I talk about military power in the previous paragraph because that’s the type of power that conservatives are most concerned with, but the nonmilitary benefits of relative wealth are also significant, though harder to measure. For example, membership in the G8 is a direct consequence of being one of the eight richest countries in the world. Countries that don’t make the cut are largely left out of the discussion.

Hypothesis: The development of economic theory through the concept of comparative advantage and the fall of mercantilism as the dominant government policy led to a rise in the social valuation of non-land-based capital. In turn, this has led to a substitution of monetized, non-land-based capital for pure land ownership as a basis for perceived power bases, success, and social standing.
Discuss. Your answer should include, but not be limited to, both historical and contemporary changes in nation-state dominance in multinational economic units, and the effects of internal social perceptions on external economic relations.

Technical change is embodied in capital equipment.

So, for example, to become more energy efficient, the US has to make capital investments.

To increase productivity and hence have more goodies to spend on public healthcare and R&D and higher education, a country needs to be richer.

In part (Solow notwithstanding) it gets richer via capital expenditure.

A good worry is that you wind up like the old Soviet Union, or Japan, or South Korea. Pouring downs lots of concrete and ruining the environment as ‘investment’ aka political slushfund for contractors.

*that* is the main worry with excess investment.

A secondary worry is intergenerational. Spend now, children will have to pay it back. With aging demographics this is a huge risk.