MH17 and MH370 Data Generating Process, What is it?

August 14, 2014

Informally, the data generating process is the truth about the deck of cards and how they are dealt.  If we are rolling dice, it is the manner we roll them and whether they are weighted.  For complicated events in the wild, we don’t even know what the deck of cards is, how many, or how they are shuffled.  

More formally, the data generating process is the unknown model that actually generates the data we observe.  It is really the entire universe and beyond if there is one.  However, what we do in practice is invent models of the data generating process and then with our invented model we calculate probabilities.   We can then tune the model based on observed data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_generating_process

For MH17 and MH370 we don’t know how to calculate the probabilities because we don’t know what deck of cards to use.  What card deck has these events in them?  So we make them up.  We are guided, however, by experience in probability or in stochastic process modeling.

For MH17, shot down over Ukraine, we can start with some simple models.

Given the total number of airplanes passing over that area per day, what was the chance that:

  1. A civilian airliner would be shot down?
  2. Any plane would be shot down?
  3. 2 or more planes?
  4. A Boeing 777?
  5. A Malaysian airliner?
  6. A plane that matches the MH370 taking that as already having happened.

For MH370, we have to think about what the event is.

  1.  Is the event a plane disappearing?
  2.  Is it one disappearing so it can’t be found?  
  3. Is it a passenger jet that matches an airline flying over Ukraine?
  4. Is it a passenger jet that originates at a destination airport for a flight from Europe that flies over Ukraine?

Depending on how we define the event, changes the probability, given some model of probability that we have made up.  Even for Ukraine, we are defining the event by our list above.

So we have to invent what the event is. Then we have to invent a probability model that will generate events like that.  Then we need parameters.  Then we calculate the event probability.

For MH17 and MH370, we have to decide what the joint event is and what the joint model is, and then calculate the joint probability.  We can break that up by the following.

  1. Calculate the probability of one of them independently of the other.
  2. Calculate the probability of the other one conditional on the first.

We also have to decide if the event should include more of what is happening in the world.  Does it include that MH370 disappeared while Russia was already invading Crimea?  How long was it planned?  If it took a year to plan this, then we have to think about events that happened during that year.  Who would be planning such a thing for 2013 and start of 2014?  Who was on the move?  

Who was linked to high tech terrorist acts that turned out hard to trace? Who is painting pictures on our televisions from 2013 to now, in event after another?  Who is doing one Moscow Snowden airport show after another?  Who tricked the US to force down a diplomatic plane thinking Snowden was on it?  Who has airport and airplane events going from 2013 to now?

Who would have satellite experience to know what Inmarsat could do with the Doppler shift and a wobbly satellite?  Who had to do position and velocity calculations in the early days of space flight with tools of that sophistication?

If we frame it this way, we end up with Russia. But that is one way to frame it, ie to define the event space. Then we need a model that generates a sequence of events like that and including the one we actually have observed.

Who covered up MH17 crash site? Who had a conspiracy theory ready that linked MH370 and MH17 and framed the CIA and Diego Garcia?  What country or terrorist group acts like that?

If MH370 was a terrorist group acting independently, which group disappears a plane into deep ocean and doesn’t take any credit for it?  We have no idea who did it, if it was a terrorist group like Hamas.  

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

 


Putin and the FSB SVR GRU will interpret hesitation or compromise by West as produced by kompromat and bribery

August 11, 2014

Russia’s intelligence services, FSB, SVR, GRU, etc. work to produce and use kompromat and bribery.  Bribery comes through many means including Russian oligarchs like Vekselberg hiring former high level people like Josef Ackermann and others.  The Russian intel services have a vested interest to attribute anything that benefits Russia in terms of our leadership’s forbearance as due to their work and efforts over decades.  Since Putin is from the KGB, he will have that mindset as well.

In the 1990s, when Russia got IMF loans from Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers they attributed the loans to the kompromat they had on Fischer and to Paul Samuelson, uncle of Summers. Because of that they felt free to ignore the conditions of the IMF loans. They in fact, gave them out in loans for shares.  This is the origin of much oligarch wealth. Until the West prosecutes this and seeks the wealth as unjust enrichment, wealth in the West in oligarch names, Russia will consider anything they get from Western governments as due to their ongoing kompromat and bribery schemes.

