Omnilateral economic considerations

US needs to take the concerns of all nations into account in forming policy and foreign policy on any nations in the G8+1 it seems to me that they are looking out for personal interest and pragmatics on every level.

Environmental holism is another parallel concept to this. One part of the environmental influence has to take others into account.

Dependence on autocracies

If democracies need certain countries to stay supplying critical produce to them, it might be thought that autocracies would be more reliable than democracies in being willing servants.
Indonesia and Iran and Nicaragua are examples.

Democracy does have a prerogative of noninterference in the affairs of other states. The treaty of Westphalia is the precedent for this way of thinking.

Economy and the missing pieces

It seemed that there is something missing - one pays the nation for an economy in tax contributions. This however does pay for furthering the insecurity of the state. As it powers in most countries the military industrial complex. The economy is not supported for its existence by any mechanism to secure it into the future. Eventually there is war. That drags down the economy. Then there is a boom and another armsrace.
If one looks at economy in terms of exploitation (I do not) then I have seen no one view the imperative of self financed military service of Greek and Roman citizens.

Having weapons means that they have targets, in another way weapons form the enemies. So the investments in "security" in fact reduce it.
Economy is still set to run around the collapses due to wars. One can believe that setting it on other grounds is basis for a more successful economy.

Increasing the number of investors in an economy towards a majority would be one way of overcoming the poverty, that has only partial trend in societies, however it is a very long term trend.

The second missing piece is the effect of the depletion of environment and disequilibriation of ecology. Workers health drops as the industry pollutes. Consumers suffer in parallel and greater number.

The drive out of poverty is the drive for economy

I thought of proposing that the force to increase economic growth is the tendency to reduce and nearly eliminate poverty.

This is pointed at by the stop in economic growth after these conditions are met. So the rise at the top is the greater the more poverty there is to get rid of and in this way it owes a debt to the lower class for its own increase in wealth.

Criticism
I would now like to present some points against this .

1. Since other factors determine the low point of the economy of a nation such as war the increase is not there to improve the lower well being but to reform the wealth production system.
2. Growth after satisfaction of necessities in the nation by economic means would be replaced by growth based on innovation. These are fundamentally different modes. Any developments may be outshun by developments in other countries who have better export mechanisms.
3. There are countries where oppulence is the norm