1
people have died from curable diseases
since this page started loading...
💀

Peace Dividend

Keywords

war-on-disease, 1-percent-treaty, medical-research, public-health, peace-dividend, decentralized-trials, dfda, dih, victory-bonds, health-economics, cost-benefit-analysis, clinical-trials, drug-development, regulatory-reform, military-spending, peace-economics, decentralized-governance, wishocracy, blockchain-governance, impact-investing

Here’s what 1% less murder money buys:

How 1% Less Violence Pays For Everything

An analysis of a decentralized framework for drug assessment shows pragmatic clinical trials can be 44.1x (95% CI: 39.4x-89.1x) more efficient. This explains where you steal the money to fund it.

A comparison chart illustrating the 44.1x efficiency gain of decentralized clinical trials compared to traditional methods, including the 39.4x to 89.1x confidence interval.

A comparison chart illustrating the 44.1x efficiency gain of decentralized clinical trials compared to traditional methods, including the 39.4x to 89.1x confidence interval.

Two ways you profit from building 1% fewer bombs:

The Captured Money: $27.2B/Year

Governments spend $2.69T yearly on things designed to make other things stop existing.

A visualization showing the redirection of 1 percent of the 2.69 trillion global defense spending into a 27.2 billion fund for decentralized drug assessment and incentive bonds.

A visualization showing the redirection of 1 percent of the 2.69 trillion global defense spending into a 27.2 billion fund for decentralized drug assessment and incentive bonds.

Redirect 1%:

$2.69T 0.01 = $27.2B

This $27.2B funds your decentralized framework for drug assessment (dFDA), VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds, and the whole system.

The Bonus Savings: $114B (95% CI: $90.1B-$141B)/Year

That’s what you capture. Here’s what you save.

A breakdown showing how a 1 percent reduction in the 11.4 trillion annual cost of war results in 114 billion in savings, categorized by avoided costs like infrastructure repair and refugee support.

A breakdown showing how a 1 percent reduction in the 11.4 trillion annual cost of war results in 114 billion in savings, categorized by avoided costs like infrastructure repair and refugee support.

Wars cost $11.4T (95% CI: $9.01T-$14.1T)/year. Build 1% fewer bombs, fight 1% fewer wars, save $114B (95% CI: $90.1B-$141B).

$11.4T (95% CI: $9.01T-$14.1T) 0.01 = $114B (95% CI: $90.1B-$141B)

Money no longer spent on:

  • Unblowing-up hospitals and bridges
  • Treating humans full of shrapnel
  • Housing refugees (people whose homes got exploded)
  • Trade disruptions (hard to ship stuff through war zones)

Here’s the breakdown:

Where the $114B (95% CI: $90.1B-$141B) Comes From

Based on Cost of War analysis:

What Wars Cost Total/Year 1% Less War Saves
Direct Costs $7.66T (95% CI: $6.14T-$9.40T) $76.6B (95% CI: $61.4B-$94B)
Military budgets

$2.72T

$27.2B

Destroying infrastructure

$1.88T (95% CI: $1.37T-$2.47T)

$18.8B (95% CI: $13.7B-$24.7B)

Human casualties

$2.45T (95% CI: $1.31T-$3.75T)

$24.5B (95% CI: $13.1B-$37.5B)

Trade disruption

$616B (95% CI: $450B-$812B)

$6.16B (95% CI: $4.50B-$8.12B)

Indirect Costs $3.70T (95% CI: $2.71T-$4.87T) $37B (95% CI: $27.1B-$48.7B)
Lost economic growth

$2.72T (95% CI: $1.90T-$3.80T)

$27.2B (95% CI: $19.9B-$35.8B)

Veteran healthcare

$200B (95% CI: $140B-$280B)

$2B (95% CI: $1.46B-$2.63B)

Refugee support

$150B (95% CI: $105B-$210B)

$1.50B (95% CI: $1.10B-$1.98B)

Environmental damage

$100B (95% CI: $70B-$140B)

$1B (95% CI: $732M-$1.32B)

PTSD and mental health

$232B (95% CI: $162B-$325B)

$2.32B (95% CI: $1.70B-$3.06B)

Lost human capital

$300B (95% CI: $210B-$420B)

$3B (95% CI: $2.20B-$3.95B)

Total $11.4T (95% CI: $9.01T-$14.1T) $114B (95% CI: $90.1B-$141B)

You capture $27.2B for pragmatic clinical trials.

A breakdown of the 114 billion in annual savings from a 1 percent reduction in war costs, illustrating the distribution across direct costs like military budgets and casualties, and indirect costs like lost economic growth.

A breakdown of the 114 billion in annual savings from a 1 percent reduction in war costs, illustrating the distribution across direct costs like military budgets and casualties, and indirect costs like lost economic growth.

