Military Empire and Climate Cycle Views

Archive for the month “October, 2015”

On the Shoulders of Giants

Sir Isaac Newton said he wasn’t so great; it’s just that he stood “on the shoulders of giants.”

My giants are Ruth Leger Sivard, Nicolai Kondratiev, and Clement Juglar.

Ruth Leger Sivard (1915-2015, age 99)

Hired under Kennedy’s Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1961, she was told to stop producing her comparative work by Nixon and Laird in 1970 and she left in 1971 and published privately her World Military and Social Expenditures from 1974 to 1996, seventeen volumes.  The government reverted to just publishing World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, but the White House was one of her best customers under Reagan in 1986.

Nicolai Kondratiev (1892-1938, age 46)
An agricultural economist who was a member of the Peoples Commissariat of Agriculture under Lenin.  He favored free market small business as did Lenin, but Stalin wanted complete control over the economy.  He started an institute of conjecture in 1920 which had 51 researchers by 1923 (wiki), his major cycle idea came in 1922 and 1925 books.  After Lenin’s death in 1924 he was removed as director of his institute by Stalin in 1928 and eventually put to death in 1938.  His theory of 50 or 60 year long cycles in capitalist economies contradicted the Marxist idea of the imminent collapse of capitalism.  Instead, John Maynard Keynes became the dominant economist of the times eclipsing Kondratiev.

Clement Juglar (1819-1905, age 85)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica considers him the first to develop a theory of business cycles, in 1860. He developed the fixed investment cycle of about nine years, eight to ten years by the encyclopedia, seven to eleven years by the wiki.

Reuschlein’s Use of Their Works


Sivard was the crucial first information as she published twenty year average military spending statistics for the seven largest capitalist economies plus Denmark and Sweden.  In two volumes she had a bar chart showing that the higher the military the lower the manufacturing productivity growth rate (1981) or capital investment rate (1983).  The first one was tested for correlation by an article by Nils Petter Gledisch, the editor of the Journal of Peace Research in Oslo, Norway where the Nobel Prize in Peace is awarded.  But his correlation was only -0.81 and I improved that two ways.  First, recognizing Canada as the outlier, the correlation without Canada is -0.98, but by combining Canada with the United States, and combining the six European countries, with Japan as the third data point, the correlation is -0.997.  Likewise, with the capital investment calculations, treating Italy, Canada, and Japan as outliers, the other four European countries plus the US (Denmark was left out by Sivard) had a total of military plus capital investment of 20.5% of GDP with a correlation of -0.993.  Japan had unusually high savings rates with a total of 25% and Canada and Italy were unusually low with a total of 17%.  This shows how Japan was able to invest in the four Tigers of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore in this 1960-1980 time period and later China when they opened up.  Thus Japan’s low military spending fueled much of the rise of the whole of East Asia.  As for Canada and Italy, they are both peripheral countries on the edge of the main countries of either Germany, France, and Britain or the United States on the respective continents.  In the original EU, Italy had only one neighbor, France, and in North America, Canada has only one neighbor, the United States.  So both counties are geographic outliers.  Britain was outside the EU until 1974 but had a Commonwealth to rely on.

Now before you can say correlation is not proof, I have developed the logic and numerous other tests that take this way past that simplistic putdown.


By 1950 another author had published a 700 year study (1240-1940) of British wheat prices. Judged against a fifty year moving average, this clearly shows 14 repetitions of the 54 year cycle.  A friend told me that the cycle was 24 year up and 30 years down, so I used that in my model.  I had already tried to model economic growth in the United States, adding back the lost growth of military spending, and clearly the long cycle appeared in that longitudinal graphing, with a huge bulge in the fifties.  Also, clearly, world war two does not work without factoring in the deficit. So the basic three factors were military spending, the long cycle of 54 years, and the federal deficit.  But nations vary in population growth and this is a major economic factor.  So I modeled on manufacturing productivity, which took me back to 1920.  Sivard must have realized that military reduces manufacturing particularly, when she used that statistic and not the normal economic growth statistic for each country’s comparison with the military.  This allowed me to create an amazingly accurate model, even though each year the predicted manufacturing productivity growth rate varied greatly with the actual measured manufacturing productivity.  I went back to the economic growth rates to determine tops and bottoms of the economy by means of using a variety of multiyear averages.  Likewise, the economic growth rate had several periods of 8% growth and several periods of 2% growth, so I estimated a the growth rate was give or take 3%.  The true growth rate before the military reduction was 9% for the period 1960-1978, a below average period in the long cycle between the 1952 peak and the 1982 bottom, so I used 10% for the model, adjusting the 3% variance sinusoidally so the peak was 13% in 1952 and 7% in 1928 and 1982.


