Unless someone literally burnt the money, it did some good. Funny you say that because it is exactly the opposite that seems true from an economic point of vie

Unless someone literally burnt the money, it did some good. Funny you say that because it is exactly the opposite that seems true from an economic point of view : if they burned the money, they would have reduced the money supply, thereby increasing for everyone a bit their power purchase. Whereas employing hundreds of people and buying resource for nothing is completely wasteful. The looser is always those spending the 2.4B of course, but the two have different economic impact (the first one benefiting everyone, the second one only a few people being employed)