It may be somewhat dark, but you gotta admit, it's genius.

I don't think Canada really qualifes as a country.
It has existed as an independant entity for less than one human lifetime.
If you wish to pat Canada on the back (and I do too), then the majority of the pats go to its parent : The British Royalty.

...

But back to the topic:
I envision 3 possible outcomes:

1) America's decline is halted as a result of honesty and bravery on the part of American Philosophers, and it maintains a more noble role as a 'benevolent dictator'.

2) America self-destructs into a collection of 3rd world balkanised states leaving the battle for power between Islam and China, with a horid war culminating in a new hegemony.

3) America partly destructs, with global forces backing either side of an American civil war, which eventually results in a return to world-order much the same as it was around 1990.

1 is best.
2 is worst.

The choice is yours.

There is no such thing as the British Royalty in Canada. We only have the Sovereign Monarch of Canada, who is currently Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and ONLY when the family members of the Sovereign Monarch of Canada are in Canadian territory, they are the members of the Canadian Royal Family.


----

I'd say option 2

From what I have been informed, Canada recieved independance as a reward for its achievements after WW2. Sorry if I have been misinformed.

Are you saying option 2 is what you reckon is the best possible outcome, or what is more likely?

Option 2 with some wording tweaks would be most likely. International countries will become more and more suspicious of American based international institutions like the World Bank and IMF. Countries like Iran and North Korea will continue to create Uncertainity in the Asian region, with China and India coming in to act as mediator. Added to the global economic collapse, will create unrest and doubt about unmediated capitalism...

well, America won't self-destruct. But the new focus of power will probably be in the Asian continent.

I see no reason to believe this. If anything, the EU will rise.

China seems large and powerful, and is constantly built up in the media. But China is also rather unstable. The dissent that culminated in Tienanmen Square still exists. Dissent in western occupied territories, such as Tibet, remains high. In order for China to keep a handle on this widespread dissent, they must grow at a clip that is quickly becoming impossible. A drop below 6% GDP growth could very well send the nation into a remarkable degree of chaos as open protests erupt nation wide.

This should not be surprising. It is not the mark of a stable nation to remove from the historic record occurrences of dissent. The fact that the government in Beijing has wiped Tienanmen from the record is evidence of a government who recognizes it's own weakness. Russia is a more likely emerging superpower: at least the population is content with its government.

No disagreements with Russia, they'll play important roles to come in Northeast Asian politics.

But political instability is to be expected in any region. From Chinese Human Rights crisis to American ethical problems to European accountability issues, there's going to be instability. But economic-wise, China is set to overtake the US economy in a decade and is also not that far behind US defense spending, the Middle East has the majority of oil resources, and most importantly, China has more diplomatic power over Asian countries than the US. North Korea wouldn't be a threat to the US if the US could exert more DP over it than China and Russia.

My primary disagreement rests with the supposed rise of China's economy. No doubt, it has grown remarkably. But that's just the problem. Chinese stability, which is already shaky, depends upon massive economic growth. This massive economic growth is rapidly becoming impossible to maintain - a fact that the Beijing government is well aware of.

Already Chinese economic growth is down to just above 6%. If this pace keeps up it will throw China into turmoil. China's population is simply too large - without 8 or 9% growth, China will experience (as they are currently experiencing) increasing job loss. This job loss will be the primary impetus for political turmoil, for dissent, especially among minorities who already face grim employment prospects.

The idea that China will overtake the US economy is a hangover from pre-recession days as far as I can tell. Chinese exports have crashed, and this only exacerbates the problem of their industrial over-capacity. The rural turned urban workers face the brunt of joblessness. China will have to significantly increase retail sales - it cannot continue to rely on exports as it has in years past. And China has seen some promising progress in increasing retail sales, but this has taken place in the midst of deflation so just how significant this increase of retail really is on the overall economy is left in doubt.

Yes, some instability is expected, but in China it is a serious problem. A problem that could very well lead to significant political turmoil. I've heard some experts speak of the remergence of serious insurrection in the western provinces and the reignition of urban riots. Without an economic miracle, Chinese accendency into a superpower will be impossible for many, many decades.

And you might want to double check the defense spending. China does not spend anything close to what the US spends.

US defense spending is around 623 billion while China spends about a tenth of that at 65 billion.
World Wide Military Expenditures

According to Wiki, the US spends 651 billion while China spends 70 billion. The EU spends 312 billion. France alone keeps pace with China by spending 67 billion.

I was looking at today's contemporary numbers where China is now No. 2 behind US.
Global Military Spending at Record High | theTrumpet.com
BBC NEWS | Business | In graphs: Arming the world
China takes No. 2 spot in global defense spending - Related Stories - AIA dailyLead
China really jumped in defense and arms spending in the last few years.

Here's the opinion piece I read a few days ago about the BRIC countries, Emerging markets: The new global economic leaders - Jun. 3, 2009

I personally think the BRIC idea has merit.

Yes, China is second only to the US in military spending. However, China does not spend nearly as much as the US. China spends roughly one tenth of what the US spends on defense each year. Even though China is second to the US, France spends almost as much as China, only a few billion less.

China's military spending has grown enormously in the past decade, but so has US spending.

And the article you sight mentions quite rightly the dependency of China upon the US economy. Which is a problem for China. China cannot maintain the necessary economic growth to combat instability by exporting to nations like the US. China needs to significantly vamp up retail, and this is difficult to actually accomplish with deflation.