The model seemed to fit very well in the post war period, even though annual fits were erratic.  So I tried keeping a running total of both predicted and actual.  Lo and behold, every so often, the running total seemed to perfect out.  I identified several precise fits, every Juglar cycle of nine years give or take a year.  Sometimes, the model would perfect out every three years.  I had discovered the Juglar cycle of 8 to 10 years and the inventory cycle of three years. Around the world wars were gaps in the data, but averages worked well for the peace years and zero for the war years.  Then there was the 30s Great Depression and the 70s Oil crisis.  Using common sense, and fortunately, several threes in the thirties and seventies, I calculated the drop of each special shock period, with the 1930-1933 period and the 1942-1945 period had to be left out of the model.  The war had no civilian productivity, and the free fall into the depression was also an uncontrollable extraordinary period.  But there were six clear near perfect Juglar cycle fits in the first model and eight in the 1996 extension.  Moreover, the upside annual error total and downside annual error totals in each Juglar cycle not only offset in each Juglar cycle, they were linearly decreasing from the twenties to the eighties, then leveling off since 1982.  Thus the inventory cycle of recessions about every three years was slowly being wrung out of the economy.  The volatility of the twenties was reduced 80% by the eighties, and sure enough, recessions have been about every nine years since then:  1982, 1991, 2000, 2009.  Thom Hartman has the next one 2016 but it looks more like 2018 fits the current sequence.  Means Hillary could get elected but end up a one termer.

Here is the sixty year model of the Reuschlein theory of military spending and economics:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison,Wisconsin

MESSAGE: 608-230-6640


First They Ignore You, Then

Mahatma Gandhi

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”  This is an arguable Gandhi quote that nevertheless makes sense, and has ended up on a lot of t-shirts.  It also makes sense to explain my campaign of ideas to validate a paradigm shift in peace studies, I’m using it as the basis of this release.

Two Years Ago

On December 5, 2013 I began a two year long weekly press release campaign that included the Peace and Justice list-serve.  That first press release was “Crime and the Military”, the first statistical connection to the social decay component of empires in decline.  I immediately got both accolades and resistance.  The accolades seemed to come mostly from the masses, while the resistance came mostly from the leadership.  That first December, I received this friendly quote from a well know person just after “Football and the Military”, “I have enjoyed some of your latest posts to this listserv.”  But on January 9, 2014, I received very intense interest in my chart comparing Peace Economics and Peace Studies, but ran into controversy with these remarks:

“The problem I have with mainstream peace and conflict resolutions programs is the almost exclusive emphasis, when it comes to war or peace, on mediation and peace making.  The problem with that is that it assumes an approach of damage control after the fact of a conflict.  I would prefer to prevent conflicts in the first place.  Most of those in peace studies would agree with me, let’s prevent conflict in the first place.

“I welcome the structural violence debate, but I worry about other means of preventing conflicts.  Many people assume that we must ‘be the peace we want to see’.  Modeling is a good thing.  But we already have many models in the world worth following.  And we still have wars.

“I come from the position that we will always have wars if we perpetuate the institutions of war.  The military industrial complex has great creativity in finding ways to justify its existence.  Leaders have all the incentive to go to war and perhaps become a great leader in the minds of followers for generations to come.”

First They Ignore You

Then someone left  off the word “almost” and wrote:  “I must be encountering a different field of peace studies, because I’ve never seen ‘exclusive emphasis, when it comes to war or peace, on mediation and peace making’ (Bob)” and yet goes on to conclude:

“The public face of peace studies often skews toward conflict mediation and alternatives to violence — both incredibly important fields of work, to be sure — but I’m surprised anyone intimately involved in the peace studies field thinks those are the sum total of what’s going on. Even the messages on this mailing list should clue you in to more than that.”

