Economic Engineering Department

            There needs to be a technology-based degree to understand the physical world causes of economics.  This is mostly in the climate science, temperature change, and water cycle areas.  This is why I may refer to mainstream economists as flat earth economists.  Before the Copernican revolution, most people believed the Earth was flat.  Today, most conventional economists do not believe in Nicolai Kondratiev's 1926 five-decade cycle (54 years is the best fit of British government 1940s 700-year study of wheat prices and my own work on one thousand years of war cycle) or the Clement Juglar Investment Cycle of 1858 (7-11 years by Clement and 8-10 years in the Reuschlein model). 

Why Engineering?

            Electrical Engineering Control Theory and Math Department Differential Equations were two key courses in my own EE degree curriculum.  I looked at the Applied Math and Physics degree of 120 credits and concluded it was about the same as my Electrical Engineering degree except for twenty more credits of Electrical Engineering courses.  My six semesters of college physics are at the core of my Electrical Engineering degree.  But I was even more engrossed with math, tying for highest math contestant in the state of Wisconsin in high school.  I also soundly beat the most famous wargamer of the Vietnam War era and founder of Dungeons and Dragons, Gary Gygax, a close associate in the International Federation of Wargaming.  His son told me he talked about me all the time.  That wargaming experience and published articles helped me win my high school's math and science award over two future medical doctors.

Science Discoveries

            The laws of physics undergird the "Peace Economics" formulas I discovered in my 1986 book of the same name and later in the 1991 paper "Natural Global Warming".  The hard science physics makes a better frame of reference to understand macroeconomics than the social sciences, of which economics is a part.  One despondent dean of economics wondered out loud to me about macroeconomics "whatever that is."  They know they have a problem.

            First came the trade-off between choosing economically stagnant military power and manufacturing economic growth.  Power versus Growth.  It turns out that military spending can and does make for a base local economy just like manufacturing does, but it does not grow the economy.  To understand this, it is necessary to consider the weapons industry separate from the military "factory," as a supplier to the military "factory."  Manufacturing Productivity includes weapons manufacturing productivity, but once the product is delivered to the military it is like assembly line equipment in a manufacturing plant.  The various statistical measures and comparisons all show very limited "dual purpose" macroeconomic value of military research.  So military deadweight does not boost the economy the same way conventional manufacturing does.

            Second came the federal deficit as the only known uplift to cancel the military downside to economic growth.  This shows up in the 97% inverse correlation in the eight years 1941-1948 between economic growth rate and NET military spending (NET means military spending minus the deficit).

            Third comes the 54-year sinusoidal wave, common referred to as the Kondratiev Wave.  Turns out this comes out as an astronomical cycle driven by reconciling the energy balance between land and water on the planet's surface.  This took looking at a lot of temperature cycles in the various segments of the globe.  Because evaporation is what 73% of solar radiation does when the suns rays hit the land surface.  Yet 90% is the evaporation rate over ocean.  Those figures leave 10% warming over ocean and 27% over land.  The excess heat over land shows up in long term average high pressure systems in the land heavy wind belts over Russia and Canada, and long-term average low pressure systems over the oceans.  Land has this chimney effect, as the hot air rises over land, it draws in cool air from the oceans.

            Fourth comes connecting and explaining the correlation between heating and cooling and the economy.  Global warming slows economic growth while cooling boosts economic growth.  This shows up in a variety of ways and agriculture is not the key variable, but construction probably is.  The effect is direct as various industrial engineering studies show.  One industry found 37% lower productivity at 95 F. degrees, 18% lower at 85 F. and 4% lower at 74 F.  Maxwell Taylor found out in the 1890s that railroad track laying was most productive at 64 F. degrees.  I found out working as a surveyor that 90 F. degrees does make me feels sluggish and slow.  The boss's son thought I worked him too hard.

            Fifth comes the war cycle, which is a combination of economic cycle, climate cycle, and two- or three-year cold trend at the end of the 27-year cold trend.  War cycle has many social science reinforcing factors, such as a leader who wants a historical achievement for his/her legacy or has not lived through the last major war 54 years before, so he/she doesn't fully appreciate the danger.

Social Science Discovery

            The military rate murder rate high correlation, increasingly precise as you recognize the safety of the more mature 400-year-old societies (Britain, France, Virginia, New England) compared to the 150-year-old societies (US, Italy, Germany, Japan, Sweden).  Economic inequality is high and social mobility is low with high military spending.  Politics and health are also adversely impacted by high military.  Fascism was not tested directly, but militarism leans in the fascist direction on many factors.

Teaching Peace Economics

https://www.academia.edu/11786950/FRAMEWORK_For_Academic_Class_six_pages_2015

Please cite this work as follows:  Reuschlein, Robert. (2025, January 4), "Economic Engineering Dept." Madison, WI, Real Economy Institute.  Retrieved from:  https://www.expertclick.com/NewsRelease/Economic-Engineering-Dept,2025308494.aspx

Dr. Peace, Professor Robert Reuschlein, Real Economy Institute, Nobel Peace Prize nominee 2016-2025 with growing interest from the deciding Norwegians.  "Hard looks daily" per year went from 2 to 3 to 48 to 128 to 200 to 322 to 346 to 349 last year, this year's date, October 11^th, 2024 is the Nobel Peace Prize announcement time.  Events of the last three years particularly suggest I've reached a very high level of consideration by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.  Top five or higher.

Contact: bobreuschlein@gmail.com 

Info: www.realeconomy.com