[NeilCJames]

I read that comment too, but I am not sure 'broken windows' truly applies here. Although I believe there is net public harm from US post-9/11 "security" policies, when you consider that: a.) the spending being done on security is entirely public deficit spending not offset by tax increases or cuts in other departments, b.) the economy has been well below full employment (~58-62% employment-pop ratio during the period) and full capacity utilization (~68-81% capacity utilization during the period), c.) no other expansion of public employment and spending would have likely occurred in the past decade absent the 9/11 attacks (arguable, but there really isn't a political consensus for expanding the US welfare state), and posit that the 2000s growth rate would have taken essentially the same path absent the 9/11 attacks, then it would appear that much of the security theater policies have had a small medium-term stimulative economic effect (small because it is largely offset by increased consumer travelling expenses and time, dampening productivity). The three keys I mention above violate the pretext of the broken window fallacy (at least in the medium term, and probably in the long-term because of historically low interest rates). In a full employment situation, there would be significant deadweight loss, and in a balanced budget situation, there would be significant economic impact due to either increased taxation or offsetting spending cuts. But neither of those conditions applies to the recent US situation. The BWF assumes that the money would have been spent doing something else (more profitable), and I am pretty certain that will not be the case until the debt needs to be paid, which is unlikely to ever occur (I think the assumed future policy is to continue to roll the debt over until the singularity).