That accusation of being clueless when the accuser obviously didn’t understand my whole email, lead to my overreaction and then another person reacting with:

“Bob, I’m sorry but I’ve been putting up with your arrogant self promotion on this list without complaining for years. But this level of abuse is simply not acceptable.  You may believe you have proved various things but you know ?  Others are not convinced. And hurling insults at them is neither intellectually nor socially appropriate.  So my personal opinion is that if you cannot manage to engage in ways that are minimally civil and in keeping with academic norms you should cease participating on this list.”

Clearly both critics were ignoring me and oversimplifying everything I said and attacking me with “straw man” arguments.  But an organization that claims to want new ideas then has a board member try to kick me off the list seems inconsistent.  And how long has this second person been gunnysacking?  Is it arrogant to have ideas and believe in them strongly?  Then I plead guilty.  Is it self promotion to try to overcome the “ignoring” by sharing those ideas while giving people some idea of who you are?  Guilty again.

Another supporter said after my angry outburst “The problems is, as you well know, peace educating is an underdog’s journey.  No matter how many facts you present or how rational your arguments are, you will not get a lot of support or agreement on anything.  That’s because most people are petrified of controversy and don’t want any part of it.”

Or as Thomas Kuhn explains in his “Structure of Scientific Revolution”:

“In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.  As a result, early fact-gathering is a far more nearly random activity than the one that subsequent scientific development makes familiar.” (Kuhn, 1962, 1972)

Then They Laugh At You, Then They Fight You

In some versions, this is, “then they ridicule you.”

My main critic then has an ally to try to talk me down with:

“When you put on your own site, ‘Copernicus put the sun at the center, instead of the earth, and science advanced. Reuschlein puts military spending and temperature at the center and economics advances.’ It gives the impression you think your work is comparable to his.  That in hundreds of years people will put your work on his level.”

Excuse me, but when the odds of all four of my major economic proofs (against military spending) being wrong is one chance in 100 million, I think it is time to think paradigm shift. The cute Copernicus quote comes after a list of 13 statistical correlations averaging .97 with 8 over .99. Copernicus was not even recognized in life, but only after death, and yes I think I’ll be known one hundred years from now, I’m not claiming five hundred, you are.

Then You Win

My tracking statistics suggest over 10,000 viewings of my press releases on the Peace and Justice list-serve, with another 1000 that read the additional reading link at the bottom of each release on  That suggests my average, of 100 press releases, has 100 readings and 10 who continue reading with a related paper on academia.  Then there are 50,000 viewings on

Some other quotes from peace professors:

“I appreciate being on your list and enjoy your questions and how you think things through.
I have been in the field of conflict resolution since the mid 80s and have had the good fortune to have been taught or worked with some creative, intelligent and thought provoking innovators.  Your writing reminds me of my time with Ken Boulding who introduced me to the economics of peace and conflict in a blindingly energetic class back in 85.” 1-9-14

“I say this to point out you have allies in PJSA who would agree with you completely.”  1-9-14

“Terrific piece, Bob.” 9-1-14

“Your content is probably great, Bob.” 11-30-14

“I hear your frustration. I know that organizations can become insular and exclusive.” 8-31-15

“Thank You” 10-10-15

Here is a key points summary of the Reuschlein theory of empire & global warming:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison,Wisconsin

MESSAGE: 608-230-6640

Peace Economics, Only Way


For many many years I believed the Keynesian story that military spending increases would stimulate the economy.  Then I happened upon the work of Ruth Leger Sivard that seemed to conclusively indicate just the opposite.  She used a bar chart of twenty years worth of data comparing military spending as a percent of a nation’s economy and the average annual manufacturing productivity growth rate.  She included the seven largest Western economies in the world and the two largest Scandinavian economies.  Except for Canada, they clearly showed that as a nation’s military spending increased, its productivity growth rate decreased with a correlation of -0.98.  When the European and North American countries were combined by weighted average of their economies, with Japan as the third point and two degrees of freedom, the correlation improved to the near perfect -0.997.  This finding lead to a long journey.  I looked everywhere I could for ways to test, prove, and verify the finding.  My statistics experience at that time was from two courses, Statistics for Engineers, and Business Production.

