The government could give every state $1B to spend within a year. The money should be granted to startups that focus on developing state-specific, local, resources and technologies. So, fund a thousand startups per state, with a million $ per startup. No big players allowed!
Every state has some unique resources. For example:
- Massachusetts has ocean, educated residents, a lots of medical research, a good deal of Nature, and other specifics. This suggests ocean technology startups doing things like fish farming, tidal energy product development, tourism, educational support... and whatever else can be imagined by the state's entrepreneurial residents.
- Arizona, has lots of sunlight, lots of beautiful desert, lots of empty space. Lots of mineral resources. This suggests solar energy, wind energy, tourism, mining, large manufacturing, and whatever else the imagination of the state's entrepreneurial residents.
- South Dakota has space, prairie, and a large unemployed sub-population of American Indians. This suggests wind energy development, ranching, tourism - particularly cultural tourism - and whatever else can be imagined by the state's entrepreneurial residents.
- etc. Each state is different.
Require a state to "use it or lose it" to the tune of one thousand $1M grants and you are going to see something happen in that state. Putting a billion into the local economy is a good thing and the cost to the Fed is negligible (compared eg to the cost of a month in Afghanistan). Most of the startups will fail but the $1B will still have gotten spent locally and pumped into the local economy. Sometimes a startup will grow and that will add permanent jobs to the state. However it works out, it would be a win-win for the state.
Administering the grants: Residents will have six months to generate business plans and to create a local review committe. Or participants can ask the Fed to review and choose between business plans. If fewer than 1000 grants are made, the money goes back to the Fed.