The FBI, MI5, etc. are preventing the West from making a deal with Russia that Russia will keep by not investigating and building cases and bringing them.  Until that happens, the West can’t make a deal with Russia that Russia feels it is obligated to honor the terms of.  Thus the FBI and MI5 are not helping the West by holding the back, but making it impossible for the West to conduct meaningful negotiations with Russia.

The universities, investment banks, Moody’s, etc. that are involved are financially liable for this.  That includes Stanford, Harvard, MIT, University of Chicago, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, etc.  These universities and partners know that they are undermining the ability of the West to negotiate a deal with Russia that Russia will keep.

Stanford professor McFaul was treated with contempt by Russia as US ambassador to Russia because they were simultaneously using kompromat on Darrell Duffie of Moody’s and also Stanford was helping cover up the kompromat Russia used on Stanley Fischer.  Our very ambassador to Russia is a professor at Stanford, one of the institutions that Russia has compromised and that is spending its money to bribe and intimidate witnesses to keep quiet.  That includes the 100,000 SIEPR gave Stanley Fischer and a variety of benefits.

Russia feels it can ignore anything Obama says.  Obama is from University of Chicago. U of Chicago is involved back to the atomic bomb project.  Stanley Fischer got the start of his immigration applications at his job at University of Chicago when they knew he had plagiarized Nils Hakansson. They became co-conspirators in that in his publications based on his thesis while at University of Chicago. They tried to make his cite Hakansson and buffer the pain, but from a legal standpoint, they didn’t go far enough and were simply a co-conspirator. That then included intimidation of witnesses in FBI background checks for decades on those who were involved.  That went back in time in both physics and those involved in Cowles Foundation at U of Chicago including those getting jobs at RAND is likely.  It also included the Edward Corson background check where the universities concealed information. They were all co-conspirators on that was well as related cases involving the Max Born spy ring.

The universities need to be charged as legal entities in order to show the Russian intel services that their kompromat has been exposed.  Until that happens, the Russian intel services consider the FBI and MI5 to be neutralized by the compromised political leaders and institutions.  This includes the law schools through the law and economics links.  Judge Richard Posner and his son may know some of this along with John Yoo and others so that Russia considers the high end of the legal profession including DOJ and federal judges to be compromised. As long as they think that, and attribute it to their own efforts and long term conspiracies, they won’t feel obligated to follow any deal they make with Obama or the West.  In interpreting the complicity of DOJ and federal judges, Russia will assume the worst, since the intel agencies prepare the estimations and they will play up their own contribution.

So far, they have not been proven wrong by doing so. So they are emboldened to claim credit for compromising not just the economics profession and physics but through the law schools and law and economics nexus the legal profession as well. That especially includes the leadership of DOJ in recent administrations that they feel is linked.  This goes back to Jamie Gorelick, the Wall Memo and Harvard in the Clinton administration if not earlier.  Gorelick then became an overseer at Harvard while Summers was president. This and many other links Russia’s intel agencies interpret as corrupt and as showing their good work.  That is how they write it up and they have not been proven wrong.

The Russian intel agencies then interpret the FBI and MI5 keeping silent as because their political bosses have corrupted them.  Thus until some of these people and institutions are charged, Russia’s intel agencies will write up reports saying their kompromat efforts at the universities have neutralized FBI and MI5 through DOJ.  They will then prepare estimates to Putin telling him he can act anyway he wants in Ukraine or the rest of the former Soviet republics and get away with it. They will tell Putin he can ignore any terms just like Russia ignored terms of IMF loans in the 1990s when it used the same kompromat then.  That kompromat is still being covered up and the Russian itnel agencies interpret the FBI and MI5 as neutralized to act on it.

Russian intel agencies interpret US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay as showing that DOJ leadership is corrupt and that it hinders and restrains the FBI and career prosecutors from exposing the universities and the profs and high level government officials including presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama from being held accountable.  Until that starts to happen, the US can’t negotiate with Russia in a meaningful way, because Russia does not view itself as bound by any terms it agrees to. It views its kompromat and bribery efforts as being the consideration in the deal for what they get and so they don’t have to perform on the other terms of the deal.

