bobreuschlein

A topnotch WordPress.com site

Denmark the Land of Hamlet

I had an amazing week in Denmark, also attended the conference on Engineers for Social Justice and Peace August 10-12, 2016.  I talked to a reporter in the Copenhagen airport.  He is very tired of all Trump all the time news, skeptical of Hillary’s hawkishness, loves Obama.

I learned some lessons from the developed nation highest on the happiness index.  Felt the wind that makes Denmark the leader in wind power.  Saw the slogan in the train station.  Paraphrasing, it says life moves too fast, you have to slow down and enjoy it before you miss it entirely, the attitude of a happy nation.  Cigarette smoke everywhere, explaining why the lifespan is unusually short for a developed country.  The smoke makes me think of America fifty years ago and a 1994 Lufthansa overseas flight on a trip to Berlin, where the air continuously circulated from the smoking section to the rest of the plane, leaving the smell of a dull haze of old smoke everywhere.  Also reminds me of the Oslo, Norway airport in 1999 where the smell of smoke was always strongest near the “Niet Roken” no smoking signs.

On the happiness front, another commuter offered both of us a Tuborg beer on the Friday afternoon train ride.  Must be legal is my first thought.  Probably happy Swedes was the second thought.  The impromptu party was fun.  The next day as we waited for train tickets, someone came around offering everyone a cherry on top lemon on bottom popsicle.  All this was very good for the happiness quotient of the Happy nation.  Someone explained to me that this all relates to a Danish cultural norm of some kind, he gave me the multi-syllable word for it.

The hotel computers weren’t easy to use until you found a way to convert to English.  I could update my spreadsheets at the Scandic but not the Cabinn.  Expertclick.com was on the blocked list when I arrived, but they fixed that one day later.  Denmark is not a terrorist haven nation or hacking nation like Russia, so the person in charge of the press release website was happy to get my feedback to correct the list of nations eligible for the website information.

Highlights of the Trip

Meeting my nephew and his friend on Saturday was a clear highlight of the trip.  My nephew went abroad Junior year at Cornell and stayed in Copenhagen long enough to become a permanent resident of Denmark.  Although he wanted me to not talk about Peace Economics, he was impressed with the Nobel Peace Prize nomination and vetting.  I talked a lot with his friend, to the point his friend wanted my website address.

At the conference we were given five minutes to introduce ourselves.  The first speaker took 12 minutes and others about three minutes.  When I took 12 minutes I was cut off by the moderator just before my finish, which was interesting to most of those present according to my colleague.  Later, on a ride to the country, the driver got a good dose of my high level thinking, and later I gave him a copy of my video dvd pamphlet combination.  The moderator of much of the program later asked for a copy of my dvd.  The moderator cut off was the first of three rude interruptions of my comments, the other two were American women in small four person groups.  Even though I was clearly making a presence, I was snubbed by many old timers in the conference.  I suggested an important addition to the final discussion of communes visited, but the other 12 minute introducer couldn’t remember who had suggested that three commune summary.  Some people are impressed with my Nobel Peace Prize nomination and others are put off by a newcomer making such strange claims.  Almost nobody knows how to handle the precision of my results and models, which leaves very little room for the many half baked normal findings by such an academic community.  Accuracy should govern, but skepticism seems to rule the day.  As the Thomas Kuhn book suggests, when a new paradigm comes along, the old guard resists the new paradigm until they die.  Then the next generation takes over and makes the new paradigm standard.  Living through this process is very hard on me.  It just isn’t true that if you make a better mousetrap the world will make a path to your door.  Marketing comes first.  I’ve been slow and reluctant to publish peer reviewed articles, knowing how much better the theory is put all together than as thirteen separate articles.  Still just this year I have written two 2000 word encyclopedia listings in the SAGE “Encyclopedia of War” for the social sciences.  One was for “Military Keynesianism” and the other for “Political Economy,” both to be released October 2016.  It took many edits with the editors, but many important points made it into the final text.

The communes we visited were classic.  The first was out in the country and began with a purchase of an old country manor.  The second was not a commune at all, but a community center for refugees, which included social services and entertainment events.  Legal cases were prepared for there.  The last commune was formed in 1971 when old military barracks were taken over by squatters.  Like the first one out in the country, they employed a consensus model of group decision making.  This was the famous part of Copenhagen called Christiana, where marijuana is openly sold by vendors despite the law against this.  Arts and music also were a major feature of the urban center commune with a population of 800, including 760 adults.

During and after the conference, views of my http://www.bobreuschlein.wordpress.com website soared to make Denmark go from complete obscurity (outside the top ten) to number two for the year, second only to the United States which gets 85% of my viewings.  Oddly, the only viewing from Denmark for the year until this and last month was in March, immediately followed by extremely intense interest around my “10 Scientific Revolution Facts” based on a book review of Thomas Kuhn’s famous work.  This led to a lot of US only views of that press release blog entry.  I suspect someone from the US embassy in Denmark heard about my work, perhaps from the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and suggested it to others.  That could have been the CIA head in Denmark, given the facts of the case.  This led to five times as many views for “10 Scientific Revolution Facts” as the second most viewed blog this year.

One page summary of the scope and accuracy of my military and temperature work:

https://www.academia.edu/4044456/SUMMARY_Military_DisEconomics_HighAccuracy13

I have been vetted for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016, 

to be announced October 7, in Oslo Norway.

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute,

contact  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

information hub: www.realeconomy.com

Modern Stages of Empire

#1.  Isolation and Growth. An emerging society with potential can grow if ignored by older militarized neighbors and allowed to devote resources to economic growth rather than wasteful military spending.  Separation from others by large bodies of water can also help.  Navies are a low cost way to achieve superiority over other nations tied down with large land army costs.

#2.  Economic Dominance. The emerging nation over the course of several decades will eventually overtake the slower growing militarized nations around it and becomes the dominant economic power.  Access to resources and fertile land can help a lot along the way.

#3.  Military Domination War. Economic domination usually leads to military domination after war between the top two economic powers. Usually the other power has been dominant but has limited its growth through militarism allowing the new power to catch up and overtake it.

#4.  Military Control of Others. Military domination leaves the new power in an unfamiliar position, leading to maintaining high levels of peacetime military power in the mistaken belief that it is now a rich society and can afford to maintain a higher level of military spending.  This feeling of hubris comes from the sense that the society is just better than others, not understanding that the low military start was what allowed that society to emerge, not some intrinsic superiority.

#5.  Economic Control of Others.  The new power can dominate now both militarily and economically and proceeds to do so.  The military asserts that they are the reason others trade with the power, falsely claiming that resources will only be made available to those with the most power.  In reality, resources are available to those who are able to pay the price.

#6.  Military: Source of Political and Economic Power Internally. The military now becomes a dominant internal force and begins to dominate and control politically and economically within its own original nation.  The government taxes slow down growing industries in order to pay the new huge military budget.  Control of that huge military budget becomes a major source of power.  Government control goes with the territory of the new high military landscape.  In turn, the military now captures control of those in power.

