NationStates Jolt Archive

im talking in broad time line say 50years or 100 years will it be china,the european union, or will still be the U.S. or will there be more then one superpower make your anwser reasonable not something like Your MOM! otherwise i dont care who you think will be the next superpower state your reason please

My manhood.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=period

Australia, only because all the SuperPowers will go to war with each other totally wiping themselves out only leaving Australia and the pacfic Islands left in any sort of order. With Australia being the dominant force for the entire world...

*Note Australia was only left alone because no one wants the driest (in terms of precipitation) continent on earth.

Australia, only because all the SuperPowers will go to war with each other totally wiping themselves out only leaving Australia and the pacfic Islands left in any sort of order. With Australia being the dominant force for the entire world...

*Note Australia was only left alone because no one wants the driest (in terms of precipitation) continent on earth.

What about Antarctica and its world-domination-crazed penguins?

China, I would imagine.

I would have to go with China.

*plugs fingers in ears, starts singing Star Spangled Banner loudly...*

FORRRRR THE LAND OF THE FREEEEEEE!!!

*...and poorly*

In fifty thousand and one-hundred years? I really doubt that it will be any of the nations that currently exist.

In fifty years, I would guess we're going to be in a four-power balance: USA, EU, China and India, or possibly Indian Alliance (China's expansionism could easily force many smaller nations in the region into India's arms - unless India turns expansionist, which frankly I find unlikely).

I don't think the term "Superpower" will be aplicable anymore, though. I'd guess the term "Great Power" will be back.

The tension lines will be US and EU (and allied nations, such as Canada and Australia) vs. China vs. India. In all honesty, China has a very bad track record of maintaining alliances, and while I don't doubt that many politicos of the era will speak of "Asian Solidarity", I suspect that will be more of a dream than a reality.

Japan will be the joker in the deck. I can see that country as either remaining in the US bloc or as the heart of a new "Non-Aligned" movement.

At the 100 year mark, extrapolation from today is much less reliable. I don't think China will be a major force any more - simply put, they'll have overpopulated themselves out of existence. India will be the same - if it hasn't outright destroyed itself, population levels will have reached the point of the country being unable to do anything but service itself. Both nations COULD avoid this, but I honestly don't think they have the will.

The EU will either be a single nation by now, or will have collapsed under it's own internal pressures. If it survives, it will be a major power primarily due to it's offworld colonies.

Likewise, the US almost certainly still exists, but will only be a major power because of off-earth investment. Both nations will be more interested in looking outward than dominating the planet.

South America will be dominated by a Brazillian-Argentinian Alliance. Africa will finally be stable, but will be an industrial power in an era of post-industrial giants. Australia will dominate the planet simply by providing food to everyone - they and their client states in Oceania farm the Pacific Ocean for all the food a planet of 60 Billion need.

St Jello Biafra;11954006']In fifty thousand and one-hundred years? I really doubt that it will be any of the nations that currently exist.

Who/what would you suggest would take that role?

At the 100 year mark, extrapolation from today is much less reliable. I don't think China will be a major force any more - simply put, they'll have overpopulated themselves out of existence. India will be the same - if it hasn't outright destroyed itself, population levels will have reached the point of the country being unable to do anything but service itself. Both nations COULD avoid this, but I honestly don't think they have the will.

Both China's and India's population are stabilizing, China's at a faster clip than India's and India is expected to overtake China within next two decades and stabilize around 2030 or so. Indian pop may stabilize faster than projected due to the continuing economic boom. Population is already stabilizing in all the prosperous southern and western states and a few north-western states.

Chinese population may actually go on negative growth due to them greying at a rapid pace while still keeping the one-child policy.

Both China's and India's population are stabilizing, China's at a faster clip than India's and India is expected to overtake China within next two decades and stabilize around 2030 or so. Indian pop may stabilize faster than projected due to the continuing economic boom. Population is already stabilizing in all the prosperous southern and western states and a few north-western states.

