I think you may be conflating the directionality of success and "high-investment", to use your terminology. "High-investment" government tends to follow domesti

I think you may be conflating the directionality of success and "high-investment", to use your terminology. "High-investment" government tends to follow domestic success, not vice versa. For instance California is a phenomenally clear example of this. I assume you know what the San Francisco 49ers are named after? It was the California gold rush of 1848-1855. 49ers was a slang term for the miners. This gold rush created San Francisco. In 1846 California was a backwoods settlement of 200 people. In 1842, its population was 36,000 and it was booming as the primary port on the way to the gold rushes. California was the only state that was granted statehood (which happened in 1850) without first being a territory as the US raced to lay claim to its riches and successes. The Comstock Lode (silver's not quite as exciting as gold I guess) discovered in Nevada would further grow the city. Even getting down to Berkeley. The university was founded in 1869. You know all those Phoebe Hearst references around the campus? She was a huge early donor that helped really develop the college. And the money? She was the wife of George Hearst, who struck it rich during the gold/silver rushes. The cities (and state for that matter) were built from the ground up by the people, for the people. "High-investment" government only came much later.