bobreuschlein

A topnotch WordPress.com site

How Many Are Going Wrong

What is holding back the widespread acceptance of my basic Peace Economics theories is that other people cling to notions in their respective fields that are just plain inadequate or wrong.  This is where winning the Nobel Peace Prize could make a scientific revolution difference, with a million dollars to help get the word out.  So this paper is devoted to some of the long list of groups or occupations that are handicapped by inadequate understandings held by their narrow fields of expertise.  My work started with economics but it rapidly grew into much broader interdisciplinary understandings because military spending and empire are at the heart of so many other issues.  What makes it possible for me to do this work is that I have a deep understanding of many important fields, nine listed on my resume, and that keeps me from getting stuck in the limitations of any one field.  I have politics for breadth, and engineering for depth, both words and numbers.  Then there is business and accounting for different ways of looking at the economy.  My war-gaming background helps me understand history and war.  Sports, religion, and art are not in my list of nine specialties, but I have extensive experience in each area and have woven those three into my work as well.  Forecasting expertise is another specialty strength not explicitly emphasized on my resume.

Economists

While economists work with numbers and charts, just as I do, they are very good only with microeconomics, business economics, supply and demand, not very good at macroeconomics as many will readily admit.  Forecasting is clearly a weakness.  The adherence to one of three schools, Monetarists, Keynesians, and Marxists (sorry Vienna I put you in the first group) resembles that of religion more than that of science.  Each school seeks to outmaneuver the others to support their particular belief system, using numbers, charts, and argument.  They are social scientists working in the area of partial truths rather than verities, so argument is left to resolve the ambiguities.  Peace Economics found some bedrock truths to build a model on and that model had solid accuracy because it was carefully built up (see 28 steps) on solid findings.  Peace Economics rises above the soft social science world of the other three economic theories into the hard physics accurate world of the Newtonian physics that dominates most of the engineering fields.

Politicians

Politicians are by nature generalists and word people, seldom any good at numbers like I am.  They are usually among the 90% of the population who are number-phobic.  They are fond of the phrase, “lies, darn lies, and statistics” because they are so used to abusing statistics to make an argument.  Political scientists are interested in getting votes and who gets the most votes, so they often live in a world of emotion rather than hard realities.  They live by the word and die by the word, numbers just confuse people they think.  They see the military spending going into prosperous communities but fail to see the reverse effect to productive industries, especially manufacturing, during those same military buildup years.  They see the power attached to military spending but fail to see the enormous toll of crime and corruption that goes with that same power in those same communities.

Historians

The biggest fallacy in the world of history is that history is biography.  Many college students get a history degree because there is no math requirement, hence many historians are number-phobic.  One local radio show historian showed his bigotry against numbers and me by calling me a numerologist.  This same person incorrectly cited Boeing stock going up after 9-11 when in fact it went down.  That’s because he didn’t know 80% of Boeing’s business was commercial aircraft, and unlike most other major defense contractors, like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, Boeing was not almost solely dependent on military spending.  Arnold Toynbee got it right that high military spending is a big factor in the demise of most all empires, but he and Paul Kennedy are the rare exceptions from the biography is destiny majority of historians.  Most historians tend to overlook or underplay the military spending role in the economy.  Many even think military spending leads to economic prosperity, while in reality military spending is taking resources from those that can’t stop military encroachment.  Perhaps they ignore the development economic literature that resource based economies seldom prosper in the long run.  Militarism can sometimes prosper in the short run, but backfires in the long run.  Science, imagination, and goods production are the real enduring sources of prosperity.

Religion

The religious believe that world peace can be attained one person at a time.  They believe we can change hearts and all will be well.  They fail to see that the military industrial complex can easily arouse the people into a war fever.  They fail to see that politicians know they need a good war to go down in the history books as a great leader.  They fail to see that politicians court the military when seeking power, as guns are seen as more reliable than prayers.  Stalin once famously said “How many divisions does the Pope have?”  Nonviolent movements succeed twice as often as violent ones do, but tell that to the people of Syria today.  Leaders with a conscience are malleable, but ruthless leaders are a much tougher nut to crack.