Chinese population may actually go on negative growth due to them greying at a rapid pace while still keeping the one-child policy.

They are stabilizing, but the rate of decline is decreasing in China (though increasing in India, but India has farther to go), and I'm frankly unsure about whether those gains can be sustained.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be wrong about this. But I have serious doubts regarding the sustainability of either population survival wise.

im talking in broad time line say 50,100 years will it be china,the european union, or will still be the U.S. or will there be more then one superpower make your anwser reasonable not something like Your MOM! otherwise i dont care who you think will be the next superpower state your reason please
the part where we believe humans will still exist in 50000 years has me amused. at the current rate, 150 years seems to be optimistic. but in 150 years, i'd bet an african country.

Seriously, I expect that in 50-100 years the concept of the nation-state will have died out. As such, whilst there may be a superpower, it may not be along the lines that we think of now. It is kind of hard to theorise something which does not yet exist. Perhaps the oncoming format of power distribution will not allow for superpower status (bar comparitively). Consider Europe in the middle ages, when the Fuedal-State was the stand. If was not logistically possible to hold an empire larger than..well any of the existing European countries. However, it is more likely the oncoming neo-state will not be a slide back to fuedalism, but something else entirely. I expect it will be born of a completely weightless economy, with entirely intangible worth. Hard to say...

ExxonMobil, Microsoft, GE, etc.

ExxonMobil, Microsoft, GE, etc.
Sure. We'd call it Anarcho-capitalism now, but I doubt we will if it happens. It'd just be the subdivision of power into smaller more specialised, efficient, non-geographically defined entities.

Sure. We'd call it Anarcho-capitalism now, but I doubt we will if it happens. It'd just be the subdivision of power into smaller more specialised, efficient, non-geographically defined entities.

You left out unaccountable.

You left out unaccountable.
Unaccountable in what sense? They'd be much much more accountable economically then the current governments of today. In what sense are the governments of today accountible?

I get what you are sayng, but remeber even the governments of oppressive regimes are accountable to their people, it is just significantly harder for their people to access that accountablility. 'Democracy' as we call it makes it easier than ever before, but still difficult. The measures governments go to limit the 'power of the people' within reprasentative democracy is phenomenal (not a bad thing though, do you really want economic/foriegn policy set by popular opinion?).

I predict that in 50 years the USA will have collapsed from a socialist revolution but before that time they would have federate with Canada. The USA will become more of an agrarian economy, no longer field a powerful military and once again become isolationist.

Brazil will fill the power vacuum and dominate the Americas after victory in a war with Argentina and a coalition of other Latin American countries. They will most likely annex the defeated countries. Brazil will then invade North America and unite the Western Hemisphere.

China will have bullied the Russian Federation into giving over its territory in East Asia. It will also have crushed the Republic of China, Japan and the united Korea. They will be industrialised and will have the most powerful military in the World.

India will have defeated Pakistan and Bangladesh. They will then overrun the Middle East and North-East Africa. Israel by this time will have long since been nuked. India will then expand slowly and eventually take Western Russia, the former nations of Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey. They will be the leading economic power in the world.

The European Union will have collapsed. Germany will have invaded the rest of Continental Europe after having a communist revolution and rule with an iron fist. Germany will have also colonised most of North and West Africa.

Indonesia will rule the Pacific, Australia and East Africa. They will also be communist after a coup by the military.

South Africa will rule Southern and Central Africa. They will be Socialist and have the highest quality of life in the world.

New Zealand will be a dictatorship and will be fiercely independent.

In one hundred years the world will have united into a single communist union. It will be hugely corrupt and totalitarian.

*Insane babbling*

Hooray for insanity!

Unaccountable in what sense? They'd be much much more accountable economically then the current governments of today. In what sense are the governments of today accountible?

I get what you are sayng, but remeber even the governments of oppressive regimes are accountable to their people, it is just significantly harder for their people to access that accountablility. 'Democracy' as we call it makes it easier than ever before, but still difficult. The measures governments go to limit the 'power of the people' within reprasentative democracy is phenomenal (not a bad thing though, do you really want economic/foriegn policy set by popular opinion?).
Well, i'm no fan of government. I identify as an anarchist.