This is why Russia feels comfortable not just in its Ukraine activities but in sponsoring terrorism and killings of Westerners or in Western countries. At this point, this may include one or more of the apparent suicides of Aaron Swartz, Berezovsky, Wauthier, the Boston bombing and the downing of MH17 and MH370.  It certainly includes the killing of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. That may seem old history now, but at that time, Russia had the same kompromat action going already for a long time.  The Shleifer case settled in 2005.  Putin referenced back to that in his Chubais comment after the 2013 Boston Bombing.  Putin’s rival Berezovsky used the kompromat on Stanley Fischer in the 1990s.  Putin made a sarcastic jab at Stanley Fischer in 2001 about finding him a job in Moscow while he was still at the IMF and visiting Russia. That was published in the Russian newspapers.  Russia and Putin remember that and note the inaction of the FBI on Stanley Fischer up through his confirmation.

The failure of the FBI to act, the Russian intel agencies attribute in their written reports to the corruption and interference of the political leaders.  Thus they see the FBI as neutralized by Obama and Holder and a politicized DOJ going back to at least Clinton.  They tell Putin in writing that this is the case. They tell Putin writing it means he can do what he wants and violate agreements like the INF treaty. Nothing proves them wrong.

It is possible that Israel formed the same conclusion and made a deal in 2013 with Russia to kill Berezovsky to get him out of the way so that Stanley Fischer could get a high level job at the Federal Reserve. This was meant to seal the deal for Gaza and Ukraine perhaps.  Presumably the Russian intel agencies in writing say this shows the complicity of Eric Holder and Obama in this and thus the go ahead for Russia to invade Ukraine if it wants or destabilize its economy.  Until the FBI and MI5 go public, Russia gets its way.  Or until some other country speaks up.

As long as the Russian intel agencies are telling Putin writing that FBI and MI5 are neutralized, they are telling Putin in writing that no other NATO country can do anything to stop him either. So Putin has a go ahead in writing from the Russian intel agencies to interfere with Ukraine’s economy and even invade.  Nothing proves them wrong.

So Putin can even kill more of our people as he did with MH17 and possibly MH370, Boston Bombing, Berezovsky killing, etc.  Certainly he got away with Alexander Litvinenko being killed. Even today, there is hesitation to pin this clearly on Russia and given their system, on Putin himself. Russian oligarchs prance around in England and own sports teams.  The Abramovich Berezovsky court case is seen as corruption, since their joint wealth came from the loans for shares that was a reward for the IMF loans attributed to kompromat on Stanley Fischer by Berezovsky and the Russian intel agencies in the 1990s.

The Russian intel agencies also attribute their actions in Iran and the West tolerating them as coming from the same basis of kompromat and bribery.   They view themselves as able to spread nuclear tech and know-how to Iran while the US is ineffective to stop it.  North Korea is another sore spot the US has let go.   Pakistan may have piggy backed on this to get its sanctions lifted and India may have to get its deal to buy nuclear ores despite its past acts as a nuclear violator.

Until the FBI and MI5 get someone charged for this, these countries in the nuclear club including China which have studies these matters will regard the US and UK political leaders as corrupt and neturalized. The money making activities of Clinton and Blair since leaving office and their willingness to take money from almost anyone or any country have contributed to that.  George HW Bush contributed that by taking a 100,000 dollar speaking fee in the 1990s to go to Moscow from an American investment bank (possibly Goldman Sachs).

By holding back, FBI and MI5 are not giving the West’s leaders the ability to negotiate, but instead are preventing the West ever getting out of the hole of being seen as unable to hold Russia or others such as China, India and Pakistan to terms.  Their holding back is not helping the West deal with Russia or other bad actors, but preventing the West from doing so.

The public doesn’t know this, so the public can’t fix it by electing new leaders not involved.  It has gone on since the Clinton administration. The electoral system can’t fix it. Only the FBI and MI5 can fix it by bringing charges and exposing it.  Until that happens, nothing changes and Russia and other nuclear club bad actors see themselves as able to ignore the US.  (Nuclear club members have long term insights into academic kompromat.  China was part of it in the 1940s.  Pakistan had Mizra Abdul Beg at Rockefeller University who likely knew of some of it.  India has known since the 1930s before it was independent.  North Korea may be trying to pick up on it.  Others as well.  Iran has picked up on the Duffie book posted by Russia and reposted it on their webpages.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS581US581&ion=1&espv=&ie=UTF-8&q=duffie%20dynamic%20asset%20pricing%20theory%20provisional%20manuscript%20site%3A.ir

They presumably read it from the other blog, copied the document and posted it at their university.  They are laughing at the FBI and MI5 for this to be posted on the Internet and nothing done about it for years.  Over time this turns into contempt and disdain for the FBI and MI5, DOJ and the entire machinery of the US and UK governments. That then carries over to the rest of the West. This information has been posted since 2006.