Environmentalists

The depletion of resources and soil can bring down an empire eventually.  But the islands of Japan have built prosperity with little in the way of resources, employing trade and low military spending after militarism didn’t work in World War II.  The world is in deep trouble due to excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from increasing use of fossil fuels worldwide.  But the science of the greenhouse effect is also subject to the laws of diminishing returns.  I attended one global warming class where students were to experiment to see the effects of different changes on a climate model.  They were instructed to go out one century to see the results.  One student went out two centuries and saw the temperature rise leveling off in the second century.  This accords with the science that shows that each doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will give a certain rise in temperature.  That means the response is not linear, but actually slows the increase over time with a linear input increase.  But when the IPPC has 205 specialties and does not include the 54 year cycle, they are left grasping for straws to explain the fifteen year stall in global warming since 1998 until the last two years.  Because differential evaporation rates occur over land and water, the land heats up three times as fast as the ocean for 27 years before the ocean starts bringing the land back into balance over another 27 years creating the great land ocean cycle on Earth.  At the peak relative temperature, first a decade of  droughts happens before the peak, then a decade of floods just after the peak.  The environmentalists are either geographers or meteorologists.  One thinks in terms of millions or thousands of years and the other thinks very short term like days, weeks, or a few years at most.  No one focuses on the work lifetime level of 54 years.  Even if they did, they would not see results repeat in one working lifetime for field studies.  Of the hundreds of academics studying the cycle, only I have sought to connect and explain the three cycles of temperature, economics, and wars.

Criminologists

Modern American criminologists are at a loss to explain the sudden drop of crime in the nineties.  That’s because they fail to see the crime is a function of militarism.  When the military spending share of the economy suddenly dropped at the end of the Cold War in 1991, it took several years for the crime to drop to the new low levels of the late nineties.  That’s because it took time for the people raising the next crop of children to lower the level of fear and anxiety and less young adults were being taught the skills of mortal combat.  Prison rates are considered a function of the number of people aged 18 to 30.  I expect the delay to be related to the 18 years of raising a child to adulthood or the phasing in of the lower military force impact on the twelve years from age 18-30 of crime likelihood.  The statistics look more like the early twenties aged military force level is key to the overall crime rate, as it gradually dropped from 1991 to about 1996, mainly that first five years after the military spending drop.  Detoxification takes time.  Once the drop was in place, the level stayed low in spite of the rise in military spending after 2001, although that rise was small compared to the Cold War levels.

Trade Treaties

Those looking at trade treaties to blame for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the developed world are usually overlooking an even stronger factor.  Sure there is the attraction of low wages in the developing world, but there is also the Military buildup withdrawal of resources (like research engineering and capital) from manufacturing.  That loss to the military adds vulnerability to trade deals by not upgrading manufacturing to higher quality levels, like the Germans do.

For the complete 24 page booklet enclosed in the Peace Economics video:

https://www.academia.edu/4108656/BOOKLET_for_Peace_Economics_11_charts_24p._2011

For definitive proof that Peace Economics is a new level of precision scientific discovery:

https://www.academia.edu/7632773/PROOF_of_Peace_Economics_11_pages_1986

A later update of this formula for another 13 years to 1996 showed the formula still accurate.

Twenty-first century tests show the basis principles continue to apply and predict.

I have two 2000 word peer reviewed listings coming out in the SAGE Encyclopedia of War in October 2016, one on “Military Keynesianism” and the other on “Political Economy of War”.

Dr. Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Nominated and vetted for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016,

To be announced October 7, in Oslo Norway.

Real Economy Institute,

Contact  bobreuschlein@gmail.com

Info www.realeconomy.com

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: