I am writing this letter two days before the final Nobel Peace Prize decision on October 7, 2016.

The Robert Reuschlein peer reviewed entry called "Political Economy of War" comes out this month in the SAGE Encyclopedia of War. This letter draws extensively from that 2383 word entry and the complete writing is now on my academia.edu website with a link at the bottom of this open letter.  This is the latest attempt to bring thirty years of work, 24 years before my doctorate, increasing up to peer review standards.  My regional economic work runs throughout the entry with the basic stagnant economy point that military spending displaces manufacturing, regionally, state by state, and nationally.  Thus, one part of a country will benefit at the expense of another part of the country.  In addition, the country as a whole will lose output and growth.  Moreover, over the long run high military societies will fall behind low military societies, making the high military societies weak and the low military societies strong.  These findings are at the heart of my other more precision work as an engineer and accountant in 1986 before becoming an academic in 2009.  The precision findings that demand a "reduction of armies" for national survival are these two:

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

https://www.academia.edu/4475604/DEFENSE_STRATEGY_Chapter_Peace_Economics_7_p._1986

Election Implications

Politicians in general do not understand the trade issues.  American politicians in particular do not understand how some European countries can keep factories from moving overseas by controlling the capital flows.  Ignorance about military spending's role in the economy is equally simplistic and fails to understand that military spending reduces a nation's capital supply, the major cause of reducing manufacturing. Talk of an information economy detracts from the vital role manufacturing plays in successful economies.  The rise of the service sector is a hallmark of a declining empire as manufacturing disappears.  Trump's approach to trade is a lot like that of Herbert Hoover.  So independent economists estimate a lose of 3.5 million jobs with Trump, and largely because of Clinton's infrastructure and green jobs program independent economists predict her plan will net 10 million jobs.  Since mainstream economists do not understand the impact of military spending, they will have not included the military buildup loss of jobs under either Trump or Clinton.  That will be worse under Trump's large increase than Clinton's moderate increase, but both are set on increases, which will hurt.  Mainstream monetarist economists also may underestimate the tax increases or decreases each is asking for.  Hillary's tax on the rich may hurt the economy, while Trump's tax decrease may help the economy.  However, as of two weeks ago, Trump dropped the middle class tax cut in his plan, while Hillary does have a middle class tax cut.  Sales are more important to business than capital, so I give a slight edge to the Clinton approach.  However, the nine-year cycle may strike next year giving us a cyclic recession regardless of whom we elect.  2008-9 plus nine years is 2017-18, so look out for the Juglar cycle. Talk is of an investment bubble.  The possibility of a one-term presidency exists.

Benefits of Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Robert Reuschlein

The million-dollar prize and publicity would make it possible to introduce the world to a new way of thinking about military spending, the economy, and global warming.  With the staff to research new stock market strategies and national strategies to finally, force politicians to recognize the huge drawbacks to keeping military spending excessively high for long periods, especially in peacetime but also in wartime.  There is no safe level of military spending, like radiation, the lower the dose the better.  Haven't we learned from the Balkans, Syria, and the implosion of the Soviet Union?  My 140 press releases the last three years show a vast need for further research forever changing the way we look at our world.  Let the paradigm shifts begin.

SAGE Political Economy of War

This article starts with a discussion of the military industrial complex.  The second section shows how the founding figures of America feared a standing army.  Then the discussion explains what happened to America after the Second World War.  The third section goes into various impacts of military buildups worldwide over the last seventy years. The fourth section goes over the total military spending of the world and the several categories of military impacts in the United States total that are left out of the narrowly defined Defense Budget. The fifth section describes where the major military plants are located and how all elected Cold War presidents of the United States came from high military states.  How the system operates is also in this section.  The sixth section explains what happens regionally in a military buildup or builddown in America. The seventh section goes over the Obama drone war, the Bush Iraq War, and the Reagan Cold War buildups.  The last section is about summary conclusions followed by a bibliography.

This is one of two 2000 word peer reviewed listings coming out in the SAGE Encyclopedia of War in October 2016, one on "Military Keynesianism" and this one on "Political Economy of War".

https://www.academia.edu/28849523/SAGE_POLITICAL_ECONOMY_OF_WAR_2016