^^^^^^ This. Jungle doesn't live in the traditional jungle. He knows the world of finance and government IS the jungle.

The only ways for a nation to build wealth are:

1. Own more stuff (resources and materials, especially rare or scarce items that others are willing to pay for).

2. Have a workforce that can do specialized work that no one else can, or do more work for less money.

3. Have an industrial capacity that is critical, and others can not do

4. Control the exchange of money, and take a percentage of every transaction.

5. Get others to do the work for you, generally in third-world countries.

Now versus then:

1. We started running out of big resources in the late 60s/early 70s. Oil, timber, metal: the easy stuff was gone, and exports became imports. The stuff we kept got more expensive. (Who remembers furniture made of solid wood, instead of veneers over particle-board?)

2. Aircraft manufacturing, computers, space vehicles, heavy machinery and perhaps surprisingly, entertainment, were things we had a near-monopoly on. Not any more.

At one time, aircraft and entertainment (music and movies) were the two biggest export items of the US; can't remember the year).

3. Due to an abundance of agriculturally-useful land, water, and the lower cost of growing crops, the US still holds a slight edge in an "industrial capacity" that most other nations can not match.

But it is fading. Large-scale irrigation in the high plains states (CO, KS, NE, etc) uses an aquifer that is being rapidly depleted. Much of the grain belt (our last big near-monopoly in agriculture) will become unusable in the next 20-50 years.

4. We do this a lot, but I don't think it is our number-one money maker. On the other hand, there are countries (Switzerland and Luxembourg) that I believe make the bulk of their GDP through banking.

5. The entirety of the Western world does this with China, and when they got too expensive, any other third-world place they could maximize corporate profits.

Did it benefit the home-country as a whole?

You could argue that the profits made, as flowed-back in to the home country ("Trickle-down theory," anyone?) would benefit the home country.

But it doesn't seem to work that way. The major shareholders keep the bulk of the profits, are largely shielded from taxes, and it serves mostly to make the rich very rich, and the middle class in the "content enough to not have a revolution."

The only new source of major income I've been watching in the last 5 years is fracking. Articles I have read indicate that the US believes it will be energy independent---no imports--in about 15-20 years (I forget the exact number).

This is pretty shocking when we have lots of government programs urging us to conserve; that biofuels and electric cars are good; to use special light bulbs at 10 times the price, and carbon is evil.

Yet the same politicos who decry fossil fuels and declare themselves the only true friends of the environment turn a blind eye to fracking, and the occasional (and serious) problems associated with it, namely contaminated groundwater, or sinkholes.

Now, why would they do that?

I think the answer is what Jungle implies. We are a house of cards. We're that guy who buys a lot of stuff on his credit card and thinks "I can't be broke...look at all the stuff I have!!"

Or the guy that says "Hey, the stock market has exploded!! I have lots of money now!!"

All of the stuff that used to keep us afloat and a viable economic force to be reckoned with have expired. Which means eventually, the debt is going to have to meet-up with the income. And it ain't gonna be pretty.

But what if fracking could bring in a new stream of money, say, (Dr. Evil): "One TRILLION dollars a year!"

Then, as a politician, you would probably look the other way, and kiss a baby, make a congratulatory call to some celebrity, or otherwise distract the serfs from their ignorance and impending doom.

Fracking might save us. But mostly, I see a country with waning resources, a workforce that largely has no special skills, yet comes with a high price and income expectation, a neglected infrastructure, a decreasing emphasis on education or trade/skill, and a usurped manufacturing capacity.

And I think, too, the market is eventually going to "adjust."