Archive for the 'Andrei Shleifer' Category

Evidence in relation to whether Stanley Fischer committed plagiarism in his MIT PhD

February 25, 2014

This post is draft and preliminary on the topic of whether Stanley Fischer committed plagiarism in his Ph.D. thesis “Essays on assets and contingent commodities.” at MIT in 1969.  Paul Samuelson, Duncan Foley and Franklin Fisher were his committee.  Miguel Sidrauski was chairman until he died in 1968, then Foley and then Fisher.

Stanley Fischer in his 1969 thesis claims that he did not see the Hakansson 1966 thesis until after he wrote the parts of his thesis relevant to the issue of copying.

Paul Samuelson also told through intermediaries to Hakansson that he had not seen Hakansson’s thesis but felt guilty.  Samuelson’s 1969 paper was part of a group of 4 papers published in 1969 linked to the MIT Econ group.

Samuelson Paul 1969 “Lifetime portfolio selection by dynamic stochastic programming” MIT Press in its journal Review of Economics & Statistics. Volume (Year): 51 (1969) Issue (Month): 3 (August) Pages: 239-46

Robert C Merton Lifetime Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty: The Continuous-Time Case.  MIT Press in its journal Review of Economics & Statistics. Volume (Year): 51 (1969) Issue (Month): 3 (August) Pages: 247-57

Optimal Savings under Uncertainty    Levhari, David    Srinivasan, T N  Review of Economic Studies. Volume (Year): 36 (1969) Issue (Month): 106 (April) Pages: 153-63.

Levhari was a coauthor with Samuelson and co-author of Franklin Fisher.

Before them all and at MIT since 1966 was Hakansson’s 1966 thesis and UCLA working paper.

Hakansson’s paper was delayed in publication at Econometrica from 1966 to 1970.  Franklin Fisher was the editor of Econometrica in 1969 and 1970.

In 2003, after over 30 years to think of his story, Samuelson wrote the following.

 Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking.

from Preface Knowledge, Information, and Expectations in Modern Macroeconomics:
In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps
Edited by Philippe Aghion, Roman Frydman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Michael Woodford. Its on line.

(See also


So in 2003, after 30 years to think of his story, Samuelson tells us this is it.  This suggests the picture that at MIT, Samuelson, Stanley Fischer, Robert C. Merton and their thesis committees including Miguel Sidrauski, Duncan Foley, Franklin Fisher, Paul Samuelson and others there such as Karl Shell and Peter Diamond were busying studying the 1962 paper by Phelps and did not know of the 1966 paper by Hakansson.

Phelps paper 1961 working paper at Cowles. “The Accumulation of Risky Capital: A Discrete-Time Sequential Utility Analysis.”

The MIT case is as follows.

  1. MIT does not acknowledge having the Hakansson 1966 paper at MIT in their statements.  So if it is shown they did have it, that shows they concealed information in their self serving claims later.
  2. Samuelson invented the intertemporal portfolio part for finite horizons himself and sketched the extension to multiple risky assets and inequality constraints.
  3. Robert C. Merton was not aware of the Hakansson or Hayne Leland 1968 Harvard thesis.
  4. Fischer invented his thesis based on the Samuelson August 1969 paper in draft form.
  5. Merton based his 1969 paper on the Samuelson 1969 paper in draft form.
  6. Stanley Fischer in his 1980s book with Blanchard gives sole credit to intertemporal portfolio choice to Samuelson not mentioning Hakansson at all.