No wonder Russia feels safe to kill people in Western lands or Dutch on MH17.  The FBI and MI5 have known this for years.  The case US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay should have been a criminal investigation that exposed it.  Putin’s comments about Chubais after the Boston bombing were meant to mock the FBI and USAO Mass that handled that case. They were meant to mock DOJ and by implication to mock MI5.  David Cameron’s trip to the FBI HQ and Boston after the bombing may show some implicit realization of that but also reinforces that view by Russia. The Russian oligarchs in the UK does as well. Killing Alexander Litvinenko with state sponsored technical means also does.

Only the FBI and MI5 can stop this.  They have an obligation to.  The public can’t do it.  Elections can’t do it.  The people don’t know enough to fix it. So the cops have to.  Holding back doesn’t give the West a chance to negotiate it prevents it.  The Russian intel agencies have told Putin that in writing. That has gone on since Clinton and Blair. Until someone is charged in all this, the West lacks credibility in any deal it negotiates with Russia same as with the IMF loans.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


Poroshenko Hero of Donetsk and Defender of Ukraine can make a deal with Putin’s Russia

August 9, 2014

Poroshenko is about to become the Hero of Donetsk, 2014.  He is going to liberate the town of Donetsk and will become a conqueror and hero like Napoleon Bonaparte the Hero of Toulon, 1793, or the Duc d’Enghien the Hero of Rocroi, 1643.  What will Poroshenko do with his new found credibility as a Hero of History?  He will make a deal with Putin.

Whether the deal is prearranged or made under the stress of invasion or to avoid an invasion, Poroshenko now has the credibility to make a deal with Putin to avert a humanitarian crisis for both Russia and Ukraine.

By some accounts, Russia has over 700,000 refugees from Ukraine. Putin didn’t do all this to get refugees and sanctions.  So the stage is set for some sort of deal to resolve this. From Putin’s point of view the deal involves the following.

  1. Russia keeps Crimea.
  2. Some formula is found for Luhansk and Donetsk such as a boundary change, independence, autonomy, joining Russia, etc. Russia is actually better off without them because of the pension costs.
  3. A military union with Ukraine.  For Putin this should include Russian forces on the border of Poland.
  4. An economic union with Ukraine.  This covers energy assistance to Ukraine but also Russian access to Odessa, markets, etc.  It also involves Ukraine getting sanctions on Russia lifted.

What does Poroshenko want?

  1. Poroshenko wants to keep his status as a hero.  This might involve a short fight with Russia to show he only made a deal when he faced defeat in the face.
  2. Poroshenko wants to get Ukraine heating energy for winter.
  3. Ukraine has other financial difficulties it needs help on.  This can come from Russia or the West.

What does the West want?

  1. We don’t want Russian troops on the border of Poland.
  2. We don’t want Odessa taken from Ukraine.
  3. We don’t want the financial burden of Ukraine.
  4. We don’t Russia using Ukraine as a model to put together the former USSR in a new version as an economic and military union.

What is the West doing to get its objectives accomplished if it comes down to negotiating a deal to end the crisis?

  1. Sanctions.
  2. Covering up for Russia’s involvement in whatever bad acts the US government knows it is likely involved in.
  3. Not even stopping travel or visas from Russia or Central Asia?
  4. Not exposing Russia’s networks in the West?
  5. Acting like Putin has the edge on our leaders and institutions.

Likely outcome:

  1. Ukraine joins a military and trade union with Russia.
  2. Crimea is part of Russia.
  3. Parts of Ukraine may become part of Russia.
  4. The Russian military is on the border of Poland.
  5. Russia does repeat the Ukraine model with other former Soviet Republics to get them to join the new military and economic union.
  6. None of Russia’s networks or kompromat or oligarchs or bribery schemes in the West are exposed.
  7. Russia attributes its success to its kompromat and bribery networks not to Western power or moral force.
  8. Any agreements the Russians make to resolve the crisis they break just like the INF treaty.
  9. Terrorist incidents that have roots in Russia or Central Asia will continue to occur with Russia having plausible denial of being behind them.

