> it's not like the trillion would disappear; it's being spent in the economy. And via the broken windows measurement fallacy of economics, it would likely incr

> it's not like the trillion would disappear; it's being spent in the economy. And via the broken windows measurement fallacy of economics, it would likely increase our GDP rather than decrease it. Wait, what? You're correctly calling out the broken windows fallacy as a fallacy, but saying that it's _true_? Wealth is tied to value/utility in a way that isn't fully captured by spending, and the broken-windows phenomenon shows up in GDP figures too (it just trades short run for long run, at unfavorable exchange rates).