#7.  Destination for the Young.  The new dominant society attracts aspiring young people from around the world who want to be a part of the highest level of civilization.  This reflects the saying that “all roads lead to Rome” in the case of the Roman Empire.  In America, 75% of immigrants are talented professionals and businesspeople, earning two and a half times as much as average Americans.

#8.  Military Industrial Complex Dominates Government.   The high levels of military spending lead to the formation of a military industrial complex that turns its dependency on the government around and starts to dominate and control the government.  Which came first, the chicken or the egg, doesn’t matter as each depends on the other.

#9.  Generating Wars to Dominate Internally and Externally.  The new military economy justifies itself to the larger community by generating and rationalizing new wars to increase its domination both internally and externally.

#10.  Economy Erodes as Scientists, Engineers, and Capital Wasted.  The economy erodes with the new high levels of military spending as the best resources of scientific talent, engineering talent, and capital investment are consumed in the nonproductive military economy.

#11. Workforce and Society Stagnate and Change. The new slower growing economy that emerges now demands a “sideways” workforce to manage the stagnation. Soon the whole society changes to meet the new situation. The command and control nature of the military reinforces these internal changes. Top down management dominates over collegial management as income mobility becomes more difficult from one generation to the next and a class oriented society emerges.  Crime, poor health, and income inequality grow. Drugs, lotteries, and other forms of desperation emerge.

#12. Collapse or Replacement.  The now collapsing society can salvage some of its former glory by abandoning expensive overseas entanglements, or seeking another society to take over its formal role of dominance.  New international institutions can help make either task easier.

For more information about how these twelve points apply to America:

https://www.academia.edu/5415354/STAGES_of_EMPIRE

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Nominated and vetted for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016,

to be awarded 11am October 7, 2016 in Oslo Norway.

Real Economy Institute,

contact  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

info www.realeconomy.com

Land Ocean 54 Year Cycle

Evaporation

Evaporation is the key to the land ocean cycle.  When solar radiation reaches the Earth’s surface it evaporates water.  Stephen Schneider wrote in one of his books that 85% of incident solar radiation evaporated water, 90% over ocean.  Simple algebra suggests about 90% of the 71% water covered surface and 73% of the 29% land covered surface would give the overall 85% figure.  That leaves 10% for direct warming on the ocean and 27% for direct warming on the land.  Modern estimates suggest 67% evaporation, which if that figure was measured over land, would tend to support the above calculation.  Whatever the numbers, it’s clear that land warms faster than ocean, three times faster by these numbers, but whatever the numbers clearly land has less water to evaporate than the ocean does.  Then the fact that the land heavy Northern Hemisphere has three times the seasonal variation in temperatures as the Southern Hemisphere would support these estimates.  The last 150 years the land has warmed about twice as much as the ocean.

Temperature Mapping

When you spend endless hours poring over annual temperature variations over various large sections of the Earth you can eventually discover where the 54 year cycle comes from.  First you notice that a variety of multi-year averaged temperature sets have a common year for peak and valley dates.  For the United States, these dates come every 27 years between peak and valley.  Then you notice the hotter Hemisphere alternates between North and South on a 108 year cycle.  Then you notice the Northern Latitudes take a big leap in temperature when the next North cycle begins as the South cycle ends.  Approaching the peak, major droughts occur, at the peak major floods start, signaling the reclaiming of the out of control land by the ocean.  For the United States, when the North land 48 year cycle was peaking the two major droughts were interior.  When the South ocean 60 year cycle was peaking, there was only one major drought interior with three large coastal states caught in seven year droughts, showing how the South ocean Hemisphere in ascendency changes the pattern of the second 54 year cycle.  The global temperature peak in the North cycle came in 1944 while the global peak in the South cycle came in 1998, with those two peaks exactly 54 years apart.

Event Mapping

My first event mapping was after the 1988 drought 52 and 54 years after the 1936 and 1934 drought, when Jim Hansen reported the United States temperature and precipitation history back to 1895.  Those are the three major United States droughts of the twentieth century.  Now I have 56 major events on my latest chart, with Hurricane Sandy flooding the battery in New York in 2012, for the first time since 1960 52 years before, the last major addition.  Of the 56 peak to peak events, 20 are exact to the year.  Overall, the 56 events are 1.5 years off a perfect 54 year cycle, about 95% accurate if you divide the error range of three years by 54.

Economic Growth

The general rule in transferring the natural cycle into the economic growth cycle is that the economy is stronger when it is cooling and weaker when it is warming.  There are at least four main levels of proof of this relationship.  First there is a study in the dry cleaning industry, similar to Maxwell Taylor’s railroad study in the 1890’s, that shows productivity decreases as temperature exceeds the normal office temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit.   That NASA (dry cleaners not space) study shows that productivity decreases 37% at 95 degrees F. and 18% at 85 degrees F. Second, using the Hansen drought study temperature data, clustered into five year periods, in 15 of 18 periods of the United States economy, when it cooled the economy increased faster and when it warmed the economy worsened.  The one clearest case of greatest change was the late twenties to the early thirties, when warming increased half a century’s worth in one five year period to the next, and the economy went into the Great Depression.  Third, it’s obvious that temperate zone economies have generally done better than tropical economies.  In America and Europe, the Northern states and countries outperform the Southern states and countries, generally.  America, with a larger summer winter temperature swing than Europe, has generally done better.  Fourth, Bouman and Jacobsen (2002) have shown that every stock market in the world does better November to April than May to October.  Those six coldest months in the United States outperform the six warmest months by about 6% in a twenty year study by Finance Professor Pat Brown of UW Madison circa 2011.  So the general rule in 54 year economic cycles is the 27 years of relative cooling do better than the 27 years of relative heating up. The United States economic growth rate peaked in 1898, bottomed in 1928, and peaked in 1952 and bottomed in 1982 according to most multi year moving averages.  2006 is the next peak in that pattern, as the economy did peak in 2007 just before the Great Recession of 2008-2009.  The 24 year up cycle and 30 year down cycle resembles the 48 year North cycle and 60 year South cycle of the natural world.  In general, up cycle is clearer and stronger than down cycle.

War Cycle

The war cycle is a combination of the temperature cycle and the economic cycle.  Civil Rights and other political events also tend to be in the cycle, but the war cycle is the clearest to measure and understand.  In general, a secondary war leads the major war, by about 18 years in the United States and 15 years in Europe. The start date and deaths are the best measures to use. The secondary war tends to be a testing war in the middle of the economic growth period.  This tends to be a mismatch, with a stronger country taking on a weaker country.  For America, this usually happens about the same year of the long term growth peaking. The major war then comes at the end of the economic growth cycle when wealth is maximized, and the growth has helped create a new economic order among nations.  Then the strongest tendency is for the number one national economy to take on the number two national economy.  Hence the war is major and very bloody.  Coincidentally, this happens after a two or three year cooling leading to the coldest year of a period of time.  That coldest year is the start of war year in most of the major cases in the last 150 years or so.  Perhaps this cooling increases hubris into a danger zone.  This timing also comes about 3 or 4 years after the peak growth cycle has statistically ended by long term standards.  So a sense of waning power enhances the tendency of politicians to distract the public away from economics and substitute war fever instead.  So this time period is unique in a number of ways that combine to build the pressure to go to war.  Into such a tinderbox, all you need to do is throw in a lighted match.