Some problems with this are

  1. Stanley Fischer doesn’t even cite the 1962 Phelps paper in his thesis. Strange if they were all using Phelps as their starting point.  Note Samuelson was on the Fischer thesis committee, so if Samuelson thought they were using Phelps as their starting point, why didn’t he make Fischer cite Phelps in Fischer’s 1969 thesis?
  2. Karl Shell then of MIT chaired a session in 1966 in which Hakansson presented his thesis. This is in the published records of the American Economic Association (Page 114)
    . Thus in all their later statements, MIT concealed this material fact.
  3. Hakansson’s 1966 UCLA thesis was mimeographed by UCLA and sent out as a working paper to a distribution list.  Library of Congress has some records related to that working paper series.  Samuelson and likely others at MIT were probably on that list.
  4. Karl Shell and Franklin Fisher shared an office at MIT.
  5. Stanley Fischer and Robert C. Merton shared an office at MIT.
  6. Joseph Stiglitz cited the Hakansson paper in a Cowles paper dated from January 1969 and thanked Samuelson for comments in that draft.  The Samuelson paper was not published until August 1969.
  7. The Stanley Fischer thesis copies not just from the Hakansson 1966 thesis but also from another working paper of Hakansson at Yale.   Duncan Foley was from Yale and Stiglitz was at Yale.
  8. Franklin Fisher not only was the final chair of the Stanley Fischer thesis but he also was the editor of Econometrica in 1969 the date of a letter to Hakansson and 1970 the date of publication.
  9. Duncan Foley in a list of Stanley Fischer’s papers at History of Economic Thought left out the paper by Fischer that copies the working paper by Hakansson from Yale.  Foley was from Yale and was middle Chairman of the Fischer thesis.  Foley may have gotten the Hakansson paper with that part and then left that Fischer paper off the list of Fischer’s papers at HET.
  10. In various published later statements by Samuelson, Fischer, and others, the papers by Samuelson and Fischer have been admitted to as being equivalent to the Hakansson papers.
  11. Stanley Fischer does not cite the Levhari Srinivasan paper that does the infinite horizon case published in 1969.  Samuelson claims he started from the Levhari Srinivasan solution for an infinite horizon, when it was in draft form.
  12. The Stanley Fischer thesis is much longer than the Samuelson paper and had to be started at least a couple years before publication in 1969.
  13. The Fischer thesis starts from a more basic level than Samuelson and goes over the intermediate steps unlike Samuelson.
  14. The Fischer thesis doesn’t follow the Samuelson paper as a template, but instead it follows the Hakansson paper as a template.
  15. Samuelson makes some slips in his 1969 paper.  Samuelson thinks a certain one period equation in his paper is standard.  However, that equation only appears in the Hakansson paper, Fischer thesis and likely in the Hayne Leland Harvard 1968 thesis.  So Samuelson can’t think it was familiar or well known except he had seen it in these other places.
  16. Samuelson says that inequality constraints will work as an extension.  However, Samuelson knew from a prior book and a paper with McKean that inequality constraints, a type of boundary condition, usually throw off a formula solved without them.  Hakansson had shown already that in this special case you could still get a solution with them. Samuelson could only know that from Hakansson’s paper.
  17. Fischer follows closely the thesis of Hakansson in building up intertemporal portfolio theory from a new version of one period optimization first.  Prior one period portfolio theory used mean variance optimization. Before going to multiple period, it was first necessary to recast one period in terms of a new equation.  It is this equation Samuelson slips and calls familiar in his 1969 paper.
  18. Fischer published two papers while at Chicago out of his thesis. These acknowledge Hakansson’s priority.  However, in his 1980s textbook with Blanchard, Fischer only cites Samuelson, not his own papers or Hakansson or Leland.
  19. Hakansson is the person who first did intertemporal portfolio theory.  This is proven by the published record.  Yet he has never been made a Fellow of the Econometric Society or received any award for it.  Intertemporal portfolio theory is the foundation of modern finance since the 1960s including intertemporal equilibrium pricing models.
  20. In 2004, Olivier Blanchard interviewed Fischer. At that time, Blanchard didn’t even know that Fischer’s thesis was on intertemporal portfolio choice, which was part of their joint book Lectures on Macroeconomics in the 1989.  So no one told him for almost 20 years that part of his own book with Fischer was the subject of Fischer’s thesis and 2 of Fischer’s papers.  Rather amazing.
  21. Hakansson had many working papers from 1966 to 1969.  These were cited by other people at other universities.  He presented them at the 1966 Winter meeting of the Econometric Society.
  22. Merton in his Nobel Prize autobiography in 1997 incorrectly states that Hakansson was a graduate student up to 1969.  In fact, Hakansson was a prof at Yale from 1966 onwards with Stiglitz.  This is important because part of the Fischer thesis is based on a working paper by Hakansson at Yale.
  23. The Hakansson papers were what everyone in economics especially at MIT were trying to do, find the microfoundations of macro and the link between macro and finance.
  24. Textbooks since 1969 have tended to omit Hakansson’s papers at all such as Fischer’s own or have masked the priority of Hakansson.
  25. In Phelp’s Nobel Prize autobiography he is afraid to mention Hakansson and just vaguely says his own paper was the basis of work that followed.