The United States spends more on military expenses that all other countries combined. That seems unnecessary, and not to mention, burdensome on different public services that are in great demand at this moment in time. The only way that the United States can continue to be the "moral authority" in the world is through spending on the lives of the people of the country. The country needs to go through a massive training and restructuring of the educational system in order to meet the demands that the government should place on the people. The government should act as an inspirational figure, rather than a bully that tries to coerce people into certain patterns.

I read somewhere about the Buy American clause causing China and the Asian countries (and Canada among others) to rethink the US trade relationship, and would hurt the US economy in the long run, by causing countries opposed to Buy American to focus trade on each other.

I honestly don't know the full impliciations of Buy American, I've got to read up on that.

I don't understand why Buy American cannot have to be a way to localize production and distribution. What is really wrong with buy American if both South and North America can join together in some sort of trade association? It would greatly reduce shipping costs, and reduce the reliance on far away lands--not to mention, in theory, well that is if some sort of real justice was applied to the agreement--could begin to help eliminate some environmental concerns by making goals more attainable through conservation.

There's already things like the North American Free Trade Agreement in place. Political and economic pundits believe that the Buy American clause as it is violates NAFTA.

There is a way that it could work in a way that benefited all parties, but there needs to be a fundamental shift in the way that it could be actualized. Mexicans shouldn't be dirty work slaves, white Americans shouldn't be service slaves, and African Americans shouldn't be be slaves to the dark arts of the corrections economy. But that would only touch on the corruption in the United States job market. There has to be some sort of trade agreement that does not exasperate the divide between the haves and the have nots.

Many nations have, by turns, been "the greatest country on the face of the planet." Some, such as Rome, could lay claim to that title for many centuries. Others including the Spanish, the Dutch and the British held the honour for much briefer interludes.

Until just a hundred years ago, most Britons would boast their homeland to be the greatest country on earth and if you looked at a map of the British Empire it would be very hard to argue against them. Britain fell into decline during WWI, a process that was pretty much complete by the end of the sequel, WWII.

India and China are ascendant - again. Yes, again. We Westerners view the world in the European tradition going back to Rome and rarely consider how relatively weak and backward we were for so long compared to China and India. We were able to couple our technological advancements and occasional lapses of scruples with disunity and a good measure of chaos in those nations to effectively take over and dominate but, as they say, all good things must end.

But relax. Stepping down from the top perch does not mean one has to fall to the bottom of the birdcage. Not at all. America will remain "a" dominant nation but there will no longer be a unipolar world. This is a very critical moment for America as, to a considerable extent, it will define itself in this new and difficult age we're entering. If, however, it remains in some blurry, hyper-patriotic state of denial it will allow some very important opportunities to slip between its fingers.

Look at it this way. The world in which America, like Britain, the Netherlands and Spain before it, rose to supremacy is coming to an end. America had just truly cemented the mantle of superpower when I was born. That was a world of just two billion people. In the era of American hegemony that population more than tripled to what is now approaching seven billion souls. The United States can take credit for introducing to the world science and technology that allowed this growth, even if that growth has become utterly unsustainable.

Now we're coming to see this global economic and technological miracle as very much a deck of cards that is astonishingly fragile and bound to collapse. When you have a planet that has a carrying capacity of roughly four billion people and you twist it here and there to make room for seven billion and, eventually, up to nine billion, you haven't really left much for your inevitable successor to inherit.

All things considered, this may be a most fortuitous time for the United States to step out of the unipolar limelight. Count your blessings.

I think the world needs superpowers, but more than one. Even though the Cold War was not an ideal situation, there were two super powers that balanced each other and kept one another in check. When one nation has too much power, and there is not another to match its might, it is far too easy for the single superpower to act like a bully, and push around lesser nations for the "lunch money" it does not really need.

I was under the impression that the so-called economic crisis was more of a global problem.

This started me thinking about monetary systems themselves.

How can one initiate a monetary system that actually reflected the law of reciprocity? Can it actually be done?

Money is a grammar system, if one knows what a relatiologic is. How then can one devise a system where the standard were not relative human value-which can not be standardized, but absolute human life. Labor is a dedication that spends human life.

Forgive me of being a bit ignorant about these global matters (I'm an american teenager, you see).
I would like to understand what makes the US a "bully". It doesn't seem to me that having a strong military force and placing it in somewhat turbulent areas is a bad thing to do. I forget the country's name, but it was in southern Europe during the 1970's or 80's (should probably put in more detail for creditability, but what the heck). There were some riots going on and some ethnic purging happening, too. The US placed its military forces there because that country lacked the military power to do it themselves. This seems like a gesture of friendship rather than a bully-like movement.
The armed forces placed in various countries don't really cause much trouble as far as I know. They don't go around marching in the streets, barging into houses and doing random searches (except for maybe Iraq and Afghanistan, from what I hear). They seem to kind of just sit there and help out if the need arises.

Again, I'm an American kid so my opinion is probably pretty biased and misinformed. Help me out, here, though.

Consider 1953's Operation Ajax - the US removes a democratically elected leader of Iran and replaces him with an autocrat. This action is the root of modern strains in the US-Iranian relationship.

We've a long history, here: Philippine?American War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also remember that one of the most significant sources of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and around the globe is the far flung presence of US soldiers in so many countries. These people are not upset over nothing.