Summary

The long cycle starts in nature and affects the economy ultimately leading into war.  Hence the natural cycle and its events, the economic cycle and its events, and the war political cycle and its events are all interrelated. Because we really have two different Earths, one on the land, and one on the ocean, we have long overlooked the important interaction between these two giants of the Earth system.  We readily recognize other astronomical effects, such as the rotation that produces the day and night cycle.  Then there is the tilt of the Earth spinning on its axis that produces the annual seasons.  Then there are the very long spectrum of effects that produce the coming and going of ice ages.  In between the short term cycles and the geological time frame cycles lies a little noted and studied 54 year cycle.  Kondratiev, a Leninist Marxist economist studied this cycle in pig iron production in 1926.  Unfortunately that burden of the communist label, despite his execution by Stalin in 1938, has allowed Western economists to largely ignore his work. Then there is Klyashtorin who broke down 1400 years of ice core data from Greenland into its La Place transform frequencies, finding a very strong result for the 55 year cycle.  In the Americas, both the Quitlcastl and Aztec civilizations had long noticed a 52 year cycle of natural events, even building pueblos with four levels of 13 units each, and rotating around the maypole 13 times with 4 strands coming out.  So the long cycle has been noticed studied and worshipped by many peoples over the centuries, both the Quitlcastl and Aztec civilizations had long noticed a 52 year cycle of natural events, even building pueblos with four levels of 13 units each, and rotating around the maypole 13 times with 4 strands coming out.  So the long cycle has been noticed studied and worshipped by many peoples over the centuries.

This link takes you to the 56 modern events of the cycle: https://www.academia.edu/4101856/EVENTS_Weather_Economy_War_List56Cycle

This link gives you a broader understanding of the natural cycle with extra documents:  https://www.academia.edu/6002772/WEATHER_CYCLE_9p._2014

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace, Real Economy Institute, info: www.realeconomy.com

Nominated and vetted for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016, contact:  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

America: Violent Society

America is plagued with a lot of problems these days.  Why is that?  We have followed the typical path of many empires before us.  What is different is we have the data now to prove the point.  This is why my most popular presentation is called “Empire Economics.”

The Founding Fathers knew how corrupting wars can be and avoided excessive military entanglements.  Keeping a minimal military between wars maximized the growth potential of the young nation.  The people were left to decide what was best for them, and they were industrious and successful.  Success is the best cure for crime and violence.  Excessive militarism promotes all the conditions for higher crime and violence. Many on the political left focus on guns to explain our condition in America, but looking internationally, empire and high military spending do a much better job of explaining international differences.  Many European countries have very few gun murders, yet have overall murder rates proportional to their military spending just like in the United States of America.  One presidential candidate claims to be the law and order candidate, yet both crime and illegal immigration are the lowest in about forty years under the Obama administration.  Still we are very high in crime compared to other industrialized nations.

The following earlier postings are brought together in “Violent Society America” with a link to the full text of all seven.  Here are brief summaries:

Cycles of War and Violence

Why are we making so many parallels to the sixties with today’s times and events?  Well because the 54 year cycle is a very real land ocean cycle on this planet that affects natural events, economics and wars among other things.  So it is useful to subtract 54 years from 2016 and get 1962, roughly the middle of the civil rights struggle of that time.  We are in the early stages of another civil rights era struggle.  The secondary war peaks in 2006 (Iraq War was 3 years early) and the major war peaks around 2024 average or 2025 most frequent.  The Vietnam War, due about 1970, came five years early in 1965.  Korea came two years early in 1950 instead of the average historical date of 1952.

Baltimore Riot the New Watts 

The Los Angeles Watts riot of 1965 came after a summer heat wave suddenly cooled a bit and the riots started then, the day of the cooling.  The Baltimore riots of 2015 were bigger than the Ferguson riots, hence they seemed a closer comparison to Watts fifty years before.

Why Were Murder and Crime Cut in Half in the Nineties?

Whenever there is a military buildup, manufacturing suffers, thanks to the diversion of research and capital into the military instead.  Likewise, whenever the military is reduced, manufacturing grows, thanks to those same research, engineering, and capital resources being productively employed again.

Thus the near perfect crime and murder rate correlations with a nation’s military spending over a two decade period.  There is a delay period in transition, but the end of the Cold War military spending levels in the nineties lead to high economic growth and low murder and crime rates.  Since social decay accompanies the economic decay of empire, this crime rate international comparison is an excellent indicator of the many social changes in the process.  After about five years the murder rate follows the military spending lower and continues for another decade or so.  This delayed reaction is due to the time of raising a child to adulthood.  This formative experience translates into the crime rate as the economic conditions get better and better.  As the society relies less on mass violence or the threat of mass violence in terms of war, the children become more peaceful and society has less criminals.

Militarized Terror Policing

In the wake of the Ferguson murder by cop, the militarization of the modern police force became evident, showing the changes in our society over time as empire becomes a way of life.  Many policemen served in the Afghanistan or Iraq Wars as National Guard or reserve.  Many police forces took training from the Israelis and were told to shoot first and ask questions later by trainers.  The social worker policepersons of the seventies gradually were replaced with the warrior cops of today.

10 Ferguson Jury Mistakes 

The district attorney needs cops on his side to prosecute people.  This conflict lead to a grand jury situation where the presentation of evidence was all in the cops favor, including a white woman who backed up the policeman’s false narrative to the point that jurors ignored the several black witnesses who saw Michael Brown surrendering with his hands up in the air when he was shot dead with six bullets hitting, including a final head shot as the body fell forward facing the cop.  Multiple shots protect the police officer from facing adverse testimony by the victim.  One month after the verdict not to prosecute the officer, the district attorney revealed in a radio interview that it had been determined that the white woman supporting the police testimony was never present at the scene.  Still today on the far right, from Sean Hannity to Morning Joe, they insist that Michael Brown never had his hands up in surrender.

Control Freak Societies

Top down is the way to go in the military, the way we fought World War II.  Control is the way of empire and perpetual militarism in a society.  It is the opposite of the collegial process of new ideas and innovations needed for healthy economic growth.  Some control is important, but excessive control leads to rigidity and conformity.  A heavy dose of militarism stagnates the economy; it leads to higher unemployment rates and more top down control of the workplace results as employers have the upper hand over employees.  Then control freaks become a way of life in society in general.

