations of the US Congress and are often secured with the help of high paid lobbyists. Recent research into the distribution of Earmark Grants conducted by the Congressional Research Service in the Fiscal Year 2006 found that over 12,852 earmark grants were dispersed for a total cost of $64 billion dollars. Federal Grant Programs Often Have The Effect Of
The third policy option is known as nominal gross domestic product targeting, the major proponent of which is the economist Scott Sumner. The idea is all about self-fulfilling expectations. Recall that the central bank owns the printing press, so it can create arbitrary quantities of dollars. By making a pre-commitment to keep the economy on a particular spending trajectory, self-fulfilling collapses in spending would not happen. Something similar to this policy seems to have kept Australia and Israel out of the Great Recession. But in order to sustain such a policy, the Fed might have to intervene in the economy quite frequently, and then the distributional consequences could be serious. Quantitative easing, for example, helps push up asset prices (the stock market has regained all the ground lost since 2009 and then some), which disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Free Money Machine