 

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


If Putin abandons Donetsk and Luhansk what does it mean?

August 4, 2014

What does it mean if Putin chooses to let Ukraine’s army retake Donetsk and Luhansk without the Russian army intervening?  This appears a possibility and some people are already saying this is what is happening.   Some possible explanations.

  1. Putin saw he lacked the force to take or keep Ukraine. He decided it was better to take his loss and humiliation now rather than later.
  2. Western sanctions worked in convincing Putin he could not win.
  3. Phone calls from Western leaders had an impact and convinced Putin he could not succeed.
  4. Investigations of Russia’s spies and friends in the West started to accumulate and convinced Putin the West still had some integrity.
  5. Luhansk and Donetsk were just ploys to get acceptance of Crimea.
  6. Luhansk and Donetsk were options to see if Ukraine would collapse from a pin prick.
  7. Russia thought that Ukraine’s governing elite were so unpopular that the people would embrace Russia.
  8. Russia could have succeeded if it had invaded in the spring, but it frittered away its chance and lost its popularity in Ukraine.
  9. Putin never felt any obligation to his own men in Donetsk and Luhansk.  He used them callously, imposing costs on the people as well.
  10. Putin accepts the basic framework of the existing order, but he engages in petty crimes within it.  Taking Ukraine would be a major challenge, and he doesn’t go there. Stealing Crimea or shooting down an airplane, Boston Bombing, killing Berezovsky, pressuring professors and former academics are petty crimes he will engage in.
  11. Putin is purely opportunistic.  He works as much as possible in secret.  If he faces serious opposition he slinks away.  If not he keeps advancing.
  12. Putin may have something else he is working on that he thinks is more worthwhile.
  13. Putin may intend to come back later.
  14. Putin may try to get another leader in Ukraine more to his liking before acting.

If Putin does abandon Donetsk and Luhansk, it does not mean he has become safe to ignore. Russia will try to get some other success to make up for it.  Clandestine activity in and against Western countries may increase, perhaps after an initial pause to lie low and let us become distracted by the next headline, perhaps not.

Putin will find a way to be relevant and to remind us he is important.  Our paying attention to him matters to him. That is why he stages extended shows like Snowden in Moscow airport, mysterious deaths like Litvinenko and possibly others, disappearing or shot down planes, and Ukraine.  It is like a serial killer to some extent.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


Poroshenko has the credibility to surrender Ukraine to Putin

August 3, 2014

Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine, has built up credibility by fighting Russia.  He is putting pressure on Donetsk and has created a refugee crisis according to Russian media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Poroshenko

Poroshenko has an independent enough record.  He has fought the Russians. He is credible as a leader of Ukraine.

http://rt.com/news/177488-ukraine-lugansk-families-hurt/

Russia has its refugee crisis.  It can intervene in Ukraine.

Once Russia intervenes and there are some clashes with Ukraine’s military, Poroshenko can agree to surrender to Russia to avoid a costly war.

Ukraine will remain a republic but will join a Union of Former Soviet Republics UFSR.  Poroshenko can then help convince other presidents to join.

Ukraine’s military is integrated with Russia’s and its economy under the UFSR.  Russian troops are on the border of Poland once again.

Soon the whole USSR is back together against as the UFSR.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

 


Russia seems paralyzed so it is wise to think it is doing something in secret

August 2, 2014

Russia seems to have entered a period of paralysis after the downing of MH17.  They have done nothing to advance their cause in a major way that is evident from public information.  Perhaps if they caused MH17 they thought it would produce some benefit.  Perhaps to prepare their own people for war. Perhaps to frighten the West from imposing sanctions.  Perhaps it was aligned with Israel’s actions against Gaza.

If Putin is working on something in secret, what is it?

