God’s Time – Part 2
As a Christian, let us have ears to hear and eyes to see to discern what is truth for the light of Jesus truth is revealed to us and is not hidden.
This completes the first four prophetic hours of fifteen years and the events that shaped our country.
Our next lesson begins with four more prophetic hours of 15 years and events that will shape the American economy and social issues.
I hope that you have enjoyed reading God’s time part 1.
I wanted to finish off part 1 with my thoughts for the next four prophetic hours and their impacts on our lives that has affected our lives. Let’s pick up with 1978 via the internet:
Please take a few moments to read the landscape for the future of America:
Oil Shock Of 1978 – 1979
Like its 1973–74 predecessor, the second oil shock of the 1970s was associated with events in the Middle East, but it was also driven by strong global oil demand. The Iranian Revolution began in early 1978 and ended a year later, when the royal reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi collapsed and Sheikh Khomeini took control as grand ayatollah of the Islamic republic. In conjunction with the revolution, Iranian oil output declined by 4.8 million barrels per day (7 percent of world production at the time) by January 1979. However, this supply disruption may not have been the most important factor pushing oil prices higher. Rather, the Iranian disruption may have prompted a fear of further disruptions and spurred widespread speculative hoarding.
Through early 1978, the Federal Reserve had maintained a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy, hoping to combat rising unemployment. Ultimately, though, the policies showed little success in stifling the deterioration in the unemployment rate and likely fostered an environment that allowed the rising energy prices to be transmitted into more general inflation. Consumer inflation, which had already begun to accelerate in the United States, continued to rise—from below 5 percent in early 1976 to nearly 7 percent by March 1979. By that time, unease among members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) that inflation could continue to rise was growing. Records from the meeting of the FOMC on February 28, 1978, indicate that “considerable concern was expressed that the rate of inflation might accelerate significantly as the year progressed [and could] pose difficult questions concerning the appropriate role of monetary policy.” Nevertheless, the committee voted unanimously to keep the policy rate unchanged.
Despite increasing concern among the public and members of the FOMC about the declining value of the dollar and rising pace of inflation, the committee remained hesitant to raise interest rates too aggressively, fearful of stifling fragile economic growth. The Fed raised the federal funds rate from 6.9 percent in April 1978 to 10 percent by the end of the year. The increase was a clear move to try to curb rising inflation. However, modern economic historians now see the increases as timid and insufficient to stem a surge in inflationary pressure, which had already become entrenched in the American psyche and economy. Twelve-month consumer price index inflation rose to 9 percent by the end of 1979.
Does this sound familiar presently? Instead of Iran, could we not insert Saudi Arabia?
In conjunction with the revolution, Iranian oil output declined by 4.8 million barrels per day (7 percent of world production at the time) by January 1979. However, this supply disruption may not have been the most important factor pushing oil prices higher. Rather, the Iranian disruption may have prompted a fear of further disruptions and spurred widespread speculative hoarding.
Now for the kicker of 2021—2022 –
Despite increasing concern among the public and members of the FOMC about the declining value of the dollar and rising pace of inflation, the committee remained hesitant to raise interest rates too aggressively, fearful of stifling fragile economic growth. The Fed raised the federal funds rate from 6.9 percent in April 1978 to 10 percent by the end of the year. The increase was a clear move to try to curb rising inflation. However, modern economic historians now see the increases as timid and insufficient to stem a surge in inflationary pressure, which had already become entrenched in the American psyche and economy. Twelve-month consumer price index inflation rose to 9 percent by the end of 1979.
Does not history repeat itself and haven’t we learned this very lesson or we like ostriches with heads in the sand?
As we turn to 1993, let’s look at President Clinton and the switch that America made from being a manufacturing to a service nation:
Clinton-Gore Economic Policy Has Dramatically Improved the Economy
“My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton’s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history.”
Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan’s re-nomination announcement
“The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits.”
Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994
One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the “best economy ever” is that “on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit.”
Goldman Sachs, March 1998
Just look at the above names and then add in the ties and you will get a recipe for success of the rich only getting richer.
Opening World Markets to American Goods and Providing Leadership on Globalization
- Won Ratification of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, creating the world’s largest free trade zone of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. U.S. exports to Mexico grew 109 percent from 1993 to 1999, while exports to the rest of the world grew by 49 percent.
- Won Approval of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. In 2000, Congress ratified permanent normal trade relations with China. The agreement will integrate China into the world economy through entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), open Chinese market to U.S. exports, slash Chinese tariffs, and protect American workers and companies against dumping.
Put the emphasis on Globalization as here is the unraveling of American manufacturing and jobs heading to the Far East & Mexico.