You save $114B (95% CI: $90.1B-$141B) on not breaking stuff.

That’s $5.18 saved for every $1 redirected.

Plus cancer gets cured as a bonus.

The Formulas

A comparison showing the scale difference between the direct fiscal transfer (Captured Dividend) and the total projected economic impact (Societal Dividend).

A comparison showing the scale difference between the direct fiscal transfer (Captured Dividend) and the total projected economic impact (Societal Dividend).

The Captured Dividend (direct fiscal transfer):

\[ \begin{gathered} Funding_{treaty} \\ = Spending_{mil} \times Reduce_{treaty} \\ = \$2.72T \times 1\% \\ = \$27.2B \end{gathered} \]

The Societal Dividend (theoretical maximum benefit):

\[ \begin{gathered} Benefit_{peace,soc} \\ = Cost_{war,total} \times Reduce_{treaty} \\ = \$11.4T \times 1\% \\ = \$114B \\[0.5em] \text{where } Cost_{war,total} \\ = Cost_{war,direct} + Cost_{war,indirect} \\ = \$7.66T + \$3.7T \\ = \$11.4T \\[0.5em] \text{where } Cost_{war,direct} \\ = Loss_{life,conflict} + Damage_{infra,total} \\ + Disruption_{trade} + Spending_{mil} \\ = \$2.45T + \$1.88T + \$616B + \$2.72T \\ = \$7.66T \\[0.5em] \text{where } Loss_{life,conflict} \\ = Cost_{combat,human} + Cost_{state,human} \\ + Cost_{terror,human} \\ = \$2.34T + \$27B + \$83B \\ = \$2.45T \\[0.5em] \text{where } Cost_{combat,human} \\ = Deaths_{combat} \times VSL \\ = 234{,}000 \times \$10M \\ = \$2.34T \\[0.5em] \text{where } Cost_{state,human} \\ = Deaths_{state} \times VSL \\ = 2{,}700 \times \$10M \\ = \$27B \\[0.5em] \text{where } Cost_{terror,human} \\ = Deaths_{terror} \times VSL \\ = 8{,}300 \times \$10M \\ = \$83B \\[0.5em] \text{where } Damage_{infra,total} \\ = Damage_{comms} + Damage_{edu} + Damage_{energy} \\ + Damage_{health} + Damage_{transport} \\ + Damage_{water} \\ = \$298B + \$234B + \$422B + \$166B + \$487B + \$268B \\ = \$1.88T \\[0.5em] \text{where } Disruption_{trade} \\ = Disruption_{currency} + Disruption_{energy} \\ + Disruption_{shipping} + Disruption_{supply} \\ = \$57.4B + \$125B + \$247B + \$187B \\ = \$616B \\[0.5em] \text{where } Cost_{war,indirect} \\ = Damage_{env} + Loss_{growth,mil} \\ + Loss_{capital,conflict} + Cost_{psych} \\ + Cost_{refugee} + Cost_{vet} \\ = \$100B + \$2.72T + \$300B + \$232B + \$150B + \$200B \\ = \$3.7T \end{gathered} \]

Military vs Disease Research: The Opportunity

This chart shows the stark contrast between military spending and disease-specific research funding:

Peace Dividend Breakdown by Category

Where the economic benefits come from when we reduce conflict by just 1%:

Peace Dividend Composition

A donut chart illustrating the proportional contribution of various cost categories to the total peace dividend.

A donut chart illustrating the proportional contribution of various cost categories to the total peace dividend.

Relative contribution of different cost categories to the total peace dividend:

Captured vs. Societal Dividend

Sensitivity Analysis

A key principle of rigorous economic modeling is to test the assumptions. The Monte Carlo simulation varies all input parameters simultaneously according to their uncertainty distributions.

Tornado Chart: Key Drivers of Uncertainty

Which input parameters have the largest impact on the peace dividend estimate:

Monte Carlo Distribution

The Monte Carlo simulation (10,000 iterations) propagates uncertainty through all input parameters:

Monte Carlo Distribution: Annual Peace Dividend from 1% Reduction in Total War Costs (10,000 simulations)

Monte Carlo Distribution: Annual Peace Dividend from 1% Reduction in Total War Costs (10,000 simulations)

Simulation Results Summary: Annual Peace Dividend from 1% Reduction in Total War Costs

Statistic Value
Baseline (deterministic) $114B
Mean (expected value) $113B
Median (50th percentile) $112B
Standard Deviation $15.1B
90% Confidence Interval [$90.1B, $141B]

The histogram shows the distribution of Annual Peace Dividend from 1% Reduction in Total War Costs across 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. The CDF (right) shows the probability of the outcome exceeding any given value, which is useful for risk assessment.