I see present day representative "democracies" as far more accessible than present day corporate entities however. If corporations take over the basic infrastructure of society (healthcare, education, law enforcement), then it is only natural that a significant group of people are going to miss out on the use of these in favour of improving a bottom line. This is all corporations care about, and all that many - no, most - pro-capitalists believe they should care about. If authorities like this have more power than government (or even replace it), what can you do about that if you have a problem? Nothing. You sit down and shut up, or you lose your job. Or worse. Who's gonna stop them? (In that sense, I scoff at the idea of anarcho-capitalism, when the whole belief system depends on recognition and obedience of a heirarchical authority based upon wealth).

At least in the current government, if I have a grievance, there are ways to express myself even if I lack the power to force through change.

And as for the idea that corporations are economically accountable, give me a break. How many people still buy stuff made by workers suffering in almost inhuman conditions? Who could care less about things that don't directly effect them, as long as they get their funky new shoes?

I dread where this society is going.

Well, i'm no fan of government. I identify as an anarchist.

I see present day representative "democracies" as far more accessible than present day corporate entities however. If corporations take over the basic infrastructure of society (healthcare, education, law enforcement), then it is only natural that a significant group of people are going to miss out on the use of these in favour of improving a bottom line. This is all corporations care about, and all that many - no, most - pro-capitalists believe they should care about. If authorities like this have more power than government (or even replace it), what can you do about that if you have a problem? Nothing. You sit down and shut up, or you lose your job. Or worse. Who's gonna stop them? (In that sense, I scoff at the idea of anarcho-capitalism, when the whole belief system depends on recognition and obedience of a heirarchical authority based upon wealth).

At least in the current government, if I have a grievance, there are ways to express myself even if I lack the power to force through change.

And as for the idea that corporations are economically accountable, give me a break. How many people still buy stuff made by workers suffering in almost inhuman conditions? Who could care less about things that don't directly effect them, as long as they get their funky new shoes?

I dread where this society is going. I have to go to work now, my friend, but will post back in about 5 hours. Anyhow, just in brief, Corporations who use sweatshops are not breaching economic accountability, they are breaching human rights accountability. Economic accountability extends only so far as the efficiency with which you use shareholders money.

As for the less fortunate, check out 'philanthrocapitalism'. I am still sussing it out, but it may be the solution to one of the greatest oncoming woes I have been anticipating.

Don't forget Russia.

Team Advantage vs. US Alliance

Al Gore vs. Ford Motor Company

Your Mom

I have to go to work now, my friend, but will post back in about 5 hours. Anyhow, just in brief, Corporations who use sweatshops are not breaching economic accountability, they are breaching human rights accountability. Economic accountability extends only so far as the efficiency with which you use shareholders money.

Well then, I guess that's the problem. They can get away with whatever they like in the name of profit - and even be celebrated for it by shareholders - and still avoid a backlash in the marketplace. I don't see such a society as a good thing.

As for the less fortunate, check out 'philanthrocapitalism'. I am still sussing it out, but it may be the solution to one of the greatest oncoming woes I have been anticipating.

I don't see how running charitable institutions on capitalist guidelines is going to improve the amount of people willing to donate to charity in the first place (a proven charity organisation will be more likely to attract people who already donate, but not necessarily attract more people). I see this as especially unlikely since the level of this investment will need to provide services almost on par with the welfare state of today. Charity hospitals, for example, will inevitably provide services similar to those of the 18th and 19th centuries - a bare minimum, because naturally they lack the resources to prove profitable if they provide anything more. I fear that free hospitals will once again be places you go to die.

Unless, of course, charity is defined as giving a starving person a meal and a bed in return for 16 hours of making wallets, in which case philanthrocapitalism is already a proven model.

I may or may not be here when you return. If not, i'll be back tomorrow.

