Overview

Peace Economics starts with the concept that military spending diverts manufacturing economic growth into a non-productive service of national defense of the same economic size.  That is confirmed by Ruth Sivard's bar charts and Reuschlein's 78-year model of manufacturing productivity in the United States.  Further study shows that military spending substitutes for manufacturing in regional economies based on states clustered around large cities.  This substitution effect lowers manufacturing employment while driving down overall economic growth and raising overall unemployment.  This substitution effect mimics local economic growth around the military spending and ignores the corresponding depletion of economic growth in manufacturing states.  All of this is shown in multiple tests of the basic concepts in several periods of substantial change in military spending, showing the effects to be well over 97% accurate in all manner of circumstances.  Hence military spending is inert manufacturing that gives little or none back to the economic growth of the economy.  The little is the possible 3% of normal 100% growth from research spin-offs.  To use a biological analogy, military spending is fat while manufacturing is protein.  Both come from the same research and capital pools vital to all national economic growth, fueled by a physical and technical abled blue-collar workforce.

Corruption of Military Spending

Peace Economics shows that high military spending mini-regions and states have crime and corruption of many kinds (crime, politics, health, mental health, economic inequality, lack of social mobility, etc.) proportional to the military spending.  Just as war leads to post traumatic stress syndrome, even planning for and preparing for war leads to demonization of the "other" and many related negative psychological effects.  The attitude is social poison, even if much is done to mitigate that attitude effect.

Historical Effects

Peace Economics shows that high military spending is a key component in the decline of empires and civilizations. Toynbee thought 23 of 26 civilizations he studied failed due to high military spending. Peace Economics shows in detail how many if not most of the United States national economic calamities have a significant military spending component in their unfolding. For example, the $70 billion military surge in Iraq under President Bush announced in December 2006 or January 2007, was actually implemented economically in the fiscal year 10-1-07 to 9-30-08 $60 billion above trend military budget. Those four economic quarters were exactly the four biggest drops in the economic growth rate over that time period including a few years before and since 2008. While the ten-fold increase in derivatives since the repeal of Glass-Steagall on 11-12-99 remains the main problem and cause, the run-away real estate prices in the post 9-11 military buildup and the trigger by the surge brought the problem to a head. The proof is that the major military buildup states were hit the hardest with real estate scams, yet the industrial states of the heartland suffered the auto industry collapse.

Social Effects

Peace Economics shows that high military spending is a key component in the social decay of empires and civilizations.  Alternative views that moral decay leads to decline ignore the direct links to economics that in turn leads to the various social decay forms such as crime, prisoners, diabetes, mental health, teen pregnancy, infant mortality, lifespan, drugs, gambling, economic inequality, and lack of social mobility, among many others.  High military Empire economies are flat, sideways oriented, control oriented, and stagnant.  Low military Emerging economies are forward looking, achievement oriented, and fast growing.  Occupations reflect these opposite styles, with lawyers, salesmen, and accountants to fight the petty battles of a stagnant economy, and engineers and scientists and entrepreneurs to lead the way in emerging societies.  Both economies have both styles in them, just more growth oriented win/win styles in the emerging societies, and more win/lose styles and red tape in the militarized stagnant societies.      

Political Effects

Peace Economics shows that high military spending is a key component in the economic power of politicians.  Half of the U.S. population is in the high military spending states and half is in the low military spending states.  The ratio is three to one, high states over low states.  This imbalance leads to about 80% of congressional leaders, cabinet members, presidents, and Supreme Court appointees coming from the high military states.  Fear based politics has grown in power over time in the modern empire society of America.  Trump has taken that to a new high in obviousness, showing the trend continues strong.

National Defense Effects

Peace Economics shows that high military spending is a key component in the long term decline of empires and civilizations.  So while high military spending may be necessary to fight or deter wars, economic strength is usually much more important to win wars.  Peace Economics shows that high military spending syphons off enough economic growth to endanger the national defense in a few decades time.  Hence being the most militarized nation may earn a nation temporary advantages at the expense of inevitable decline.  Holding to the world average percent of your economy devoted to military spending is a far shrewder long time strategy.  Lower levels of military spending reduce the temptation to get into foolish wars and actual allow the military to keep ahead by maintaining a world class economy that develops first and then spins off into the military instead of looking for military economic spin-offs that are reduced by secrecy and being too narrowly militarily useful only to keep the economy strong, which doesn't actually work.  Putting the economy ahead of the military let the United States develop the automobile and airplanes and industrial might first, making victory in World War II later possible.  High levels of military spending ever since have held America back to the point of being an ineffective power in several Asian Wars half way around the world, a far cry from defeating powerful Germany and Japan in the World War. 

War Cycle

The Peace Economics model uses a 54 year cycle later shown by Reuschlein to originate from an energy imbalance between the continents and the oceans created by evaporation differences over land and water.  Land heats up three times as fast as water.  The continents make the first move warming into a drought period, then when balance goes too far in one direction, the ocean fights back with rains and floods bring on the cooling period.  Heat slows down construction and other work such that the 27 year cooling period doubles growth rates in the economy over the 27 year heating period, historically.  Then the cooling period high growth leads to new powers emerging and challenging the hegemonic order, usually in the last strong cooling trend of about three years at the end of the cooling cycle.  There are explainable nuances in the thousand year's records of Rome (300 years), America (200 years), and modern Europe (500 years), but for the most part major wars follow the 54 year cycle closely.  This relative predictability makes possible significant reductions in military might in more peace-oriented times, militarizing only when necessary.

For additional information about Peace Economics accuracy:

https://www.academia.edu/4044456/SUMMARY_Military_DisEconomics_Accuracy13_1p_13

Please cite this work as follows:  Reuschlein, Robert. (2019, July 10), "What Does Peace Econ Show?" Madison, WI, Real Economy Institute.  Retrieved from: https://www.expertclick.com/NewsRelease/What-Does-Peace-Econ-Show?,2019182717.aspx

Dr. Peace, Professor Robert Reuschlein, Real Economy Institute, Nominated Vetted 2016 (2 Web Looks), Given Odds 2017 (3 Web Looks), Strongly Considered 2018 (48 Web Looks, one million words) for Nobel Peace Prize, a favorite in 2019 (double pace of last year 75 Web Looks in 9 months) for Nobel Peace Prize to be announced Friday October 4^th, 2019.

Contact: bobreuschlein@gmail.com,

Info: www.realeconomy.com