Military Empire and Climate Cycle Views

Archive for the month “April, 2016”

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:

For a one page summary of key statistical facts in the Reuschlein theories. 13

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: 608-230-6640,


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

For a short booklet on the effects of Peace Economics:

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: 608-230-6640,



Living History of the CIA

CIA and Personal History

It took a long time to discover the huge role the CIA plays in the story of the American empire. Though prohibited from operating domestically, the CIA has played a huge role in American domestic politics.  They try to mislead us about the worst of what they do domestically under the umbrella term “conspiracy theory.”  Fortunately, it doesn’t take a conspiracy theory to understand the basics, evidence is everywhere around us.  So I do not intend to rely much on such events in this posting, just tell my personal story.


A wargaming buddy of mine asked me to calculate the numbers of hours of daylight in the battle of Tapanaja, Russia.  This was in the Archangel Murmansk area and was fought between American troops and the Red army.  The battle was one year to the day after the World War ended, November 11, 1919.  So I did the math, there was only five hours of daylight that close to the arctic circle that close to winter solstice.  This meant little to me at the time, my first taste of the paranoia about communism.  Today it helps explain the Truman years better.

In the sixties I heard of the book and play “McBird,” a play on words suggesting Lyndon Johnson was a modern day “MacBeth” which happened to be the first Shakespeare I was to read in English class in high school.  I thought nothing of it at the time.

Young Adult

In 1976 I actually signed up to interview with the CIA.  But when the interview was transferred to a local restaurant, I freaked out about the spy implications and missed the interview.  I also tried to get a job with Booz Allen Hamilton and Rand Corporation, but they said come back later when you have some real world experience.  They seemed to miss the point that I was already a terrific board game general, Avalon Hill style, and had read dozens of books on world war two history.

Political Career Years

The 1980 election came and I was with a friend in social services, Republican, who was going to vote for Carter.  Suddenly she changed her mind the last weekend when the Iranian parliament was scrambling to make a last minute deal with Carter before the election.  Years later the October Surprise was confirmed by three books, including Carter official Gary Sick and the Iranian leader at the time.  Congressperson Lee Hamilton led the congressional whitewash for Iran Contra, this October surprise, and later the 9-11 commission.  As in the Church Committee of the seventies, they always find a CIA guy to lead the investigation and preserve the cover up.  The CIA is very good at making up various cover stories to distract and confuse the public.  This way they can usually keep a lid on the truth and make the truth look hard to believe.

In 1989 I went to Costa Rica and was picked up at the airport by the mother of Tony Avirgan, the journalist who had sued the CIA for bombing him in the Christic Institute case.  Years before a priest from the Christic Institute spoke in Eugene; I asked him about his case in the Miami Courts and he naively expected justice and fair play.  I knew better because I gave three workshops on Peace Economics in January 1990 at St. Thomas University on the North beltline of Miami.  The Peace Economy conference held there tried fifteen times to get a notice in the Miami Herald, but the press wouldn’t respond.  I knew also that the Peace Resource Handbook showed miniscule peace groups throughout the South.  Southern justice loves militarism.  Sure enough, the Christic Institute was fined a million dollars by the judge preventing them from even presenting their case in court.  When the largest domestic CIA base is located on the University of Miami campus in the heart of the Cuban exile part of Florida, bias is a way of life.

In Costa Rica in 1989 I tried after the UN University for Peace initial conference to enter Nicaragua:  they refused me with harsh stares, because there was an upcoming election and they probably thought I was a spy.  While in San Juan I visited the Peace House there run by the Quakers.  Tony Avirgan’s mother was a member.  They told me that Oliver North and several other administration types were banned from Costa Rica because they would be arrested if they came there.  About 15 congressmen were putting pressure on Costa Rica to drop this policy, but they would not.  I looked at all the state owned facilities; oil comes to mind, and compared what I saw in Costa Rica with what I had read about Nicaragua, the two countries seemed more similar than different.  Nicaraguan Sandinistas had elections, left the 65% of the economy in small business alone, yet it had been branded “Communist” while Costa Rica was considered a democracy.  The distinction seemed quite arbitrary.  A socialist friend of mine visited the East Bloc and Cuba in the eighties and reported that Eastern Europeans felt oppressed by their government, while Cubans were proud of their government and happy under it.