The Challenge

My scientific world view at the time, 1985, largely consisted of six semesters of college physics, so I was used to having precision mean proof.  But I had a long walk with a friend who insisted repeatedly that in the social sciences, a correlated of 99% usually meant autocorrelation or some other mistake in the calculation.  The discussion got heated several times as this seemed absurd to me.  So I began testing my finding as many ways as I could think of.  Most important, in my mind, was triangulation type techniques.  Since the original finding was based on “latitude” as I saw it, cross comparing several countries and continents over the same time period, I sought to test the results over a long period of time by annual statistics for one country, the United States.  The economic growth rate seemed to have distortions in it, so I turned to the original measure, manufacturing productivity, to fine tune the model.  One of my first tests was to add back the missing military spending to the economic growth rate.  I did this for Germany and World economic statistics as well.  I quickly noticed a bulge in the fifties that dropped off before and after that, so I realized the Kondratiev Wave was an important component.  I used multiyear averaging’s to determined the high and low points of the K Wave.  World War II established the deficit as the other “big three” major factor.  The huge numbers like 33% of the economy in deficit and 37% of the economy in military spending meant they had to offset each other or no model could possibly make sense.  When I began making my sixty year “longitudinal” US model, I noticed a lot of variance between the model and actual data on a year by year basis.  But amazingly these differences averaged out over time and tended to perfect out every eight nine or ten years.  The Encyclopedia Britannica explained to me that what I had found were Juglar cycles.  These Juglar cycles correlated 0.999 for the model period.  I broke nine countries into decades of growth and compared them over time, and sure enough, the general patterns fit the military economic story well.  Next I looked at the logic of the problem that economic power tended to predict four war outcomes in the world wars.  But if military spending significantly reduces the economic power of a country over time, a much lower level of military spending than current levels would be necessary to keep a nation strong over the long run.  So I created modeling for that circumstance.  All of this primary work was done in a one year time period creating my first two works, a long manuscript and then a book.  The manuscript inspired one county commissioner friend of mine to offer to submit it to the Pulitzer Committee.  The book inspired another county commissioner friend of mine to say that my proof was extensive and tedious, but quite convincing.  Soon paperback versions of the book were being sent all over the world by people buying the first copies on Hiroshima Day 1986.

Modern Confirmations

Several confirmations have shown over time that the theory has endurance.  In 1987 an analysis of the Reagan military buildup showed a strong 0.975 correlation of seventeen regions in the United States following the military changes with pro rata economic changes.  Later in the early nineties military build down showed a strong 0.97 correlation for twelve regions in unemployment rate changes.  In the late nineties, the model was extended thirteen years and shown to still be very accurate.  By 2010 I dared to model World War Two, fearing an exception to my findings, and instead found another 0.97 correlation confirming the base theory.

Four Major Proofs

Military Spending Economics

R=-.997 Manufacturing Productivity (G7+2) (1960-1978, Sivard Reuschlein)

R=-.993 Capital Investment (NATO 4+1) (1960-1979, Sivard Reuschlein)

R=.999 Productivity 3+2 factor US Model (1920-1996, Reuschlein)

R=-.97 Economic Growth vs. Net Burden (1941-1948 WWII, Reuschlein)

Evidence Military Hurts and Deficit Helps Economy

  • The four proofs on the prior slide show:
  • That by R the odds are 1 billion to 1 that military spending hurts the economy
  • That by R2 the odds are 100 million to 1 that military spending hurts the economy
  • That by the R=.999 model, and WWII, only deficit spending can offset the negative impact of military spending in short run.

Military Economics

The case in favor of military spending stimulating the economy is all in the deficit stimulating the economy.  When military spending is paid for with taxes, the economy always tanks.  The case for military research stimulating the economy automatically recognizes that the other 90% of military spending is consumption not production to the rest of the economy.  And “too military specific” and “secrecy” reducing civilian benefits of military research to one third its value or less compared to civilian research.

Historians like Arnold Toynbee have repeatedly found military spending as a prime cause in the collapse of empires. Together with the social and political decay that results from the economic decay, you have a complete explanation for empire decay and the modern American situation.

Here is the empire story in 24 power point slides from my Hiroshima presentation:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison,Wisconsin

MESSAGE: 608-230-6640

Post Navigation