  26. Samuelson in his quote above does not even mention that it is Hakansson.
  27. The Fischer thesis is using the Hakansson papers as a template in places.  Close textual analysis shows this. Moreover, results presented in Fischer if truly his own work and independent should have been cited by the MIT group as innovations. Instead they never give credit for any specific equation in Fischer’s thesis EVER.
  28. As mentioned, the Samuelson 1969 paper makes slips which show he was already familiar with the Hakansson paper results.
  29. The timeline of Samuelson publishing his paper in 1969 doesn’t work for the other papers.  The timeline by comparison of Samuelson, Merton and Fischer has to be Fischer first, then Samuelson and Merton.
  30. Merton’s continuous time work is a transcription from Fischer’s discrete time, not Samuelson’s discrete time.
  31. Samuelson does not make even an attempt to prove second order conditions. Hakansson did that first for intertemporal choice.  Fischer follows Hakansson and Merton follows both in the continuous time limit.
  32. No one treats Fischer’s work as the important work it would be if it was truly independent.
  33. Everyone associated with the MIT group has received awards for often trivial work while Hakansson’s work which is a foundation of modern macro and finance has never received an award.
  34. Peter Diamond got a Nobel Prize in between nominations.
  35. Peter Diamond was strangely added to the Aaron Swartz investigation by MIT after they were asked to investigate plagiarism in the Stanley Fischer thesis.
  36. Franklin Fisher was sent materials and asked to provide them to the Senate and FBI on this.  Did he?
  37. Karl Shell, Duncan Foley and Franklin Fisher were linked then and since and with Peter Diamond.  Have they given statements to the FBI?
  38. Daniel Rubinfeld was at MIT at the time, has he given a statement?  Rubinfeld is at Berkeley.
  39. Akerlof and Yellen at Berkeley have known of this for decades presumably.  Have they furnished statements to the FBI?
  40. Martin Weitzman was also at MIT at the time and later attended conferences in Poland prior to the 1975 Nobel Prize of Kantorovich.  What does he say? Did the Russians say they knew this and ask for nominations for Kantorovich from Arrow and Samuelson?
  41. Arrow strangely moved to Harvard and then back to Stanford. Was that linked to this?
  42. Marschak was on the Hakansson committee, and was a known Communist.  Was that used?
  43. Something happened in 1952 at University of Chicago and Markowitz’s thesis was delayed it appears until Cowles Commission left Chicaago.  Was that used by Samuelson?
  44. Did Russia use this to get IMF loans in the 1990s?
  45. Why does Putin keep saying that Shleifer was a CIA agent advising Anatoly Chubais? Chubais handled the IMF loans for Russia.
  46. Boris Berezovsky worked at the Institute of Control Sciences in Moscow that does the same math as in these papers. Did he have the idea to use this as pressure for IMF loans?  Were loans for shares his share?
  47. Did MIT provide information on this to the FBI or MI-5 during the 1990s? After Berezovsky’s death and before the Chechen terrorist attack in Boston?  After it?
  48. There are Berezovsky coauthors in the US and UK as well as other people who attended the conferences in Poland in the 1970s prior to the Nobel Prize for Soviet Kantorovich.  Have they been questioned?
  49. Russia has made numerous references to plagiarism in physics, math and econ starting in the 1930s to the present.  Have these ever been disclosed to the FBI by any university ever?  Their role in getting Nobel Prize nominations in physics and econ? Their role in gaining atomic secrets?
  50. Aaron Swartz was possibly investigating misconduct in his attempt to get JSTOR files.  Was this what he was interested in?  Lawrence Lessig knows Franklin Fisher and is a friend of Hal Abelson. Is that why Peter Diamond was added to the Abelson review of Swartz’s death?
  51. How many people have been pressured over this? How many gotten rewards?
  52. Dominique Strauss Kahn harassed female employees at IMF.  Was it because he knew this that he could get away with it?
  53. A Stanford professor put up photos of a Stanford junior faculty member at an econ conference and commented on her appearance to her dismay.  Was he able to get away with that because of this?  How much harassment has gone on where the professor is shielded by his knowledge of this?
  54. Junior faculty are being forced to participate in these citation games.  Are they being made to feel they are implicated? Are they being set up for another generation of pressure by Russia?
  55. China and India at a minimum seem aware of this if not involved at various times.  China especially.  The cooperation between Russia and China started in the 1940s and seems to be alive today.  This is valuable information for the FBI and MI5 to know.  The universities have concealed this.
  56. Events and investigations can be made in the US, UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, and other countries.
  57. Pakistan appears to have known of this in physics and may have used it to help avoid its role in 9/11 being made public and to life its nuclear sanctions.  India also may have used this to help get the limitations on its importing nuclear fuel lifted.  So both sides of a nuclear arms race are benefiting from this?  Even if not, why does the US support two sides in a nuclear arms race and no one say anything about it?
  58. LTCM bought Russian government bonds in the 1990s. Because it knew this?
  59. DE Shaw did the same.  They later hired Summers, nephew of Samuelson, and paid him 5 million a year.  The employees thought he was a joke and a waste of time it appears from reports.