Let’s look back at NAFTA and draw our conclusions today from Investopedia’s How Did Nafta Affect the Economies of Participating Countries?
How Did Nafta Affect the Economies of Participating Countries?
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a pact eliminating most trade barriers between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994. Some of its provisions were implemented immediately, while others were staggered over the 15 years that followed.
U.S. President Donald Trump railed against it during his campaign, promising to renegotiate the deal and “tear it up” if the United States couldn’t get its desired concessions. A newly negotiated United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) was approved in 2020 to update NAFTA.
But why did Trump and many of his supporters see NAFTA as “the worst trade deal maybe ever” when others saw its main shortcoming as a lack of ambition and the solution as yet more regional integration? What was promised? What was delivered? Who were NAFTA’s winners, and who were its losers? Read on to find out more about the history of the deal, as well as the key players in the agreement, and how they’ve been faring.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- NAFTA went into effect in 1994 to boost trade, eliminate barriers, and reduce tariffs on imports and exports between Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
- According to the Trump administration, NAFTA has led to trade deficits, factory closures, and job losses for the U.S.
- NAFTA is an enormous and enormously complicated deal—looking at economic growth can lead to one conclusion, while looking at the balance of trade leads to another.
- The deal coincided with a 29% drop in manufacturing employment, from 16.8 million jobs at the end of 1993 to 12.1 million at the end of 2016.
- Leaders of the three nations renegotiated the deal in November 2018—now known as the USMCA—with new provisions.
NAFTA: A Brief History
NAFTA went into effect under the Clinton administration in 1994.4 The purpose of the deal was to boost trade within North America between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It also aimed to get rid of trade barriers between the three parties, as well as most taxes and tariffs on goods imported and exported by each.
The idea of a trade agreement actually goes back to Ronald Reagan’s administration. While president, Reagan made good on a campaign promise to open up trade within North America by signing the Trade and Tariff Act in 1984. Four years later, Reagan and the Canadian prime minister signed the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
NAFTA was actually negotiated by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush, who decided he wanted to continue talks to open up trade with the U.S. Bush originally tried to generate an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, but President Carlos Salinas de Gortari pushed for a trilateral deal between the three countries. After talks, Bush, Mulroney, and Salinas signed the deal in 1992, which went into effect two years later after Clinton was elected president.
The Issues With NAFTA
According to former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration’s goal was to “stop the bleeding” from trade deficits, factory closures, and job losses by pushing for tougher labor and environmental protections in Mexico and scrapping the “chapter 19 dispute settlement mechanism”—a Canadian favorite and a thorn in the U.S. lumber industry’s side.
There has been progress on a number of issues under review in the talks including telecommunications, environment, labor, digital trade, and anti-corruption provisions. But the way that the origin of automobile content is measured has emerged as a sticking point, as the U.S. fears an influx of Chinese auto parts. The talks are further complicated by a World Trade Organization (WTO) case Canada brought against the U.S. in December.
Pulling out of the bloc would be a relatively simple process, according to article 2205 of the NAFTA treaty: “A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.”
An honest assessment of NAFTA is difficult because it is impossible to hold every other variable constant and look at the deal’s effects in a vacuum. China’s rapid ascent to become the world’s number-one exporter of goods and its second-largest economy happened while NAFTA’s provisions were going into effect. The U.S. bought just 5.8% of its imports from China in 1993, according to OEC.
In 2015, 21% of imports came from the country.
Leaders of the three countries have renegotiated the deal, now called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and more informally as NAFTA 2.0. The deal was signed in November 2018 and ratified by all three countries as of March 2020.71
Some of the most important provisions under the deal include:
- More access for American farmers to the Canadian dairy market. This means farmers can sell their products in Canada without pricing provisions.
- Cars must have 75% of their parts manufactured in North America in order to qualify for no tariffs. Furthermore, people involved in the manufacture of 40% to 45% of car parts must earn at least $16 per hour.
- Copyright terms are now extended to 70 years beyond an author’s life.
The three leaders also added a clause to the deal that states it expires after 16 years. The three nations will also review the deal every six years, at which point they can decide whether they wish to extend the deal or not.
The Bottom Line
The impact of NAFTA on its participant countries has been proven hard to gauge. For some, NAFTA has been a success, as the United States, Mexico, and Canada have all experienced increased gross volumes of trade and financial flow.
But the agreement has also been blamed for growing unemployment in the U.S. As NAFTA eliminated a large number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., workers were downscaled to lower-paying and less-secure jobs.
NAFTA’s success or failure lies in how citizens and legislators in the participant countries deal with and asses its shortcomings in the coming years.