Modern Feudalism, Two Cases

Power and control become dominant over equality freedom innovation and achievement in the high military spending society.  This comes to resemble the feudalism that swept Europe in the wake of the Roman Empire’s decline.  The same excessive militarism that leads to the self destruction of empires can carry over in the every fiefdom for itself mentality of castles, drawbridges, lords and serfs in the Middle Ages.  Large scale authority breaks up into micro scale authority.  Armed travel becomes necessary to protect the travelers from many diverse threats.  As militarism and control become ascendant, science and innovation go to sleep.  Churches and castles become the new authorities, and ways of life are perpetuated by heredity and class.  Social mobility ceases to be possible in such a restrictive environment.  Today social mobility in the USA has become much lower than it is in many European countries.

Detailed texts of the collection of seven papers:

https://www.academia.edu/27198787/Violent_Society_in_the_United_States_seven_papers_

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace, Real Economy Institute, info: www.realeconomy.com

Nominated and vetted for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016, contact:  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

Nature of Military Spending

Because the literature is divided over the issue of whether military spending stimulates economic growth or not, my defining work must explain why that perception exists and in fact what is the real nature of military spending that produces this apparent conflict in the literature.  My own exhaustive studies of the long term empirical record, mostly of the last century in America but also with important international checks, clearly show the following results.

Appearance of Local Economic Growth

Locally and regionally, it is clear that economic activity is added to localities where military spending is spent.  That economic activity is similar to manufacturing and other goods producing activities in the normal economy like construction, mining, and agriculture.  Both kinds of economic activity consume large amounts of capital, engineering, and scientific research.

Looking Closer

The local economic growth from military spending is also clearing shown in the US historical state by state record to come with a similar depletion of economic growth in civilian manufacturing and lower economic growth in states and regions high in manufacturing and low in military spending.  So the local economic growth from military spending represents a transfer of resources from low military spending states to high military spending states.  This last point shows up in studies of changes in the per capita military spending by state from year to year in the US Statistical Abstract on the allocation of federal spending.  I have been studying these changes many different ways for many years now, and there is a strong pattern in the states of manufacturing going down as military spending goes up across the many state economies.  In fact, in the top 20 states, the correlation of military spending with the government sector of each state is about 0.83.  So I can say that military spending usually represents the major part of government spending changes state by state.

War Claim:  Military Spending Stimulates Growth

The economy often increases in growth in war years.  When military spending goes down, at the end of a war, the economy often goes into recession.  This would give a correlation of growth with military spending.

Looking Closer

Government borrowing increases substantially during wars, and then the debt is repaid when peace comes.  The federal deficit expands enormously during war periods compared to other periods of time. My essentially perfect long term sixty year model of the US economy is predicated on the simple assumption that deficits raise the economic growth rate of each year and military spending decreases the economic growth rate of each year.  Thus, net military spending, that is military spending minus deficit spending, is the amount of slowing force in the economy.  So the war economy phenomenon is better explained as a federal deficit economy.  Comparing manufacturing productivity growth rates with economic growth rates does suggest some additional war boom that can’t be explained away.  I call this the adrenaline rush boost of a war time situation, also consistent with the post war let down.

Research Claim:  Military Spending Stimulates Growth

In the US case, research has historically been about 10% of the military budget.  Hence this research case for military spending can at most be 10% true for military spending as a whole.  Take the internet claim as an example.  Some say the race to put a man on the moon laid the groundwork for the internet.  British and Swiss scientists claim credit for important parts of the internet, so it’s not just DARPA in the USA that can claim credit for the internet.  Analysts find a much reduced impact of military research by dividing the impact three ways, one for being too military specific, one for secrecy reducing the benefit of interaction with other scientists, and one for dual purpose civilian and military usage of inventions.  Hence 33% effective is a common estimate of the military research impact on the economy.  One pro military buildup expert claims the impact even lower, 7%.  That makes sense in the venture capitalist estimate that the inventor only gets 20% of the benefit as competitors get the other 80% benefit of a new product.  Hence 20% of the 33% estimate leaves the 7% estimate for US benefit. That 7% applies to the 10% research part of the budget, so military spending is 99.3% not stimulative.

Roosevelt and War

The economy grew 86% in the eight prewar years from 1933 to 1941 as Keynes advised Roosevelt to spend money and he ran a combined 31% deficit in those years.  That’s an average growth rate of almost 11% per year with a mostly jobs program deficit of 4% of the economy per year.  The unemployment rate dropped from 25% in 1933 to 10% in 1941.  Happy days were here again.  Note how the New Deal got triple the growth rate from their deficits.  The war did fully employ people again, with an average unemployment rate of about 2%.  Note that both periods, New Deal and war, reduced unemployment about 2% per year.  But look how inefficient the deficit was with military deficits.  The four war years grew 26% on 155% deficits.  That’s 6.5% growth on 39% deficits on average.  So the multiplier under New Deal programs was 2.75 and under the war was 0.17.  That makes the peacetime deficit multiplier 16 times more effective that the war time deficit multiplier.  Giving all the credit to the war for ending the Depression is to mistake an accident of historical timing for cause and effect.  Military spending is an extremely inefficient way to stimulate the economy.

Summary

Two different twenty year international developed world comparisons by Ruth Leger Sivard suggest that military spending represents lost capital investment and lost manufacturing productivity growth rate in the economy, while clearly giving a local economic boost.  But closer inspection always shows that military spending positives are offset in other parts of the economy.  The sizes of military increases in wartime or peacetime are always greatly in excess of the so-called economic growth benefits.  Deficits stimulate economic growth and military spending is often a part of that deficit, but the offsets in national capital investment and manufacturing productivity growth show up clearly in local and national statistics.  Hence military spending is a popular excuse to avoid paying taxes to balance off spending increases.  Yet military spending is a very inefficient way to provide stimulus.  Hence the truism, military spending is non productive.

For 10 key “defining” statistical models of Military Economics:

https://www.academia.edu/4044456/SUMMARY_Military_DisEconomics

For a complete hundred year war and peace economy history of America since 1910:

https://www.academia.edu/4044532/HISTORY_Presidents_Military_Economy_1910-2009

For more on the regional economic nature:

https://www.academia.edu/5740273/MIDWEST_and_the_Military_3_pages_2005

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace, Real Economy Institute, info: www.realeconomy.com

Nominated and vetted for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016, contact:  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

No More Trade Wars Please

The real story of the Great Depression trade war starts with America’s mistakes as an emerging world power, our adolescence as a world power, starting with the Philippines and World War I.  Because the Naval Secretary was gone, under secretary Teddy Roosevelt was able to order the US fleet into Manila Bay leading to war in the Philippines and the February 1899 invasion of the Philippines.  This was later to force Japan in World War II to attack the US.  In World War I, US entry came just in time to prevent a German victory.  With fresh troops from the Russian front after Russia pulls out of the war, Germany was on the offensive until the US troops arrived.  This broke the pattern of history where the number one economic power in Europe was denied the victory in the hegemonic war that they normally would have won.  The number three power in Europe, France, then was able to impose retribution not just for the current war, but also for the indignity of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.  John Maynard Keynes, the greatest economist of the twentieth century, was a young man on the British negotiating team at Versailles, and later wrote a book about how these reparations payments demanded of the Germans would lead to another war.  He was right.