Hakansson and his wife have set up a website with his papers. They have had to endure 30 years of the lies from MIT and the false claims of credit.  Other people have gone along with it to get Nobel Prizes.

Stanley Fischer has a victim’s website, a family that is his victim.  Has MIT told the Senate or FBI about this website?  Have they explained the inconsistencies in their story since 1969 to the present?

The above is draft and preliminary.   This is subject to revision.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

Ron Paul on IMF Russia Loans 1999

December 14, 2007

Ron Paul’s statement:

Given that the IMF claims not to know what happened to the money and admits that the Russian central bank lied to them, we should not allow the IMF to hide behind the shallow defense that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. When using taxpayer funds, we must demand a higher standard: IMF, World Bank and U.S. Treasury officials should provide evidence that no public funds were siphoned off and that no officials profited from the conversion of the high-yield Russian GKO bonds into dollars just days before the default or from other public funds.


In the (Russian) St. Petersburg Times (“Skuratov Says IMF Billions Sold on the Sly,” September 17, 1999), Russian Prosecutor General Yury Skuratov charged in an interview that the IMF money funded profitable insider trading. He quoted from a memo President Yelstin refused to accept, “An analysis of the Central Bank�s use of the account where the IMF stabilization loan was deposited showed that $4.4 billion was sold from that account between July 23, 1998 and August 17, 1998. Of that money, $3.9 billion was sold directly to Russian and foreign banks, bypassing the trading session at the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange.” He claimed only $571 million went to support the ruble.

I am concerned that Treasury Secretary Larry Summers cites Anders Åslund, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, given his controversial views on the benefits of encouraging bribery! He clearly states in his article “Russia�s Collapse” in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, “As Andrei Shleifer of Harvard and Robert W. Vishny of the University of Chicago have observed, the best way of fighting corruption is encouraging competition in bribery [emphasis added]. August�s financial crisis was a logical outcome of the oligarchs� war, as they tried to maintain their high and dubious incomes by any means. In the end, the Russian state could no longer deliver enough cash to satisfy their ravenous appetites. The crash radically reduced the amount of money that could be made on the state–and thus the power of the corrupt businessmen.”