  1. He is working on another airplane spectacular.  In a way, Snowden in Moscow airport had an air travel motif.
  2. He is working on some other terrorist event somewhere.
  3. He is gaining some ally in secret.  Possibly Israel is an ally to Russia.  Maybe Russia is working on another country helping it.
  4. He is working on some harm to the United States.
  5. He has another covert Snowden type who is up to something.
  6. He is putting some pressure on Obama or Merkel or some other leader.
  7. He is waiting for Ukraine to run out of money to pay its energy bill to Russia.  Then he will demand concessions.
  8. He is waiting for Ukraine to overreach in some way and then strike back.
  9. He is working on some other false flag to pin on Ukraine or the United States or both.
  10. He is putting pressure on some individuals below a state level who can then change policy in the West.
  11. The same but to organizations below a state level. Organizations with interests in Russia or even in China.
  12. He is working to get China to do something.
  13. He is finding a country very dissatisfied with how things are for it that is willing to engage in some risky act, e.g. sponsor terrorism or a military adventure.
  14. He is working on developing an alternative world financing and economic policy network with the BRICs and others. He hopes to use that to stop sanctions.
  15. He is going to transfer some technology like nuclear or missile or the combination to some hostile state to the US.  He could help Pakistan put nuclear warheads on missiles on subs.  Then Pakistan could sell them.  Russia and Pakistan could share the money.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


Is Russia in a state of irrational ideas and leadership?

August 2, 2014

Russia’s leadership and not just Putin himself may be in a state which from our point of view is irrational.  In particular, Russia can’t afford Ukraine or the rest of the USSR.  Ukraine is at a lower financial level per person than Russia.  It would be a burden on Russia if it had it.  Russia can’t afford a conflict with the West.  Nor would it be better off.  Russia if it got back the entire USSR would be back to the prison of nations.  It can’t afford that and that is one reason that it collapsed.

However, Putin and others around him may see Ukraine as a threat to their leadership and control.  If Ukraine is converted by the European Union, EU, to a success then Russia will want to follow.  Ukraine goes deep into Russia. It is also intertwined with its economy.  So if Ukraine is converted to EU, Russia would have to follow for similar reasons to invading Ukraine being a bad idea financially.

Leaderships can acquire attitudes or ideas that are irrational to outside observers.  Hamas is pushing a war with Israel it can’t win.  If the Palestinians were at peace with Israel, they could get benefits and likely overwhelm them demographically over a century or two.  However, the Hamas leadership doesn’t benefit personally from that.  It doesn’t benefit in prestige and being important.

In the US, the New York City metro area can not stand more 3rd world immigrant dependents.  Yet, its Senators and Reps push that in immigration, amnesty, border crisis, etc.  Governor Chris Christie has told public employees that the pensions in New Jersey were vapor promises not backed up by reality. Yet New Jersey senators push more immigration.  New Jersey’s cities are unsafe for its productive citizens who bear its taxes.  Increasingly this is true for a larger part of New York City and of many cities close by such as Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, lower New Rochelle, etc.

The New York City metro area has high state income tax, sales tax and real estate taxes.  They can get away with this from the advantages of financial services.  There are network benefits to Manhattan in financial services. It also is getting favorable federal policies.  But over time, the burden of New York
City is leading companies and individuals to leave.  So the pension promises and other promises become unsustainable.

More immigrants from the 3rd world makes that worse. But the Senators and Reps push for that.  They see that as their empire in a sense.   It makes them important. It also harms their enemies or those they dislike.

Putin and his circle have similar motives. They want to be important. They want to defeat enemies like NATO, European Union, etc.  So they push a new Russian empire and see Ukraine as the key acquisition.

Timetable thinking takes over for Putin as it did in World War One and even in WW2 to some extent.  Putin sees himself having a window for the rest of Obama’s presidency to restore the Russian empire.  If he is going to invade Ukraine, his generals are telling him to do it in August or early September not wait until the mud comes in fall.  That is part of what held the Germans back at a critical stage.  So Putin is being told now or next year on Ukraine.  If it is next year, Ukraine may have rallied more under its new leader and with Western help. Russia will have felt the cost of sanctions more.   It also is losing the benefits of Ukraine as part of its economic network as it enters a hostile relation with it.

Russia is in a position similar to Japan in World War 2.  It is in an economic crisis from sanctions imposed by the West.  One way out of that difficulty it thought was to expand its empire to include resource areas.  By taking Ukraine, Russia expands its economic empire.  If it retook all of the Russian empire ie of the USSR, it would have expanded markets, raw resources, a bigger network of industrial resources with Ukraine, etc.  So it can see itself getting to a better place by believing that a colonial empire around itself would be a benefit and not a burden.  It can convince itself of that by such arguments.  It will secure markets, raw resources, human resources, industrial resources, transportation networks and ports.