Let’s keep an open mind on all issues including NAFTA and weigh the effects when adoption began in 1993 and then when the treaty was re-negotiated under the Trump administration.
I wish to focus on key economic issues for 1993 and this is, by far, a large issue. But here is something else that I stumbled upon for years 1978—1993.
The Rise of China
The rise of China, if it continues, may be the most important trend in the world for the next century. China is the fastest growing economy in the world, with what may be the fastest growing military budget. It has nuclear weapons, border disputes with most of its neighbors, and a rapidly improving army that may—within a decade or so—be able to resolve old quarrels in its own favor. The US has possessed the world’s largest economy for more than a century, but at present trajectories, China may displace it in the first half of the next century and become the number one economy in the world. In the end, China is not a renegade country, but rather an ambitious nation that is becoming the behemoth in the neighborhood. One of the oldest problems in international relations has been how the international community can accommodate the ambitions of newly powerful states. It is rarely a question of right or wrong, but rather of the instability that is inevitable as the previous military, economic, and political balance must be recalibrated. If China is able to sustain its economic miracle, then this readjustment of the scales will be one of the most important tasks in international relations in the coming decades.
China is the fastest growing economy in the world, with what may be the fastest growing military budget. It has nuclear weapons, border disputes with most of its neighbors, and a rapidly improving army that may—within a decade or so—be able to resolve old quarrels in its own favor. The United States has possessed the world’s largest economy for more than a century, but at present trajectories China may displace it in the first half of the next century and become the number one economy in the world.
The only group that is paying serious attention to China’s long-term prospects is the business community. Chief executives regularly whirl through Beijing and Guanzhou, and they are almost inevitably dizzied by the ubiquitous construction sites, the glitzy discos, the miniskirted prostitutes. They gush about how China’s current economic revolution is the most important business trend they have ever seen and how they want to be a part of it, but they ignore the tectonic strains that can be expected in the years ahead. An Almost nothing is so destabilizing as the arrival of a new industrial and military power on the international scene; consider Japan’s history in this century or Germany’s in the decades leading up to World War I.
The conventional wisdom is that the world economy these days is tri-polar, revolving around the United States, Japan and the European Community (particularly Germany). This is true in terms of financial markets, such as stock investing and currency trading. But in terms of global trade, market size and sheer economic bulk, China is becoming a fourth pole in the international system. This is particularly true when one looks at “Greater China,” consisting of the People’s Republic, Hong Kong and Taiwan. According to World Bank projections, Greater China’s net imports in the year 2002 will be $639 billion, compared to $521 billion for Japan. Likewise, using comparable international prices, Greater China in the year 2002 is projected to have a gross domestic product of $9.8 trillion, compared to $9-7 trillion for the United States. If those forecasts hold, in other words, Greater China would not just be another economic pole; it would be the biggest of them all.
One hundred years later the Chinese would come to afford longer shirt tails, but they would do so by manufacturing their own shirts—in sufficient quantities that they threaten to idle the West’s great textile mills. China’s present economic boom started in about 1978 and has since resulted in real annual growth averaging about 9 percent per year. It is not slowing down: in 1992, GNP grew by l2.8 percent, and this year 13 percent growth is predicted. Such a pace is dangerously overheated, but its sheer speed is staggering.
The economy will have to cool down for the next year or more, and in any case diminishing returns are likely to set in eventually as the economy becomes more efficient and sophisticated. But by and large the Chinese economy still has plenty of steam left in it. Some economists believe that if China enjoys political stability, and if the global trading system remains open to its exports, China could rack up 7 percent or 8 percent growth rates for at least another couple of decades. At an 8 percent clip, an economy quintuples in size every 21 years.
As it industrializes, China will require a dramatically larger share of world resources. In 1992, China unseated the United States as the leading buyer of gold, and the Chinese construction boom has caused a global scramble for certain kinds of steel. In coming years, China can be expected to use more of everything, especially energy. For now China uses relatively little energy, although it uses it inefficiently. In 1991, per capita consumption of energy in China was only 602 kilograms of oil equivalent, compared to 7,681 kilograms of oil equivalent in the United States. If, within a few decades, each Chinese uses as much energy as every South Korean does now, then China will use more energy than the United States.
In other words, a steady increase in China’s industrialization would place a huge new strain on global energy supplies. This is particularly true because China is running out of oil—at least the kind that is easily exploited. Older oil fields, such as Daqing in the northeast, are running low, and it is unclear whether new fields are as promising as China says. China describes the Tarim Basin in the northwest as virtually another Saudi Arabia, and it has also brimmed with optimism about the South China Sea. But the Tarim Basin will require construction of a long and expensive pipeline through rugged terrain. In the meantime, Beijing is likely to become a net oil importer within a couple of years.