George Washington University professor Janine Wedel has warned about the appearance of corruption surrounding Andrei Shleifer heading the Harvard Institute for International Development (“The Harvard Boys Do Russia,” the Nation, June 1, 1998) and the effects of collusion in her book Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe 1989-1998. It seems the best course for avoiding any perception problems would be more transparency of the activities of U.S. officials.

One possible scheme in August 1998. Russia gets the 4.8 billion IMF loan in dollars. Then the banks in Russia sell the dollars to oligarchs for rubles. The oligarchs borrow rubbles from a bank in Russia. Then they devalue the rubble by defaulting on Russia’s debt.

Then they take part of their dollars and buy the rubles they borrowed and use that to pay back their ruble loan. If the ruble has fallen by half, they pocket half of the 4.8 billion, i.e. 2.4 billion dollars and now owe nothing.

Whether this is what happened or not is something that can be investigated further. But the Bush administration has not cooperated with Switzerland to investigate the 1998 or other transactions by oligarchs. Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. Bush Clinton together again.

It was in October 1998, during the Clinton impeachment that Clinton signed the law to make regime change in Iraq the goal of the US. That was pushed by PNAC which had Paul Wolfowitz as a member. Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father died c.1981.

But Jacob Wolfowitz may have told his son Paul of academic kompromat Russia may have used in the 1970’s to try to pressure Nobel Prize nominations for Kantorovich from Arrow and Samuelson, uncles of Larry Summers. Summers with Stanley Fischer was in control of loans to Russia from the IMF in the 1990’s. This included possible plagiarism by Stanley Fischer in Fischer’s 1969 Ph.D. thesis at MIT. Paul Samuelson was on Fischer’s Ph.D. committee and also got an NSF grant for himself for a paper that may also have been plagiarism. Samuelson around 2003 said it wasn’t plagiarism.

Search: oligarchs Leach Russia 1998 default

If the oligarchs set up the above scheme to profit from the 4.8 billion, they profited from the loss by LTCM. LTCM bought Russian bonds in August 1998. LTCM had academics who know of the above history including the possible use by Russia of academic kompromat in the 1970’s to pressure Nobel Prize nominations by Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow. Robert C. Merton was at LTCM and he got an NSF grant in 1969 as part of the same work at MIT as Samuelson got an NSF grant. This duplicated in part, the work of Nils Hakansson already circulated in 1966 in a completed UCLA Ph.D. thesis still in process of being published. The main paper was delayed in publication to fall 1970, just after Merton’s MIT thesis was accepted under Samuelson. The Merton NSF grant paper from 1969 was part of this MIT thesis.

Boris Berezovsky got his Ph.D. in math at Moscow State University. He then worked at the Institute of Control Sciences in the USSR. That institute did the same math as in all the above papers and as in the work done by Kantorovich for the 1975 Nobel Prize in economics. Berezovsky was the top oligarch in Russia that got the loans from Fischer and Summers.

Putin became head of FSB in summer of 1998. He would have gotten a cut of the 4.8 billion money trading scam outlined above, if it happened. Berezovsky and Yeltsin would not make Putin president of Russia if he had not personally profited from the scheme, if it happened that way. Thus Putin is part of this continuing cover-up. That is one reason he has to stay in control of Russia. There have been investigations in the U.S., Switzerland and even Russia.

When Bush Gore went to the Supreme Court in 2000, the USAO Mass was still investigating Harvard. At that point, the Clinton team may have been withholding information from the investigation. The Bush team including John Yoo from Berkeley, where Nils Hakansson is a prof, may have known that and told Scalia to get Scalia to give the presidency to Bush. They may also have told Gore not to fight it in Congress. This may be why Gore didn’t run in 2004 or 2008.

Marc Rich was involved with Russia from the 1980’s. Libby got him his pardon from Clinton after Bush v. Gore in 2001. Then Bush said don’t investigate the pardon to Republicans in Congress. When Bush said he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, he may have been thinking about all this. Libby, of course, got his pardon from Bush in 2007.