Probability of Exceeding Thresholds

The probability that the peace dividend will exceed any given value:

Probability of Exceeding Threshold: Annual Peace Dividend from 1% Reduction in Total War Costs

Probability of Exceeding Threshold: Annual Peace Dividend from 1% Reduction in Total War Costs

This exceedance probability chart shows the likelihood that Annual Peace Dividend from 1% Reduction in Total War Costs will exceed any given threshold. Higher curves indicate more favorable outcomes with greater certainty.

Conflict Elasticity Parameter

The elasticity parameter (ε = 1:1 (95% CI: 0.25:1-1.5:1)) captures how much conflict costs decrease per 1% spending cut:

Probability Distribution: Peace Dividend Conflict Elasticity

Probability Distribution: Peace Dividend Conflict Elasticity

This chart shows the assumed probability distribution for this parameter. The shaded region represents the 95% confidence interval where we expect the true value to fall.

  • ε = 0.25: Weak linkage (only 25% of spending cuts translate to cost reductions)
  • ε = 0.5: Moderate linkage (conservative estimate)
  • ε = 1.0: Full proportionality (baseline assumption)
  • ε > 1.0: Shared enemy amplification (redirecting to disease creates unity)

Even under pessimistic elasticity assumptions (ε = 0.25), the Captured Dividend of $27.2B is guaranteed.

Key Findings

  1. Guaranteed Fiscal Transfer: $27.2B annually is direct budget reallocation. Guaranteed if treaty enacted.

A comparison of the projected economic impacts, ranging from the 27.2B guaranteed fiscal transfer to the 114B theoretical maximum societal dividend, alongside the projected 40 percent increase in global medical research funding.

A comparison of the projected economic impacts, ranging from the 27.2B guaranteed fiscal transfer to the 114B theoretical maximum societal dividend, alongside the projected 40 percent increase in global medical research funding.
  1. Theoretical Maximum: Under unit elasticity (ε = 1.0), total Societal Dividend reaches $114B (95% CI: $90.1B-$141B) annually (95% CI: $70B-$180B).

  2. Robust Floor: Even under pessimistic assumptions (ε = 0.25), total benefits remain above $48B annually.

  3. Clear Opportunity: The Captured Dividend alone would increase global medical research funding by ~40% over the current $67.5B (95% CI: $54B-$81B) baseline.

Assumptions and Limitations

GDP Multiplier Note

The Lost Economic Growth component ($2.7T annually) already captures the opportunity cost of military spending versus more productive alternatives. This implicitly includes fiscal multiplier differences (military ~0.6x vs healthcare ~4.3x). No additional multiplier adjustment is applied to avoid double-counting.

A comparison of fiscal multipliers illustrating the economic return of military spending (0.6x) versus healthcare spending (4.3x).

A comparison of fiscal multipliers illustrating the economic return of military spending (0.6x) versus healthcare spending (4.3x).

Causal Elasticity Assumption

A comparison between the theoretical 1:1 unit elasticity model and the complex real-world relationship between spending reductions and conflict costs.

A comparison between the theoretical 1:1 unit elasticity model and the complex real-world relationship between spending reductions and conflict costs.

The Societal Dividend assumes unit elasticity: 1% spending reduction produces proportional 1% reduction in all conflict costs. This is the theoretical maximum. In practice:

  • Military spending may have deterrence value
  • The relationship between spending and conflict outcomes is complex
  • Some indirect costs (e.g., PTSD treatment) have long time lags

Source Quality

Cost Category Source Confidence
Military Spending SIPRI (peer-reviewed) High
Infrastructure Damage Brown/Watson Costs of War Medium
Trade Disruption World Bank Medium
Lost Economic Growth SIPRI estimates Medium-Low
Psychological Impact PubMed meta-analysis Medium
Lost Human Capital Author estimates Low

What This Does NOT Claim

A conceptual boundary diagram illustrating the four key limitations of the Societal Dividend model, contrasting theoretical potential against real-world forecasts and immediate realization.

A conceptual boundary diagram illustrating the four key limitations of the Societal Dividend model, contrasting theoretical potential against real-world forecasts and immediate realization.
  1. Not a prediction: Societal Dividend is theoretical maximum, not forecast
  2. Not accounting for deterrence: Deterrence value not modeled
  3. Not claiming immediate realization: Indirect costs reduce over years
  4. Not claiming precision: Monte Carlo CIs reflect genuine uncertainty

Conservative Interpretation

Comparison of the Captured Dividend as a reliable 27.2B baseline for funding versus the Societal Dividend as potential upside.

Comparison of the Captured Dividend as a reliable 27.2B baseline for funding versus the Societal Dividend as potential upside.

For policy purposes, use the Captured Dividend ($27.2B) as the reliable baseline. This is funding directly allocable to medical research regardless of conflict dynamics. The Societal Dividend represents upside potential under favorable assumptions.