Team Advantage vs. US Alliance

Hehehe.

*psst* I'll say Texas if you give me ten bucks.
Switzerland.

New Zealand will reclaim it's massive Empire.
Starting with Antarctica and going as far as Easter Island to the East, Bondi Beach in Sydney; Australia to the West and going as North around the 28 mark on the latitude thingy.

Well, i'm no fan of government. I identify as an anarchist. Yes, it is a joke. One giant worldwide farce. Nonetheless I don't suppose I am actually an 'anarchist'. Despite my relish for political discourse, I do not truly subscribe to any particular philosophy of government (or lack thereof). They are all terrible. However, I do predict that Anarcho-Capitalism is where we are heading (if that's what you'd call it). Some aspects of it are good, others bad. I'm a little indifferent on the issue, but lean towards a mild favour, purely out of curiousity.

I see present day representative "democracies" as far more accessible than present day corporate entities however. If corporations take over the basic infrastructure of society (healthcare, education, law enforcement), then it is only natural that a significant group of people are going to miss out on the use of these in favour of improving a bottom line. This is all corporations care about, and all that many - no, most - pro-capitalists believe they should care about. If authorities like this have more power than government (or even replace it), what can you do about that if you have a problem? Nothing. You sit down and shut up, or you lose your job. Or worse. Who's gonna stop them? (In that sense, I scoff at the idea of anarcho-capitalism, when the whole belief system depends on recognition and obedience of a heirarchical authority based upon wealth). It's true that the poverty gap would widen within an anarcho-capitalistic society, however, it is also the case (IMO) that the bottom line would raise. That is to say the poorest members of society would gradually improve and experience a steady raise in living standards, whereas the rich would phenominally explode in wealth and living standards. The society would not be based upon wealth, so much as direct capital. Nor would it be heirachical, as society would consist purely of freelance agents working in temporary affiliation with each other.

Consider that the most basic form of capital is that which resides within the potential capabilites of the human body and mind. As such, anyone who had this would have met the 'bottom line' for success in society (as all contracts will be based off of this level of capital or greater). This does mean a grim fate for the mentally and physically disabled. However, in the same regard, with the freedom and exponentially higher funds at the disposal of med-corporations, most of these problems will have some kind of cure or prevention... for a price.

At least in the current government, if I have a grievance, there are ways to express myself even if I lack the power to force through change. Yeah, but what does it matter anyhow. I have come to regard political freedom as semantical. All that really matters to daily life and security is civil rights and economic freedom. Who cares if you can't vote, as long as you have the other two.

And as for the idea that corporations are economically accountable, give me a break. How many people still buy stuff made by workers suffering in almost inhuman conditions? Who could care less about things that don't directly effect them, as long as they get their funky new shoes?

I dread where this society is going.
We covered the last point already. I don't dread it. I think all in all the oncoming society (if my prediction is correct, I can elaborate how I expect it to unfold and why if you'd like) is not much different from our current society. Somethings will be better, others worse. Overall I expect it to be slightly better for people, and massively better for 'progress' and developement.

Ireland, obviously.

Well then, I guess that's the problem. They can get away with whatever they like in the name of profit - and even be celebrated for it by shareholders - and still avoid a backlash in the marketplace. I don't see such a society as a good thing. Hmm, good in some regards, not good in others. Basic human rights will be protected by the capitalist freemarket (In that a corporation would rather have consumers than slaves (as the former generates growth and capital, whereas the latter is not unlike a farm tool). The environment would be safe once governments vanished and ecosystem-firms claimed property rights over various aspects of the environment (regionally of course). Still, I can imagine the corporations doing some pretty sordid things. Meh.