Putin is now to be Prime Minister of Russia, again. Yeltsin and Berezovsky made him that in the 1990’s before Putin became president and after Putin was head of FSB during the August 1998 transactions. Hillary Clinton wants her White House records closed as does baby Bush from Daddy Bush onwards for Bush Clinton Bush.

One reason the PNACons may attack Ron Paul, is that if he became president, he could investigate them for all the above including use of information about this in 1998 to get Clinton to sign onto regime change in Iraq. They should have exposed Russia’s activity, not used it to advance their own, if that happened. Even if Paul is not elected, just his visibility would let him raise the same issues he did in 1999 and refocus the need to investigate the neocons.

We now have a new attorney general, not Alberto Gonzales. The new AG may not be himself liable in any of this, whatever he may have heard. Thus the neocons are at greater risk now than they have been in years of this coming out.

Under Gonzales the DOJ was not supportive of investigations in Switzerland or perhaps even by USAO Mass to pursue this. Now this has the potential to change. They may hope that Romney with a Harvard MBA and JD may not want to have all this investigated. Or they hope Hillary is elected.

==Further point

In summer of 1998, Long Term Capital Management, LTCM, bought Russian government bonds because it thought that Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers would have to bail out Russia. But instead the oligarchs including Putin had Russia default, although they did try for a bailout. The above scheme could have been reversed if they had needed to, and they had plenty of funny money ruble holdings to make money on if the ruble went up.

Putin got a Ph.D. in economics in the 1990’s. It was shown this was plagiarized and probably written by someone else anyhow. Berezovsky had a Ph.D. in math from Moscow State University. This is considered by Russians the top math department in the world. Russia’s bonds were registered bonds, although LTCM used Bear Stearns for clearing its trades. Russia would have known from the registrations that Bear and thus LTCM had holdings in Russian bonds. So by defaulting on the bonds, Berezovsky and Putin would make the geniuses at LTCM who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1997, Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton, lose money. This would prove that Putin and Berezovsky were better economists and traders than Scholes, Merton and the rest at LTCM. This would show they were smarter than them. In 1997, Scholes and Merton and LTCM got tremendous press as geniuses far above normal Nobel Prize winners.

For the Russians showing they were smarter would be very important. Berezovsky had wanted to win a Nobel Prize when he worked at the Institute of Control Sciences in the USSR. This was his way of showing he was smarter than Scholes, Merton and the rest at LTCM. The very transactions that would make Berezovsky billions would lose LTCM billions. In fact, LTCM went under. Berezovsky and Putin had proven they were the smart ones.

The same score keeping would continue. By getting Clinton to sign the Iraq Liberation Act while USAO Mass investigated Harvard and some Clinton team profs perhaps as well, the PNAC profs like Paul Wolfowitz proved they were the smart ones. Paul Wolfowitz had no achievements of the stature of his father Jacob in academic terms. Jacob contributed to some of the more important results in this overall area of math, operations research, or control sciences as the Soviets called it. Paul proved he was as smart as his father by using this to get the Iraq Liberation Act.

Then during Bush v. Gore, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo and George W. Bush could prove the same thing by using this to influence Scalia. Scalia could then prove he was the smart one to issue an opinion on why the Supreme Court issued a stay of vote counting in Florida. Gore had to leave. But Gore has proven he was the smart one by making a lot of money and winning his own Nobel Prize. These Nobel Prizes seem to have a lot of meaning to those who win them and those who don’t but can prove they are smarter than those who win them.

Since Scholes and Merton were smarter than most Nobel Prize winners in econ, at least in their own opinion and many others, including the press at the time, by making them lose money and at the same time making money, Putin and Berezovsky proved they were smarter than all the Nobel Prize winners.  Since they were smarter than Scholes and Merton, who in turn were smarter than the others, that meant Putin and Berezovsky were smarter than all the others.  Of course, if they were exposed, the world might not think that.  So they have to keep this under wraps. As do Bush, Gore, Harvard, etc.
Above is all speculation and hypotheses. Restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply. This is draft and preliminary. Corrections or comments are welcome.