Most of China’s energy comes from coal, particularly soft, high-sulfur, highly polluting coal. In 1991, Chinese polluters emitted 11 trillion cubic meters of waste gases and 16 million metric tons of soot. The sulfur in the coal also causes acid rain, which travels across international borders to attack forests far away in Siberia or Korea. Some experts believe that China will become the world’s largest source of acid rain by the year 2010.
While most countries have been cutting military budgets over the last five years, China has been using its economic boom to finance a far-reaching buildup. It seeks the influence of a great power, as well as its wallet. Thus the People’s Liberation Army has purchased fighter aircraft and other equipment from the former Soviet Union, introduced new classes of naval vessels, and in some cases taken a more aggressive posture toward its border disputes with other nations.
The officially disclosed military budget is a bit of a joke, for it does not even include sums spent on weapons procurement or on research and development. Yet, however misleading the official figure is, it is worth noting that between 1988 and 1983 it leaped G8 percent, to $7.5 billion. In the same period, inflation rose only 32 percent. As a very crude benchmark, total military spending- including off-budget items—is around $18 billion this year. If that is adjusted to reflect equivalent purchasing power in the West, total military spending in international prices is much higher, perhaps as much as $90 billion. These figures are too imprecise for exact comparisons, but such a military budget would be one of the highest in the world. Just as important,.. it reflects a rising share of a rapidly rising GNP.
China has used the money to bolster its ability to project power beyond its borders. Last year it purchased 26 SU-27 fighter jets from Russia, and it is expected to buy another dozen or more. China has also reportedly bought SA-10s—a missile similar to the American Patriot, but perhaps not as sophisticated—from Moscow. By some accounts it is also negotiating for the purchase of up to 79 MIG-31 fighters, which would be built in China’s Guizhou Province in a cooperative arrangement with Moscow. China has acquired air refueling technology, apparently from Pakistan and Iran, and is believed to have converted some bombers into tanker aircraft. It is working on training pilots and crew so that by the year 2000 the air force may have a significant fleet of fighter planes and bombers that can be refueled.
The most likely site for a war is probably the South China Sea, which China claims as its own 1,000-mile long pond. This huge sea, encompassing the Paracel and Spratly Island groups, covers major international shipping routes, including those that carry out from the gulf to Japan. The area is also claimed in part by Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines.
Another possible flash point is the Taiwan Strait, particularly if Beijing grows more confident about its military capabilities. China has repeatedly promised that it will use military force if Taiwan declares itself an independent country, and I think we should take Beijing at its word. Moreover, Taiwan is now taking the first tentative steps toward what might be construed as de facto independence—such as campaigning for membership in the United Nations—and the ruling Nationalist Party in Taiwan may be beginning to crumble. Taiwan is expected to hold its first direct presidential elections in 1996, and it is remotely possible that the Nationalists will lose. If that were to happen, and if the new president were to favor independence, there would be great pressure in Beijing for intervention against Taiwan. Such a course of events is not likely because the consequences would be disastrous for both sides. But it is a reminder that there is a continuing risk, and perhaps a growing one, of a clash in the Taiwan Strait.
“The size of China’s displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance in 30 to 40 years,” Lee Kuan Yew, the former Singaporean prime minister, said earlier this year. “It’s not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of man.”
This article was written in 1993—nearly thirty years ago and the information back then is spot on today. I do not agree that China is not a villain for they are and they are a Communist country with their goal to be the leader in the global economy.
Let it be known that they are our enemy and we must never underestimate our enemy. It is so interesting that in nearly 45 years that America use to be the leader in industry and greatest exporter to nations and when looking at today, America has become another service country. In essence, America has become the tail to China in less than half a century.
We must look no further than blame ourselves for being a debtor nation who must rely upon other countries for their needs instead of manufacturing within the country.
Imports far outweigh exports as America has become the service nation with an enormous amount of debt!
As I close with much information for you to read, be very aware that history repeats itself.
Please turn to Revelation 18:19 (KJV) where John sees merchants standing afar weeping and crying and saying,
Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
Upon reading this verse, notice the one hour in time where Babylon has fallen—One hour in the Bible denotes 15 years of time in scripture.
After reading the study of Revelation by Howard Rand, it was easy to put together the pieces of the Biblical time puzzle of 15 years or one hour and how it is has affected our American history.
God makes no mistakes and provides each of us to search the scriptures and give us eyes to see and ears to hear.
2 Peter 1:19, 21,
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy, unto which ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” Verse 21, “ For the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
As I close, please take the time to read the Bible daily—God will bless you and will open your mind to draw closer to him in these times of trouble.
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. John 14:1 (KJV).
