...whose significant spending shapes the economy; whose fiscal policies shape the economy; whose deficits affect the economy by squeezing capital markets; whose unemployment policies (amount and length of benefits, retraining programs etc.) shape the economy; whose tax policies shape the economy; whose choice of stimulus programs, or to withhold stimulus, shapes the economy; and on and on and on.

One of the underappreciated economic forces in the economy isn't just the overall level of government spending, but the type of spending. What the graphs reveal is a period of stagnation after 9/11 as the mix of spending changed significantly. At the Federal level spending shifted heavily to consumptive items like munitions and other commodities that have little impact in civilian markets. E.g., while the military uses lots of computers, a large number of them have to be hardened for battlefield conditions, so there are few synergistic sideeffects of that kind of military spending. At lower levels of government, spending shifted toward homeland security items, again a lot of specialized equipment for police forces, etc.

In the months after 9/11, the only subsector of the tech economy that showed significant hiring was in defense and intelligence-related industries, heavily concentrated in the ring around DC and enclaves like Colorado and the aerospace industry in Southern California. That shifted a lot of workers who might have otherwise contributed synergistic effects to the civilian economy, into the heavily insulated military and government markets. Their effective productivity, from an economy-wide perspective, dropped like a rock, and further weighted down the rest of the economy.

No business exists in a vacuum, and its fate is determined by its environment of competition and economic regulation, and the decisions it makes in response to its environment.

You should stick to genetics, Lee.