Reparations

Forcing Germany to pay reparations after an exhausting war, led to the US financing those reparations as the new number one economic power in the world.  But this put US farmers at a disadvantage leading to great farmer suffering in the twenties.  Since about 85% of all revenues for US government in the nineteenth century came from tariffs on foreign imports, the first step was a tariff in 1921.  As an emerging power in the nineteenth century, tariffs helped protect the infant American manufacturing industry in the North from the British manufacturers.  That galled prosperous Southerners with their slavery plantations and was the number two reason for the Civil War after the more obvious slavery.

So the roaring twenties started with the post war depression 1919-1921, then led to Spindletop oil and Ford Model T’s combined for 48% growth in five years from 1922-1926.  That was it, that lone five year period was the roaring twenties.  Then the economy stalled, as the top 20% of American families all had their Model T, so sales stalled.

Electing Hoover

The 1927-28 two year flat economy led to the Hoover election of 1928.  He promised a tariff to protect the long suffering farmers of America as the balance of trade was still suffering from the German reparations financed by American banks.  Hoover’s mistake was not to recognize that Europe was unprepared to put up with America continuing to act like a small emerging power when they were now the largest economy in the world, the equal of Europe as a whole.  Hoover took office and the economy grew 6.6% in 1929.  Still, promises are promises, and the main campaign pledge of Hoover began with a special session of Congress in September 1929.  The process had begun on the Smoot Hawley Tariff.  The stock market and economists could see the impending disaster, so the stock market shuddered twice in September, and crashed four days after the bill came out of committee on October 28, 1929.  But the economy was still doing fine growing even for the first five months of 1930.  1000 economists begged the president not to sign the bill, but he did anyway, on June 11, 1930.  Only then did the economy begin collapsing, -9.9% in 1930, -7.3% in 1931.  Then the Germans stopped paying reparations.  Hoover’s blue ribbon business panel, the Hump Commission recommended spending money.  Instead, Hoover doubled down trying to balance the budget and the economy went -14.8% more into the hole in 1932 and Roosevelt was elected.  The economy stabilized in 1933 with a -1.9% drop for a total drop of 30.2% and a rise of unemployment to 25%.  Meanwhile trade dropped from 7% of the economy down to 2%.  Trade multipliers are high, estimated 8 to 10 in the seventies.  This 5% trade drop with a multiplier of six would explain the drop in the Great Depression.  Further proof that trade war was the main problem in the Great Depression comes from the fact that America and France, the agricultural powers, suffered the most in the agricultural trade war.  The more manufacturing oriented Britain and Germany did not lose share of the world economy in the thirties like America and France did.  France had it worse than America.  This supports the notion that the Smoot Hawley agricultural and mineral tariffs were the main trigger of the Great Depression trade war.

Recovery

The economy grew 86% in the eight prewar years from 1933 to 1941 as Keynes advised Roosevelt to spend money and he ran a combined 31% deficit in those years.  That’s an average growth rate of almost 11% per year with a mostly jobs program deficit of 4% per year.  The unemployment rate dropped from 25% in 1933 to 10% in 1941.  Happy days were here again.  Note how the New Deal got triple the growth rate from their deficits.  The war did fully employ people again, with an average unemployment rate of about 2%.  Note that both periods, New Deal and war, reduced unemployment about 2% per year.  But look how inefficient the deficit was with military deficits.  The four war years grew 26% on 155% deficits.  That’s 6.5% growth on 39% deficits on average.  So the multiplier under New Deal programs was 2.75 and under the war was 0.17.  That makes the peacetime deficit multiplier 16 times more effective that the war time deficit multiplier.  Giving all the credit to the war for ending the Depression is to mistake an accident of historical timing for cause and effect.  Military spending is an extremely inefficient way to stimulate the economy.

Today

When Trump threatens to heavily tax products from factories moved overseas, he is essentially trying to duplicate the capital flow controls of a country like Sweden.  We all know it is a mistake to confuse democracy with capitalism.  Likewise, it is a mistake to confuse product free trade with free capital flows.  It does not impinge on free trade to prevent factories from moving overseas.  Germany has been able to keep their manufacturing economy in the new world of globalization and trade treaties.  Germany has the advantage of labor being able to appoint half the directors of a company, hence when they build a factory overseas, it is a healthy expansion, not a way to undercut domestic labor.  We don’t need to end trade treaties; we just need to control the flow of factories overseas.  Besides, free trade is not free trade; it is negotiated trade, still negotiated between two countries but in a larger overall treaty framework.  Note also that lost research and capital resources are still critical.  Restoring military capital and research to manufacturing in the late nineties grew manufacturing in America despite the 1993 NAFTA and WTO treaties.  Withdrawing military capital and research from manufacturing in the two years after September 11 cost 1.8 million manufacturing jobs.  The trade treaties cost another 1 million manufacturing jobs just before that military buildup.  So reducing the military budget and controlling capital flows overseas are the keys to restoring manufacturing and middle class job growth.

For a complete hundred year war and peace economy history of America since 1910:

https://www.academia.edu/4044532/HISTORY_Presidents_Military_Economy_1910-2009

For more detail on the Depression and Roosevelt War Periods:

https://www.academia.edu/4044531/ROOSEVELT_Depression_War_Unpacking_Myths_1p.

 

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

contact:  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

message: 608-230-6640

info: www.realeconomy.com

Deep Politics of Iraq War

The C-SPAN panel at Georgetown October 23, 2002 was an impressive event.  Stephen Zunes was full of insight and specifics, including the only member of the panel to mention Scott Ritter, the US Marine on the inspection team in Iraq in 1998, when they pulled out.  Going last Mark Lance was left with generalities to make, including those of empire and the claim America is no longer a democracy.  That Democracy claim may have been premature but it signaled the actual trend.  Bush v Gore had to raise the issue, but Citizens United was eight years later in 2010 followed by Jimmy Carter and the Princeton study confirming the notion of oligarchy replacing democracy in the United States.  Then in 2011 Occupy Wall Street and the Congressional Research Office confirmed the quadrupling of the income gap between the 1% and the 99% in the thirty years from 1979 to 2007.  Nevertheless, a big part of the story was left out.