I don't see how running charitable institutions on capitalist guidelines is going to improve the amount of people willing to donate to charity in the first place (a proven charity organisation will be more likely to attract people who already donate, but not necessarily attract more people). I see this as especially unlikely since the level of this investment will need to provide services almost on par with the welfare state of today. Charity hospitals, for example, will inevitably provide services similar to those of the 18th and 19th centuries - a bare minimum, because naturally they lack the resources to prove profitable if they provide anything more. I fear that free hospitals will once again be places you go to die. I agree, though I doubt free hospitals would pop up anyhow. Most people would have private health insurance. Everyone should be able to afford it, as it would be in the interests for insurance companies to market to poor people. If one did not have insurance, or the funds to pay upfront, then yes, they would be fucked. However, I point again to the fact that the only reason they are fucked is because they did not get insurance, which they surely could have afforded.

I also agree that philanthrocapitalism would not neccesarily generate greater philanthropy in total. In fact, without tax-deductable donations (being no tax at all) I imagine there would be significantly less donation altogether. I cannot think of a solution to this. Perhaps it is just another drawback of such a society. Perhaps the rich, bloated in their opulent wealth may onsider philanthropy purely because of the vast amounts of money they have, though it does seem the richer one gets, the more selfish one also gets. Not sure.

Perhaps .. [I 've been tossing this idea around recently, though it's still in 'beta'] within an extremely large market flushed with capital, there would come to be 'developement firms' which somehow made money off 'developing' areas and societies. For example, a run down ghetto worth nothing full of useless people could theoretically be viewed as a massive potential for capital. If a large enough company with enough time and funds could probably 'renovate' the district, and combat the social problems there so as to create a wealthy productive suburb full of much more active consumers. This is true for the real estate already, but poor people are seriously potential rich consumers, but are simply held back by social madaldies. The only proble, is I cannot yet think of a way such a corporation could guarantee a profit from such an effort. Perhaps they would have to get a consenual agreement from the community and landowners of the suberb to begin work, but such a widespread unanimous agreement would be unlikely to occur. Perhaps they would be happy with 2/3 majority to start work. Afterwards, they might take a commision of the embettered production and consumption the people and land generate. I must think further on this.

Unless, of course, charity is defined as giving a starving person a meal and a bed in return for 16 hours of making wallets, in which case philanthrocapitalism is already a proven model.Haha, see above.

I may or may not be here when you return. If not, i'll be back tomorrow.
Looking forward to it.

in 50 to 100 years there won't be any more "superpowers".

india will come pretty close though.
they'll be dropping care packages to a blockaided america
that has exausted it's natural resources after having shipped
what remained of its production capacity off shore.

it (the u.s.) will have united the rest of the world though.
to defend itself against it.

the alliance of france, russia and japan will have successfully led
the unification effort. japan will still be innovators of tecnology,
but the real powerhouse will be india, leading the way in the unification
of diversity without loosing diversity's rich hieretage.

we're talking a very different world here of course.
one with solar cells on every roof and no oil to speak of.

the automobile as we know it will have become obsolete.
whether it is replaced by sore feet, miniature railways, or
beasts of burden will be a matter of local preference
depending upon where you live and how much people living there
are willing to cooperate with each other in building
harmonious and sustainable infrastructure.

=^^=
.../\...

im talking in broad time line say 50years or 100 years will it be china,the european union, or will still be the U.S. or will there be more then one superpower make your anwser reasonable not something like Your MOM! otherwise i dont care who you think will be the next superpower state your reason please

China and India will become superpowers and cause a world war. The Eurpean Union will become one country and a superpower but will eventually break apart as the Austro-Hungarian empire did. America will be pushed back by the fact that Asia will bcome more powerful than the rest of the world - except maybe for a combined, united Europe.

Yes, it is a joke. One giant worldwide farce. Nonetheless I don't suppose I am actually an 'anarchist'. Despite my relish for political discourse, I do not truly subscribe to any particular philosophy of government (or lack thereof).

Me neither, as such. I simply find the ideals of anarchism deeply appealing, and I see its nature as a constantly evolving ideology without any centralised doctrine as a positive feature.