Madison Years after 1993

A friend of mine was very perturbed about being chosen to be drugged without his consent in the MK Ultra program.  Another friend had me watch a trial of a CIA person.  He was being defended by a lawyer and judged by a judge who seemed oblivious to the fact that his story seemed ridiculous by convention standards but made sense by CIA standards.  I was appalled about the injustice of his treatment by naïve legally trained people.

Gary Webb came to Madison on his book tour after his “Dark Alliance” series in the San Jose Mercury News.  I asked why the press was so hard on him, and he responded that the CIA had a program called Operation Mockingbird to co-opt the press.  He further stated that the Church Committee of the seventies had documented 400 press connections to the CIA.  I later read several excellent online resources about this program.

Later on 7-24-01, two months before 9-11, I was watching Ted Koppel on nightline give deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz a hard time over a pentagon list of ten threats facing the US.  Wolfowitz and the administration were fixated on the least likely nuclear missile attacks on the list, not the most likely terrorism at the top of the list, with cyber attacks in the middle.  I got the transcript from ABC and with a lot of help from the Defense Monitor, I finally determined the list was classified, not available to the public, like me.  But Ted Koppel was former Naval Intelligence (like Bob Woodward of the Washington Post) and had security clearance.  He was able to get a great story out there, but I could not get the same information.  That’s the edge former intelligence people have over others when they become news-people.  That’s why they rise to the top of the business.

When I became a leading member of Madison’s anti-war group, I actively cross listed numerous articles by national and local peace list-serves.  It was quite an education, as my favorite pieces were about the lobby groups driving the whole war process, JINSA, CSP, and especially PNAC, Project for a New American Century.  All the big political names were in these groups.

For more on the evolution of empire in our times:

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: 608-230-6640,


History US Military Economy

ROOSEVELT’s New Deal, 1933-1945

New Deal deficits create strong economic growth: correlation .73 from 1934 through 1939. New Deal Provides Five Times War Growth: Total growth from 1933 to 1941 was 86%. Total growth from 1942 to 1947 was 17%. Unemployment change followed deficit change R=.74.  Note that unemployment decreased at a steady rate from 1934-1941 except for one year.  That one year, 1938, the increase set back the recovery by about three years.  Without that setback the economy would have recovered in1940. That setback was actually a two year process, when Roosevelt attempted to balance the budget. This created the mistaken impression that World War II caused the ending of the Great Depression.  This delayed recovery caused the end of the Great Depression to be postponed until 1943 instead.  The biggest economic drop years in the last 100 years cover the multiyear 1930-33 trade war of the Great Depression and the 2 post world war three year stagnation periods 1919-21 and 1945-47.  Reality follows with a simple model based on Military Lowering & Deficit Raising Economic Growth Rate: Best Fit occurs from 1941-1948, with Correlation of  -0.97.  Key statistic is the Net Military Burden (Military minus Deficit) Increases from 1941 to 1946 steadily lowering the growth rate from positive 15.9% to negative 11.9%.  1946-1948 both trends reverse as the lowest military (3.7% of the economy) of the entire Cold War in 1948 creates enough growth to re-elect President Truman.

WILSON and the Twenties (1913-1926)

Note the 1914 US economic slump as the World War begins.  Not unlike the Swedish slump in WWII. Both are cases of a neutral country losing trade with some of the warring parties.  Note how the war boom is more than cancelled by the three year postwar slump.  Note how the postwar slump translates into Wilson’s League of Nations confirmation problem. Note how the roaring twenties only roared for five years (1922-26), after the Spindeltop Texas oil surge and automobile sales covered the easy top 20% of Americans, then stalled. Although the stock market crashed October 28, 1929, the economic growth drops of the Great Depression did not start until June 1930 when the Smoot Hawley tariff bill was signed into law.

HOOVER Election and the Great Depression (1927-1933)

Hoover was elected in the 1927-1928 two year no growth economy.  The Smoot-Hawley special session of Congress starting in September 1929 lead to the stock market crash four days after the bill was finalized by the committee. Economy continued strong until the June 11, 1930 signing of bill.  1000 economists signed a petition to Hoover to not sign the bill predicting it would lead to a trade war with Europe.  Trade was 7% of the economy in 1929.  After the signing of the bill, trade dropped to 2% of a then 30% lower economy in 1933.  Hoover attempts to balance the budget doubled the rate of collapse in 1932.  Economy bottomed in1933 due to lost trade from bill at an unemployment rate of 25%.