The Rise of Saddam Hussein

In exile in Egypt, Saddam Hussein was given by the CIA a list of 635 names of enemies he could purge when he took power in 1965 in Iraq.  Then when Iran took the 50 American hostages in the Iran embassy in 1979, Saddam was eager to help out by attacking Iran in the Iran Iraq War that lasted from September 1980 to August 1988 and cost over 600,000 Iraqi lives.  Iran Contra was a lingering aspect of the 1980 deal in France called the “October Surprise” of Casey and Bush senior that helped elect Ronald Reagan over Carter.  About that same time in 1987, Donald Rumsfeld was posing for pictures with Saddam Hussein and the CIA was provided intelligence for the Saddam Hussein chemical attack that killed thousands of civilian Kurds in Halabja in 1988.

The Cold War Ends

When that war ended months later, Saddam Hussein was in desperate economic straights.  With the end of the Cold War, the pentagon was in similar desperate economic straights.  Bob Woodward’s book “The Commanders” recounts the panic in the pentagon in April 1990, as the military industrial complex is furious looking around for replacement enemy to keep the military business alive and well and strong.  Help was on the way.  Just get the Kuwaiti’s to slant drill across the border into Iraq stealing Saddam Hussein’s precious oil.  Then have the Iraqi ambassador April Glaspie say “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.  Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”  Then when US friend and ally Saddam Hussein takes this as a green light to invade Kuwait with nothing more than hot air from the United States, the mouse has taken the bait.  Then when the tanks are all sitting in Kuwait City, the US will lie to Saudi Arabia that the tanks are massing on his border now.  This was proven by the St. Petersburg Gazette when they obtained satellite photos proving the US lie to the Saudis.  So the US gained approval to send troops to the Holy Land of the Muslims to stage a counter attack to retake Kuwait and restore the importance of the US military in the eyes of the American public.  This sacrilege to the Muslim Holy Land is later cited by Osama Bin Laden as justification to attack the US.

Moving the Goal Posts

When Saddam Hussein finally offered to pull his troops out of Kuwait, it was too late.  The offensive went forward as 4000 tanks were destroyed with depleted uranium rounds that were later to drive leukemia cancer rates in Iraq to 37 times normal.  Enough tanks were allowed to escape the pincer attack to give Iraq some ability to defend itself against Iran.  Even though George Bush the senior had encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein, he didn’t mean it, and he allowed the Iraqi army to use their helicopters to destroy the uprising.  Nevertheless, the allies and the UN kept changing the terms of the UN resolution to justify the continued air campaign against Iraq in the name of the no fly zone.  Eventually over a half million Iraqi children died under the sanctions regime put in place on Iraq and inspectors slowly eliminated 95% or better of the weapons of mass destruction, including 100% of the nuclear operation.  That half million Iraqi children were from a report about half way through the 13 year sanctions period.  Then, in danger of proving that all weapons of mass destruction had been eliminated, Operation Desert Fox was launched in December 1998.  When Saddam retaliated by kicking the inspectors out of Iraq, the US preserved the illusion that maybe some weapons of mass destruction remained, hence Hussein was kept in his box of sanctions.

Fraud in the Iraq War of 2003

Doug Feith set up a separate intelligence operation under Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to manufacture evidence against Iraq.  They were engaged in extensive cherry picking and grasping at straws, when a captured Iraqi code named “Curveball” was water-boarded by Egypt to get him to confess about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  Since people will say anything to stop the drowning sensation, most of the lies used in Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN were mainly from this one bogus source.  The actual CIA intelligence report released in the Fall of 2002 was nuanced and skeptical about the issue.  When ambassador Wilson, Scott Ritter, and others pointed out some of the fraud, they were hooted down.  The propaganda effort was so strong that in 2004, one year after the invasion, 90% of US troops in Iraq believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 attack.

The War Resolution of October 2002

The war resolution requires the president to certify two things before launching a war.  One was their was a threat of weapons of mass destruction, and two that their was a connection to the attacks on September 11, 2001.  Those violations of their own war resolution were the main reasons I wrote and had adopted by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin the second in the nation state party to call for the impeachment of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld on June 10, 2005.  I later organized an impeachment parade on the third anniversary of the Downing Street Memos, July 23, 2005.  Many   Democratic Senators were fooled, citing that they were giving the authority to George Bush under the belief that he would act responsibly, as he repeatedly assured them he wanted  peace, and only invade if those conditions in the war resolution were met.  When we in Madison Wisconsin occupied the offices of our Senator Kohl, his statement to us after he voted against our wishes, was just that.  He sincerely believed this was necessary to get the inspectors back in Iraq and get UN approval, this threat of force.  George Bush kept saying he wanted peace, over and over again.  The Downing Street Memos prove all this was one big deception.  The memos show than Tony Blair and George Bush agreed to invade Iraq in April 2002.  Bombing doubled the rate in May 2002.  In August, Cheney started talking about nuclear weapons, the one thing inspectors agreed had been 100% eliminated in 1998.  When the inspectors went back in December 2002 and for three months came up with nothing, it was pretty clear to the British that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Going to War

Since the British had signed the agreement creating the International Criminal Court, they knew a war of aggression could put them in jail in the Hague, Netherlands.  So Tony Blair and his deputies were sweating bullets.  One even resigned over the issue.  But Blair followed the lead of Bush.  Bush was afraid postponing the invasion would force action in the terribly hot summer, a bad time for the troops.  He was also determined to depose Saddam Hussein regardless, as the weapons of mass destruction ruse was only the most saleable way to go about it.  Hillary Clinton believed in a strong executive and unfortunately trusted Bush to act responsibly, not in violation of international law.  She, Kerry, and others were duped by the shenanigans of the Bush regime.  Later tell all books told how the very first cabinet meeting in January 2001 was all about how to take over Iraq.  Rachel Maddow has documented how oil men in Houston met early on in 2001 about how to take over Iraq.  George Bush campaigned for president claiming he did not want the US to be the world’s police-people.  Yet the Project for a New American Century, which consisted largely of future administration people, stated how they needed a Pearl Harbor like situation to “Rebuild America’s Defenses.”  That September 2000 report told of the plan to install democracies in the Middle East by military force if necessary.  Leo Strauss, who died in 1973, spawned the neoconservative movement with the belief that elites must decide what is best for America and then lie to the public to attain their goals.  Bush was a follower of Leo Strauss.

Democracy in Iraq

Bremer and the neocons were determined to try out right wing ideas in Iraq, not just let the people decide what’s best for them.  Fallujah elected a new sheriff and mayor after the Saddam Hussein regime disappeared from the scene.  But the Bremer’s of the world would not allow them their choice.  Because everyone in Iraq was rationed food under the sanctions, there was a ready made voter roll based on that, which could have been used to begin democracy in Iraq quickly, they didn’t have to wait years.  But that wasn’t the neo-con plan.  Not reconstituting the army provided a trained military opposition that lasted all the way into ISIS today.  Many of the top military people of ISIS came from the ranks of Saddam Hussein’s army.  And pappy Bush was right not to create an ally of Iran out of Iraqi democracy with a 60% Shia population.  And Joe Biden was right to anticipate Iraq dividing into three parts, Shia South, Kurd North, and Sunni West.  But what a way to torture a people and ultimately dividing and torturing the whole Middle East Muslim world.  So Colin Powell was right, you break it, you own it.