It's true that the poverty gap would widen within an anarcho-capitalistic society, however, it is also the case (IMO) that the bottom line would raise. That is to say the poorest members of society would gradually improve and experience a steady raise in living standards, whereas the rich would phenominally explode in wealth and living standards. The society would not be based upon wealth, so much as direct capital.

See, i'm not too certain about that. I certainly don't think every business entity is noble enough to want to pay their workers a living wage, particularly if they are not under any pressure to do so.

Nor would it be heirachical, as society would consist purely of freelance agents working in temporary affiliation with each other.

Of course it would. There would be an inbalance in power relations vastly more pronounced than it is even today.

Consider that the most basic form of capital is that which resides within the potential capabilites of the human body and mind. As such, anyone who had this would have met the 'bottom line' for success in society (as all contracts will be based off of this level of capital or greater). This does mean a grim fate for the mentally and physically disabled. However, in the same regard, with the freedom and exponentially higher funds at the disposal of med-corporations, most of these problems will have some kind of cure or prevention... for a price.

Wonderful. :/ On a more simple level, I can just picture sick leave becoming a thing of the past; workers fired - or fined - for getting the 'flu and being unable to work. No, thanks.

Yeah, but what does it matter anyhow. I have come to regard political freedom as semantical. All that really matters to daily life and security is civil rights and economic freedom. Who cares if you can't vote, as long as you have the other two.

I care. Political freedom is the only means by which the common citizen can endeavour to protect our civil liberties. If a corporation is acting alone without any restrictions, who is to stop it from making demands of its workers that infringe those rights? If they refuse to comply, they lose their means of livelihood, and are then faced with the problem of having to explain to future employers just why they were fired. Doesn't sound very economically "free" to me, either...

We covered the last point already. I don't dread it. I think all in all the oncoming society (if my prediction is correct, I can elaborate how I expect it to unfold and why if you'd like) is not much different from our current society. Somethings will be better, others worse. Overall I expect it to be slightly better for people, and massively better for 'progress' and developement.

I disagree. I think such a reality is nihilistic and dehumanising. Those born without economic power are merely fodder and worthless in society - their lives are meaningless to those in power. Without any checks and balances, corporations have the power to be as authoritarian as they like. It will cement a generational heirarchy based on capital assets and deliver us to a system which to me is somewhat reminiscent of feudal Europe. You can scoff at that premise, but really, who's going to stop it?

Hmm, good in some regards, not good in others. Basic human rights will be protected by the capitalist freemarket (In that a corporation would rather have consumers than slaves (as the former generates growth and capital, whereas the latter is not unlike a farm tool).

I'm not talking slavery (although it will almost certainly come back into existance as a status symbol rather than a profit mechanism.). Wage slavery, perhaps. Those with an interest in making profit will see the benefits in keeping an underpaid, underfed and illiterate workforce. People in such a condition are less likely to complain about company policies than those who have an educational background and expect a higher quality of life. These will mostly be the textile workers, and so on, rather than those producing high-tech equipment, of course. However, growth and capital will be centred upon "well to do" areas. There will likely be vast regional differences in wealth. Some cities will probably be manufacturing oriented and have low qualities of life; others will be the places where them rich folk live, since of course they won't want to associate with the rabble. ;)

The environment would be safe once governments vanished and ecosystem-firms claimed property rights over various aspects of the environment (regionally of course).

That depends on the recognition of these property rights by corporations that have a vested interest in exploiting the environment.

I agree, though I doubt free hospitals would pop up anyhow. Most people would have private health insurance. Everyone should be able to afford it, as it would be in the interests for insurance companies to market to poor people.

Maybe, although, on the other hand, there is a greater likelihood that poor people are going to require payouts....so the insurance companies might raise premiums to dissuade all but a few poor willing to pay for those fees in order to counter that risk.

I also agree that philanthrocapitalism would not neccesarily generate greater philanthropy in total. In fact, without tax-deductable donations (being no tax at all) I imagine there would be significantly less donation altogether. I cannot think of a solution to this. Perhaps it is just another drawback of such a society. Perhaps the rich, bloated in their opulent wealth may onsider philanthropy purely because of the vast amounts of money they have, though it does seem the richer one gets, the more selfish one also gets. Not sure.