Notice that the economy grows about 10% per year 1934-1943 except for 1937-38.  The 1938 recession was due to trying to balance the budget running for reelection in 1936.  The new social security tax and jobs program cuts shrunk economic growth 5% and increased unemployment from 14% in 1937 to 19% in 1938.  Without this blunder, full employment would have been by 1940 not 43.  Unemployment was dropping about 3% per year with New Deal jobs program spending.  We would have been spared the myth the war ended the depression.  Note the high net military burden devastates the growth rate in the 1944-47 period.


With the tariff bill crashing the world economy in depression, the GATT restarts world trade January 1, 1948 and combined with lowest military of the Cold War to produce the first growth after the war in 1948, just in time to re-elect Truman after three years of negative growth.


Ike doubles Truman’s 5% military to 10% military budget percent of the economy after Korea leading to the worst decade of the Cold War in lost share of world GNP by the US.


Kennedy increases the deficit with an investment tax credit which steals all the credit from the lower military also creating the sixties boom.


Johnson’s war stalls the economy with flat productivity in 1967 and slowing growth in 1969-1970.


The burst of growth in 1972 comes as Nixon signs a 20% social security increase into law. But Watergate, end of war, and oil crisis trigger two year slump in 1974-75.  The recovery comes to late in 1976 to save Ford. This preserves the record of low military states losing all Cold War elections as the man from high military Georgia wins.


Carter’s does the responsible raising taxes in 1978.  Economy slows in 1979-80 further due to oil crisis and military buildup.


The biggest peacetime increase in military spending of the Cold War hires jobs away from productive industries, creating the 1982 recession and 10.8% unemployment. The three year phased in tax cuts were twice as large as the military increase, giving a net stimulus to the economy by re-election year 1984 as the high military half of the country grows at triple the rate of the low military half of the country.  This military states real estate bubble bursts in the Savings and Loan crisis at the end of the decade.


The 1990 tax increase and the three year post Cold War slump combine to defeat him in 1992. The Gulf war is not enough to stop the tide of the massive end of Cold War military cuts.  These released military resources later create a great manufacturing boom in the nineties under the next president.


The 1993 military cut combines with Bush 41 Cold War peace dividend and the fastest changing part of the long cycle boom period to give prosperity and a balanced budget.  Despite 1993 trade treaties manufacturing jobs and incomes rise as 23 million jobs are added to the economy.  Trade losses are not enough to offset the manufacturing injection from the end of the Cold War military economy.  Military spending economy drops from 6.5% in 1986 to 2.9% by 1999, adding 3.6% of GDP to capital investment in the real economy each year.  The normal 54 year cycle takes the form of the internet economy, which is so strong that while balanced budgets slow the stock market, the economy continues for a while longer before the mild military buildup at the end of the Clinton years creates a stall that is amplified by the post 9-11 two year military buildup.


2.8 million factory jobs are lost in the two year military buildup after 9-11-01, 1 million from trade and 1.7 million from the military buildup. Iraq surge helps trigger the collapse of the house of cards mortgage fall in 2007 set up by runaway real estate in military buildup states in the early war years.  This is very similar to what happened in the eighties Reagan military buildup followed by the Savings and Loan bust.  Once again the bi-coastal military and the monetary drain the real economy of the industrial Midwest where job losses were triple those of the military half of the nation.  Military spending surged from $280 billion before 9-11 to $405 billion including homeland security increase after 9-11.


The first Democrat since World War II to NOT cut military in his first year in office, adding to the sluggish economic recovery.  Bad advice came from hawk economist Larry Summers.  Obama should have listened to Biden or Clinton’s Nobel Laureate Economist Joseph Stiglitz.  Tripling troop levels in Afghanistan was not good for the economic recovery, although Larry Summers’ military Keynesianism would predict that military jobs would be good for the economy.