If Putin ends up with the Central Asian states back under Russia, then he can bargain with the US to give help on supplying Afghanistan without need of Pakistan or of joint pressure on Iran, since he would be back on their border.  So Putin can see himself having bargaining power in Central Asia that the US prizes and use that to get sanctions lifted.

Putin can also keep playing the terrorism card.  Boston Bombing, Volgograd bombings, MH370, MH17 can be seen as Putin stoking the terrorism threat if one sees Russia as behind one or more of those.  The more of Central Asia Putin takes or gains influence over, and the less the US has, the more the US will have to gain from cooperation with Russia. Russia is positioning itself as an Orthodox Christian partner for the West in the fight against Muslim terrorism.  So that it is a natural ally with its access to Central Asia and its linguistic and intelligence capabilities there.

So Putin seems himself into a timetable to take Ukraine in order to take more of Russia to get sanctions lifted.  The same applies to stoking terrorism.  Russia has unique resources to fight Muslim and Central Asian terrorism. So the US needs it as a partner the more terrorism there is.  On the other hand, fundamentally, this type of colonial empire in Asia and Europe has collapsed on Russia.  But Putin hopes this time it is different.  His need to be leader makes him choose to believe the story that a new Russian empire will solve his economic and financial problems and make the West give him aid and economic agreements.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

 


IAFE and conspiracy issues

July 29, 2014

The IAFE can be investigated for evidence of conspiracy or misconduct.  This includes to obtain government benefits, immigration, grants and regulatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Financial_Engineers

The Financial Engineer of the Year award can be analyzed and investigated as a reward for participating in conspiracies against Hakansson, me or with Russia.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


2005 and 2014 AEA AFA ASSA meetings and Stanley Fischer

July 29, 2014

The 2005 and 2014 meetings of the AEA, AFA and other ASSA orgs are important in the case of Stanley Fischer.

 

http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/

Stanley Fischer was named the head of Israel’s central bank on the last day, Sunday, of the 2005 meeting. By then most people had left without hearing of it.

Samuelson canceled his speaking perhaps he could not face me.

Daniel Rubinfeld gave me a look that could kill after I attended his session on Sunday.

Fischer I thought was staring at me during one of his sessions.

John Campbell, Darrell Duffie and George Constantinides seemed almost as if in league in regards to misconduct towards me.

For the 2014 meeting, they gave an award to Stanley Fischer. This was after knowing everything since the 2006 postings here as well as that Russia had posted evidence on its webpages of Duffie plagiarizing me in continuation of the same research as of Hakansson and Merton’s continuous time version.

These two meetings can be considered in reference to what they discussed, did and whether they were in a conspiracy against me, Hakansson or with Russia.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


Academic conspiracies what are the benefits?

July 28, 2014

What are the benefits given out in academic conspiracies?

 