Yeah, that's my reservation.

Perhaps .. [I 've been tossing this idea around recently, though it's still in 'beta'] within an extremely large market flushed with capital, there would come to be 'developement firms' which somehow made money off 'developing' areas and societies. For example, a run down ghetto worth nothing full of useless people could theoretically be viewed as a massive potential for capital. If a large enough company with enough time and funds could probably 'renovate' the district, and combat the social problems there so as to create a wealthy productive suburb full of much more active consumers. This is true for the real estate already, but poor people are seriously potential rich consumers, but are simply held back by social madaldies. The only problem, is I cannot yet think of a way such a corporation could guarantee a profit from such an effort.

That's what I was thinking. They stand more chance of making a profit by bulldozing the lot, evicting the residents, and building a new shopping mall.

Perhaps they would have to get a consenual agreement from the community and landowners of the suberb to begin work, but such a widespread unanimous agreement would be unlikely to occur. Perhaps they would be happy with 2/3 majority to start work. Afterwards, they might take a commision of the embettered production and consumption the people and land generate. I must think further on this.

Yeah, in effect becoming a government that charges tax. Starting to smell like a new feudalism again. ;)

The new superpower will be the Internet when it becomes superintelligent. I for one welcome our AI overlords.

India, China, brazil and mexico will become economic superpowers due to resources and population.
The US will remain a superpower, but its total percentage of of world trade, etc.. will drop with the rise of the above economies and the general economic/social improvements that the world will see.
The EU will get its act together and become a superpower and will benefit hugely from the increased economic strengh of the emergent powers.
China will stay authoritarian, but will move more towards democracy.

The UN will go through a restructuring where the main council will be dominated by the countries mentioned above.

within the next 50 years with the increased stability, africa will become a huge investment area for the economies mentioned above, and will benefit accordingly.

Australia will annex the entire world through a ruthless combination of discusting drinking habits, bad language and superior cricket skills. Hail!

Australia will annex the entire world through a ruthless combination of discusting drinking habits, bad language and superior cricket skills. Hail!

Pfft. The Aussie cricket team nearly qualifies for free bus passes and is about to start drawing their pension. After we wipe the floor with you in a couple of weeks, your team will start to retire, and it'll be Windies Mk II.

Pfft. The Aussie cricket team nearly qualifies for free bus passes and is about to start drawing their pension. After we wipe the floor with you in a couple of weeks, your team will start to retire, and it'll be Windies Mk II.

You just wait, the poms will will regret ever taking our trophy.

The next two superpowers would definately be The Peoples Republic of China and the European Union depending on circumstances both internal and external. I guess another possibility would be the reconstruction of the Soviet Union but once again that would depend on circumstances and of course would take time. India...I've never really considered before until reading the other posts. So I guess that would be a possibility too.

But ultimately you never know what the future might hold. Personally I prefer to just stick to my own agenda and leave the world to its own affairs by staying in the background and quietly observing...always analysing...gathering data...watching...learning...plotting...yesss...Dance for me my pretties!!! Dance! Dance!!! wahahahahahaha!!!

for anyone that interested an link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

Unfortunately, it'll probably be China. Although with some luck, they'll crash and burn when we run out of oil.

The next two superpowers would definately be The Peoples Republic of China and the European Union depending on circumstances both internal and external. I guess another possibility would be the reconstruction of the Soviet Union but once again that would depend on circumstances and of course would take time. India...I've never really considered before until reading the other posts. So I guess that would be a possibility too.

But ultimately you never know what the future might hold. Personally I prefer to just stick to my own agenda and leave the world to its own affairs by staying in the background and quietly observing...always analysing...gathering data...watching...learning...plotting...yesss...Dance for me my pretties!!! Dance! Dance!!! wahahahahahaha!!!

That end part was quite disturbing....