For my power point about how empire has emerged in America:

https://www.academia.edu/5415354/STAGES_of_EMPIRE_Twelve._15_ppt.

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

contact:  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

message: 608-230-6640

info: www.realeconomy.com

 

Football, Baseball, and War

This last week I gave a presentation at St. Norbert’s College, where the Green Bay Packers practice in the Spring since 1958.  The occasion was there annual “Sport and Society” conference.  My Tuesday May 24, 2016 presentation was called “Football, Baseball, and Empire.”  The conference opened with the amazing career story of Mark Murphy, President of the Green Bay Packers, who had the game saving interception for the Washington Redskins in the Super Bowl as a player and vice president of the player’s union.

 

Presentation Highlights

Sports and especially favorite sports are an expression of who we are as a society.  We all have needs for Power and needs for Achievement.   The high military spending empire has a stronger need for power and therefore a lower need for Achievement.  The low military spending emerging power has a high need for achievement and a lower need for power.  Resources are split between the manufacturing sector and the military sector according to a society’s preferences.  In the case of Japan and the United States in the middle twentieth century changes occurred reflecting these values and the changing cultural values of those respective societies around the two sports of Football and Baseball.  There is very little in baseball about war and militarism, so baseball is a sport of achievement.  There is a whole lot about war and militarism in football, so football is a sport of power.  After World War II, Japan and the United States switched number one sports.  The number one sport of low military high achieving America was baseball.

But World War II changed everything.  Japan was forced to demilitarize, adopting a constitution against war.  They adopted baseball as their number one sport.  In 2015 on our trip to Japan that year, we saw from the train numerous fields of baseball players practicing all over Japan.  In the sixties, with glorification of World War II everywhere in the culture, America began to prefer football over baseball as the new number one sport.  Now, traveling in America, kids practicing football can be seen all over.

Seventy years after the hegemonic war, America is going deeper and deeper in to the economics, politics, and social structure of empire.  The military sector overpays by about one third (white collar, blue collar, and engineering) and draws capital and research to it at the expense of our civilian manufacturing sector and the other goods producing industries like construction, mining, and agriculture.  This has produced a half life of thirty years for the manufacturing sector.  Manufacturing was 40% of our employment in 1950, 20% in 1980, and 10% in 2010.  Wage growth has stagnated for the middle class for forty years and for the bottom 99% for at least thirty or forty years.

Politics have increasingly stagnated as politicians push unconditional surrender type tactics in the political arena.  Police forces that in the seventies were closer to social workers are now closer to soldiers, with swat teams, armored vehicles, and tactics used in Fallujah, Iraq and Palestine are increasingly used at home.  The percentage of college degree holders in our population has not changed in a generation, while many European countries have doubled, going from far below our level to far above our level.  Europe, once known as a class based society, has switched roles with America, as the United States has become class based with social mobility stagnant at home and high in Europe.

 

10 Ways NFL Football Mimics War

#1.  Only 10% of Roman Gladiators died in the coliseum.  NFL Football players have longevity 25% less than average, thereby losing twice as much life as the gladiators did.

#2.  Most football players step out of bed painfully on Monday mornings and many experience multiple brain concussions.  War veterans have PTSD and multiple concussions.

#3.  Both teams put most of there men on the imaginary line between the teams, the so-called “front lines”, and call play in this area “no man’s land” or “in the trenches” unlike most other sports; hockey and soccer come close, but much less frequently than the every down football standard formation.

#4.  When a team wants to put pressure on the quarterback, they resort to a tactic called blitzing, very reminiscent of the German “blitzkrieg” attack plans of the Second World War.  In both cases men are sent through the front lines attempting to get beyond the normal front line men in order to cause havoc.

#5.  Both soldiers and football players wear helmets as standard equipment, as well as other kinds of shielding and protective gear.

#6.  Both soldiers and football players try to hit the other guy as hard and fast as they can.

#7.  Knocking the other guy’s leading person out of the game is often a goal of both soldiers and football players.

#8.  Nuclear bombs are considered the ultimate weapon and throwing “the bomb” and scoring a touchdown is considered the ultimate football play.

#9.  In the air game receivers and the secondary resemble either aircraft or paratroopers and in the ground game linemen are like infantry blocking for the running backs who are like tanks.  Linebackers are like defensive reserve tanks.  The quarterback is the “field general” or like the aircraft carrier or base, or a launching pad for missiles.

#10.  Until recently, domestic violence was treated by the NFL like collateral damage is treated by the air force and in drone warfare, an indirect result of violent behavior to be safely ignored or whitewashed away.

 

For my power point about how sports culture has changed in America under empire:

https://www.academia.edu/25679437/Football_Baseball_and_Empire_3p._14ppt_5-24-2016

 

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

contact:  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

message: 608-230-6640

info: www.realeconomy.com

Paradigm Shifts of Peace Econ

Military Spending is Nonproductive

Under military Keynesianism it has long been believed that military spending stimulates economic growth in a country.  The voices that believed military spending is nonproductive did not create an economic model to support that new view, hence military Keynesianism prevailed essentially unchallenged.  Reuschlein created such an alternative economic model in 1986 and showed that it produced a near perfect (R=.999) 64 year model of US manufacturing productivity on a Kondratiev Wave of 54 years and a Juglar Cycle of 8-10 years.  Because Reuschlein was an engineer with no familiarity with the peer review social science model at that time, he did not know how to handle the request by Nils Petter Gledisch of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo to turn his 52 page copyrighted book “Peace Economics” into an article according to their guidelines.  Mike Grove, an economics professor at the local University of Oregon suggested that he present his ideas at the annual conference of the Union of Radical Political Economists (URPE).  Another CPA friend, Gene Emge, was teaching a “Beyond War” course through the Innovative Education Department at the University of Oregon.  He followed Emge’s example by offering a “Peace Economics” course through that same program and with course approval of Val Burris and David Milton of the Sociology Department and Bob O’Brien as Department Chair of Sociology.  Later State Representative Carl Hosticka, a Democratic Party colleague of Reuschlein’s, approved teaching the course through his Department of Planning Public Policy and Management.

Military Spending Main Characteristic Empire, Major Force Social Sciences

Military spending defines economics in a way more like a law of physics than a branch of the social sciences.  This makes it very difficult to achieve peer review acceptance from social scientists and may require engineers or physicists to be the appropriate peer review group.  The unusually straight forward relationships in murder rates, crime rates, national politics, and regional economics in the United States, especially during the high military spending years of the Cold War, all suggest this paradigm:  high military spending causes the collapse of empires and explains a whole host of wholesale changes America has undergone in the last seventy years.  The end of World War II began the modern age of empire for America, although American empire is a largely soft power empire unlike brutal empires of the past.  The socioeconomic forces of empire emphasize a growing inequality and dying middle class, rigidity in politics, declining health and educational statistics and other signs of social decay that can be empirically tied to the level of military spending better than alternative explanations.  The empire point of view ties it all together in a way most social scientists are still unable to comprehend and credit what it going on in America today.

