[This post is not as clear as I want it to be. Sorry.]
Most discussions of long run secular stagnation, and short run liquidity traps, ignore land. They shouldn't.
If a central bank runs out of other options to increase aggregate demand, it could always use helicopter money. Or it could buy land.
Is it possible that a central bank that was allowed to buy land would ever need to use helicopter money to prevent aggregate demand falling below target? Would it ever be desirable for central banks to issue helicopter money rather than buying land?
Let's look first at the long run, then at the short run.