  1. Credentials that are not earned, such as a Ph.D. obtained by plagiarism.  This defrauds the granting institution by a student possibly in conspiracy with the faculty.
  2. Immigration benefits arising from use of fraudulent credentials.
  3. Government grants based on fraudulent credentials or fraudulent papers.
  4. Government regulatory benefits.  Bank bailouts. Antitrust benefits.
  5. Wall Street endows buildings, professorships, entire business schools.  These go to the same universities that do the plagiarism and that furnish profs to government agencies.
  6. Some positions in US gov are always or usually held by econ or finance profs. Fed chairman or vice chairman, Undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs sometimes, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis Group of Antitrust Division, Chief Economist FTC, etc.
  7. The same Wall Street firms that give benefits to universities get regulatory benefits.  These Wall Street firms often employ Ph.D.s, MBA, BAs, from those universities, recruit lavishly at those schools and hire the profs as consultants.  Some profs have made millions of dollars in these business arrangements.  Some have made comments in their Nobel Prize essays that indicate knowledge of the Stanley Fischer plagiarism or even a false statement in the Robert C. Merton case about Hakansson.
  8. Universities withhold information in FBI background checks on profs for US government positions or Ph.D.s.  They withhold information on security clearances.
  9. Academic awards such as the SIEPR 100k award to Stanley Fischer are intended to signal to profs who know this to keep silent.  AEA also gave Fischer an award during his nomination. This too was intended to signal not to volunteer info. This was years after they know of the postings on line that Russia used this information. Those involved in giving the awards are aware of and possibly active participants in the misconduct or covering it up or intimidating the victims into silence.
  10. Intimidating victims is an act in furtherance of these conspiracies.
  11. Intimidating others including potential witnesses in FBI background checks.
  12. Nobel Prize essay(s) indicate fears by winners to speak up about the Stanley Fischer plagiarism in particular.  This includes by Phelps.  The Sameulson forward to his book is a case of bullying and intimidation to keep quiet if he wanted to get the Nobel Prize.
  13. The effectiveness of their bullying is why they were so afraid the blog author would speak up at the January 2005 AEA meetings.   Paul Samuelson canceled his talk supposedly out of illness, but more likely he couldn’t face me.
  14. The January 2005 meeting had the announcement effectively too late on Sunday that Stanley Fischer would be the central bank head for Israel for me to speak up at the meeting.  I in fact heard about it after getting home.
  15. This was during US v Harvard.
  16. Larry Summers’ comments about women and math abilities may have targeted a woman prof at Harvard Law School who had a Ph.D. in econ from MIT and who had joint control of the law and econ grants through NBER From the NSF, ie from US government.  She later left Harvard.
  17. LTCM bailout was arranged by Fed but without US government money. Even so, many knew that LTCM was betting on Russia having leverage over Larry Summers in US government and Stanley Fischer at IMF.  This was not disclosed to the US government.
  18. In the 2008 bailouts, the beneficiary banks received benefits from the Fed which was compromised by that time through its academic hires.
  19. Federal Reserve Board employees are subject to fear by university journals and academic departments not to cite victims, including this blog author and including a paper pending at the present time at a journal edited at Cornell by a professor known to be hostile to the blog author.
  20. When a Ph.D. employee of the government is subjected to fear not to cite a victim by a university or journal, that also means they are subjected to fear not to tell the FBI about this in federal background checks or about Russia or China using such information or other countries such as India and Pakistan.
  21. Pakistan and Russia may have used this to help get away with terrorist acts or groups or individuals linked to them.
  22. Federal employees and grant recipients and immigration benefit recipients could have provided information after the death of Boris Berezovsky or after Putin’s statement about Anatoly Chubais following the Boston Bombing. They were intimidated not to.  That interfered with a federal investigation.  They also knew that Berezovsky linked to Chubais so their knowledge of Berezovsky and Russia being able to use plagiarism kompromat on Stanley Fischer, Larry Summers, etc. was relevant as well as Shleifer’s possible role as a conduit.
  23. Private sector benefits are given or exchanged based on these multiple conspiracies including by employees of investment banks who are associate editors at the journals or belong to the associations or to IAFE which has given awards to those involved.
  24. Certain models are  flawed for capital and risk but were used during the time before the bank bailout. Information on these flaws was likely not disclosed to regulators by the banks or the universities or their employees at government agencies.  This led to under capitalization of the banks and can be considered linked to the need to bail them out.
  25. Government policies like low interest rates benefit the banks but hurt savers. Savers are not aware of this kompromat while the banks are.
  26. Investment banks focus their recruiting on a few top schools that provide the profs for regulation of the banks. This focus of recruiting makes wealthy students want to go to those schools and pay high tuition. This boosts prof salary.  Econ departments benefit from this particularly at schools that don’t have an undergraduate business major. The same econ profs then staff the FTC, Antitrust Division EAG, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, etc.
  27. The same universities withheld info about Russia using this to get atomic secrets.  That also involved China. Some of the know-how transfer e.g. from China to Pakistan continued long afterwards.  The book by Thomas C. Reed documents China’s help to Pakistan.
  28. Pakistan had an expert in Fock Space the same area as in the Corson plagiarism paper at Rockefeller University.  Mirza Abdul Beg.  Pais at same university in one of his books relates how he had been asked to review the Corson plagiarism paper after Russia sent a letter about it.   Bad feeling between Beg and Pais?  Some people still alive can answer questions on this. Beg and Pais are both dead.  I met Beg and looking back believe he had a hostile reaction to me based on his fear if I came as a grad student there at the physics department I might discover his secret. I was working for the US military in my summer jobs and so he may have feared I would pass on suspicions I might develop over the years of being a grad student.
  29. Pakistan also may have used information on these matters as well as India at the World Bank and IMF to get benefits.
  30. Any use by India would likely be learned by Pakistan from their moles in the Indian government.
  31. Pakistan may then have used this information for its own benefit including to get away with supporting terrorism.

 

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.