Europe, in contrast, had become remarkably similar (and let's not forget that the EU took 50 years following a major world war to assemble; the idea to link Europe's economies had been tried and failed once before that).
That was for several reasons:
1.) Europe was effectively flattened after WW2
2.) Europe was divided for 50 years
3.) European nations themselves have a very long history of mistrust, xenophobia, and almost constant warfare with eachother, you don't have that as much in North America.
I personally think the EU was more of a testbed for future integration projects.
smart money is on China or Europe. Personally, I'd bet on the Euro given the geopolitical stability of the region.
I would bet both. Europe does have stability, but it doesn't have as much potential growth.
As for the "Amero" - hell will freeze (or the markets will fail entirely) before the US gives up its dollar.
Yeah, something like that. The dollar would have to become effectively worthless through major inflation. I wouldn't discount that not happening yet, to some degree it has started.
Recall the UN? Recall how badly it failed in global governance?
The UN is hardly a global government.
The EU nations will be forced to integrate more in the future because of necessity: As China, India and the rest of the world become richer, the lone voices of the European nations become increasingly crowded out.
My guess for real global governance: 50-100 years.
