I'm afraid your point's a little murky, Tom.

Sure American workers have historically been highly productive. Of course, for most of that period the American market was the primary market for all that product, so Americans of necessity had to be highly consumptive in equal measure to keep the engine running with the pedal to the metal. Classic free-market theory says that production will expand to satisfy demand, but the modern twist (or perversion, if you're a strict economic constructionist) is the development of powerful techniques to manufacture demand (marketing, advertising, politicians telling us it's our patriotic duty to consume, consume, consume, and win one for GM). Smith described a system in natural equilibrium, but what we have today is a system being artificially stimulated out of equilibrium into an ever-upward spiral.

Sounds like one of those hand-waving sci-fi "gravity drives" that, like a carrot on a stick affixed to the head of the horse, continuously creates a gravity well out in front of itself that it keeps falling into.

I found this just baffling: "The U.S. is well-off because it was earned. What we have consumed is far outweighed by what we have contributed."

Do you mean that we've been losing money on the deal the whole time? You're describing negative profit, near as I can tell. Huh?