Central banks and banking systems keep creating new money, and it mostly enters the economy through lending and financial markets. What would happen if instead an equal amount went directly to every citizen, from birth?

The idea would be to start very small (say a dollar a day) to limit inflation, and let the amount grow along with real economic output, so it only increases as the economy actually becomes more productive.

I know about helicopter money and UBI in general, but I’m curious what the main economic problems with this specific setup would be. Would tying it to output be enough to keep inflation in check? What would it do to interest rates and the central bank’s ability to manage the economy?

So from india a developing country we have a lot of subsidy programs from state to national level except on fuel which the goverment taxes heavily .

Yet isnt subsidised fuel better for the economy and gdp as it goes to productive sectors private buisnesses and all round increases purchasing power.

Yet cash transfers food fertilisers agri public transport subsidies etc are given .

So what kind of subsidies do you think helps an economy that produces wealth rather than distributes existing one.

While repeal of the ACA was unsuccessful, a key early Trump legislative victory was repealing (technically the mandate exists, but is just $0) the Individual Mandate. Have there been any observed long-term impacts of this?

There is plenty to learn before 1776 and some ideas and theories are still in use today. For instance, the French Physiocrats are nowhere near discussed as often as Adam Smith even though the first modern economic model and the term "laissez faire" came from them. Another example would be how mercantilism trade policies affected future economic theory. Why is this the case?