Regional Economic Growth is Influenced by Change in Military Budget.

The only positive correlation in military economics arises because while the cost of military spending is a national burden on all the states, the benefits of that national distribution to high military spending states are determined by political forces that benefit at the expense of the low military spending states.  While the nation as a whole loses because military spending consumes resources without giving back a civilian economic product, local regions benefit while national manufacturing suffers everywhere.  Political power goes to those able to control the very unequal flow of military spending around the country:  the president, and leaders in congress and key committees divide up the spoils of the largest slush fund in Washington, DC.  And seven of the ten richest counties in America are those around Washington, DC.

Kondratiev Wave 54 Year Cycle is Grounded in Natural Earth Forces

Although much evidence for the 54 year cycle is out there, social sciences have been very reluctant to recognize this evidence, and have failed to connect the three cycles of extreme natural events, economic long term events, and long term political events and wars.  Connecting explanations developed by Reuschlein are gradually getting more and more reliable, but there is great need for more research.  One person operating alone, however brilliant, can not do the job justice.  A few close confidants finally beginning to “get it” helps but is not enough.  The connections of a large professional institute or research university are desperately needed to fill the enormous potential that could improve disaster forecasting worldwide.  The long cycle begins with faster warming over land than over water.  Because of the unequal use of sunlight to vaporize water everywhere, oceans have little sunlight left for direct warming while land has lots of sunlight left for warming and deserts have the most warming of all due to the lack of water in the desert.  This is why the land heavy Northern Hemisphere has three times the seasonal fluctuation of the ocean heavy Southern Hemisphere.  Because the ocean currents keep those waters mixing from equator to poles, the ocean is much warmer than the land overall.  This makes the land the more volatile element in the land ocean system.

Elegance in Both Systems

Both the economic system and the temperature change system become amazingly regular and consistent when adjusted for military spending and the 54 year cycle respectively.  The land ocean temperature differences explain many features of the planetary system of climate change. The ocean currents head North from the equator along both sides of the Eurasian North African supercontinent in an attempt by nature to warm the cold Northern lands.  The back current along both sides of North America gives America much colder winters despite most of Europe being North of most of the United States.  The land heavy wind belt of Canada and Russia holds many of the Earth’s persistent (average) high pressure systems while the ocean heavy wind belt of the equator gives rise to massive storm systems dumping rain on East Asia and Southeast India and the Pacific Ocean has most of the Earth’s persistent low pressure systems.  The Earth spins East as the equatorial Pacific storms build and move West.  The greater tendency to rain over land than over ocean also helps the energy transfer to the much cooler lands.

For more on the evolution of the natural long weather cycle in modern times:

https://www.academia.edu/6002772/WEATHER_CYCLE_7_p._from_WWW_1997

For a one page summary of key statistical facts in the Reuschlein theories.

https://www.academia.edu/4044456/SUMMARY_Military_HighAccuracy 13

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: bobreuschlein@gmail.com 608-230-6640,

INFO: www.realeconomy.com

Dear Future US President,

America has signed and ratified the law against war and even the threat of war, the Kellogg-Briand Treaty of 1928.  To bring America into compliance with the treaty would have significant economic benefits to the nation as well as extremely positive worldwide implications.  The Treaty is the supreme law of the land, according to the US Constitution.  You may not have been asked about the Treaty as part of the process that has gotten you the Presidency.  However, this should not dull the importance of the Treaty for you and the nation as a whole.  The lack of attention to the Treaty reflects a kind of historical amnesia, one which this letter and many other efforts, we hope, will end.

Perhaps you are unaware of the op-ed of Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz in the British paper The Guardian on January 22, 2003.  He was, of course, President Bill Clinton’s chief economic advisor in the nineties.  In this op-ed titled “The Myth of the War Economy,” Stiglitz says “War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times… Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy. That conflict contributed mightily to the onset of the recession of 1991 (which was probably the key factor in denying the first President Bush re-election in 1992).”

In fact, redirecting the capital rich military economy between 1985 and 1999 and allowing those potent economic resources to be applied to the manufacturing economy instead lead to unprecedented prosperity in the post Cold War 1990s.  Further proof of this critical choice between the manufacturing sector and the military sector is the fact that manufacturing increased in the late nineties despite various trade deals that are sometimes presented as putting the US at a disadvantage.  Manufacturing will indeed boom if given the resources normally devoted to a nonproductive military economy, and the US can compete with other nations if it refrains from military buildups and active conflicts.

Evidence for the proposition that military spending hurts the economy has only mounted since 2003, as the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost in the twenty-four months after 9-11 are coupled with the military buildup and jobs lost through shifts in trade.  1.7 million jobs were lost to the military buildup and one million jobs to trade (as was often discussed in the 2004 US election).  A steady rise in unemployment leading up to the Great Recession began after the Iraq “surge” troops began to be deployed in July 2007.  The unequal real estate boom from the military buildup fooled many parts of the nation into expecting the economy to continue upward.  When it did not, the drain from the $70 billion “surge” apparently pushed the fragile mortgage economy into a severe decline.  This pattern is similar to the 1980s with the military buildup transferring moneys from the productive economy to the unproductive economy, distorting the local real estate market until the Savings & Loan (S&L) bailout was the result. The murder rate is also linked with military spending.  Although no criminologists can explain the drop in crime in the nineties, military spending and murder rates strongly correlate among the youngest five members of the G7, America, Japan, Germany, Canada, and Italy.  The Cold War peace dividend benefited the nineties economy and crime.  It is becoming more evident through the decades that the economic stagnation caused by high levels of military spending leads to the collapse of empires and the related social decay.

Another benefit is that lower military spending improves the national strength over time, as military spending can actually increase faster as a small percentage of a fast growing economy.  Tailoring the military can make it more nimble than ever and less encumbered with obsolete heavy forces; it can also improve America’s image in the world.  Let more regional forces deal with the world’s ground military problems and primarily provide technical backup.  With decreases in military spending, America will become more closely compliant with the lofty goals of the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928.  The Pact may have been wrought in a previous century, but it provides guidance that reaches far into the future.

As you face the future as the President of the United States (from whatever party or background you hail), considering the Pact as a guiding principle alerts the world that the US is deeply committed to its own economic wellbeing along with larger global peace and justice issues.  It may seem that following the Treaty is an act of altruism.  However, the Treaty’s direction would lead the US into a more prosperous and productive– as well as peaceful– future.

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, details in http://www.realeconomy.com

For a short booklet on the effects of Peace Economics:

https://www.academia.edu/4108656/BOOKLET_for_Peace_Economics_11_charts_24p.

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: bobreuschlein@gmail.com 608-230-6640,

INFO: www.realeconomy.com

 

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.