For more on the Depression War Roosevelt Period:

For more on the 100 year military economy US history: 1910-2009

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: 608-230-6640,


Scientific Revolution Type

Trans-Disciplinary Revolution

The very expression “thinking outside the box” suggests that people get caught up in narrow minded boxes and can’t see outside their disciplinary frameworks.  I was recently accused of “methodological ambiguity” by someone who clearly doesn’t understand engineering.  Engineering and construction use whatever methods work in a variety of juxtapositions to put together a useful whole.  It is not surprising that those of the social sciences would interpret this process as methodological ambiguity, having little familiarity with the engineering sciences.  Bringing a combination of hard sciences and social sciences from nine basic fields of study allows one to see beyond the narrowness of specialties to the broader truths around them.  My nine fields are math, wargaming, science, engineering, accounting, business, politics, peace economics, and global warming.  Only this way leads to true paradigm shifts as certain frames test better than others.  Point number 7 in the next list is crucial to understanding this point.

10 Scientific Revolution Facts

This is mainly a book review by Robert Reuschlein of:

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (1962, 1972)

#1.   Kuhn defines a scientific revolution as a paradigm shift in a scientific field.

#2.   Paradigm shifts change the worldview in a field of science. (Kuhn)

#3.   Kuhn is a historian of science and works primarily in the physical sciences.

#4.   Kuhn says a new theory “requires the reconstruction of prior theory and re-evaluation of prior fact, an intrinsically revolutionary process that is seldom completed by a single” person “and never overnight.”

#5.   “History suggests that the road to a firm research consensus is very arduous.” (Kuhn)

#6.   “it remains an open question what parts of social science have yet acquired such paradigms at all.” (Kuhn)

#7.   “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)

#8   “Therefore, at times of revolution, when the normal-scientific tradition changes, the scientists perception of his environment must be re-educated – in some familiar situations he” or she “must learn to see a new gestalt.” (Kuhn)

#9   “schools guided by different paradigms are always slightly at cross-purposes.” (Kuhn)

#10  “what a person sees depends both on what a person looks at and also upon what a person’s previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him or her to see.” (Kuhn)

10 Truths About Research

#1.  Military Research is often too military specific to give any civilian benefit to the economy.  New areas of research bring the greatest results, but much military research improves on existing ideas without creating anything truly new.

#2.  Military Research is often too top secret to benefit from normal academic testing in conferences.  Without the widespread dissemination of ideas, serendipity cannot happen.

#3.  Much of mainstream research money goes to follow on research rather than truly original research.  Grants are awarded for research desired by the grantee, not necessarily for new innovations that have no obvious benefactor at first, but often change the world.

#4.  Most of the greatest innovations come from the little person not from major research institutions.  Like many others, Steve Jobs started out in a garage.

#5.  Independent researchers are often looked down upon by the snobs in leading academic institutions.  Colleagues have recommended I present my ideas to various UW Madison forums, but with Madison the 9th ranked city in snobbery, it’s hard to get recognition as an independent researcher.

#6.  Large corporations can buy up inventions that they don’t want to compete with.  Such as the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” about California in the nineties.

#7.  Large corporations can use the legal system to bankrupt the small inventor.  This one was brought up as a major cause by a presenter on patent process information.

#8.  Large corporations can use government restrictions to block progress of the small inventor.  My personal experience in the small dry cleaner industry up against big oil shows that suspected cancer causing perclorethylene has 300 times tighter restrictions than known carcinogen in oil, benzene.

#9.  Large research institutions can ignore research too far outside the mainstream.  As a colleague of mine has said, 2% improvement makes you a great researcher, but 3% improvement means you are a nut job.

#10.  Peer reviewed research limitations can stop small inventors from following their best instincts.  Imagine if Jesus had to have approval of the Sanhedrin to preach:  that would have ended it right there.

Example of a paradigm shift:

Fall of empire, driven by diverting resources from productivity to the military, affects everything from politics to crime to health as social decay follows economic decay.

Facts documenting this paradigm shift:

13 key statistics and the one liner descriptions that sum them up on one page.

Here is the 11 page heart of the real model that is the “Proof of Peace Economics”:

Far from “cherry picking” this includes all 380 numbers in the 64 year US economic model.

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: 608-230-6640,


Post Navigation