Milton Friedman Lost Witness on Russia’s Plagiarism Files

November 16, 2006

“SAN FRANCISCO — Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of three U.S. presidents, died Thursday at age 94.”

Questions Friedman might have answered on Russia’s Plagiarism Files and use of plagiarism.

1. Was Koopmans a communist or spy?

2. Was there plagiarism involving Andrew D. Roy a victim in 1952 at U Chicago. Was Roy work being given to Markowitz?

3. Was Milton Friedman the one who told Alfred Cowles this was happening?

4. Is that why Cowles had the Managing Editor of Econmetrica resign and move the editorial office to Northwestern?

5. Was pressure used by the Soviets on plagiarism to get nominations for Kantorovich and Koopmans for the 1975 Nobel Prize 1 year ahead of Friedman.

6. Why did Friedman have a feud with Koopmans that he was still writing about in his 1998 autobio.

7. This was written about in a recent book by Martin J. Beckman who was at Cowles Commission around 1952. Beckman takes the side of Koopmans, who is dead. Why are Friedman and Beckmann still fighting this in 1998 and the 2000’s? Is it because Russia used this to pressure low interest rate loans in the 1990’s from Stanley Fischer at IMF and Larry Summers at Treasury, a nephew of Arrow and Samuelson?

8. Stanley Fischer was hired at UChicago in 1969 from MIT. Did they think he had plagiarized Nils Hakansson?

9. Did Richard Posner as a U Chicago prof know of this in the 1970’s?

10. Was Eric Posner given tenure at U Chicago in 1998 as an attempt to influence Judge Posner not to tell this to the FBI or USAO Mass? (speculation of course)

11. Did Russia use pressure to get IMF loans in the 1990’s based on this?

12. Was this info passed to the US Supreme Court during Bush v. Gore to influence the vote against Gore? (this would be hearsay from Friedman)

13. Did they know in the 1950’s that Russia had used plagiarism to help get Klaus Fuchs into Los Alamos and to pressure Niels Bohr to try to influence Churchill and Roosevelt to give the bomb secret to the Soviets?

14. Did Paul A. Samuelson on the Council of the Econometric Society in 1952 know the true story about the Managing Editor of Economerica resigning, along with the editorial Secretary, and the editorial office being moved?

15. Harry Markowitz didn’t receive his Ph.D. until Sep 1955 Quarter, the first date after the Cowles Commission left University of Chicago in July 1955. Was this because Alfred Cowles wouldn’t let Markowitz get his Ph.D.? Or was it someone at Cowles like Koopmans?
Above is speculation not assertions.

16. Markowitz admitted that he didn’t do the formulas of “algebraic simplicity” and “wide acclaim” taught to MBA students and in textbooks in 1987, 3 years before he got the Nobel Prize with the press release using exactly those words. Why did the Press Release use these words? Why are MBA students taught that Markowitz did those formulas and not Roy when Markowitz himself admits Roy did them and that he Markowitz did not?

17. Markowitz thanks Kenneth Arrow in 1955 for giving him the idea of what his thesis at UChicago was, an algorithm for mean variance optimization with short sale constraints. Wolfe did this too at about the same time. These were published in the Naval Research Logistics Quarterly c. 1956. Jacob Wolfowitz, also published in that journal.

18. The Markowitz article was published in March 1952 in Journal of Finance, a second rate journal edited at U Chicago business school. This Markowitz article contained no important formulas as results, just a graph to illustrate mean variance choice with short sale constraints. There is no formula even today for that, just an algorithm. The Roy article was published in July 1952 in Econometrica, the top journal in econ, in July 1952. Econometrica was also edited at U Chicago, in effect by the Cowles Commission. The Roy article did mean variance choice without short sale constrainst and got the formula solutions taught to MBA’s and in textbooks today that are credited to Markowitz. Jacob Wolfowitz wrote the article after Roy’s in the July 1952 issue. Did Wolfowitz know why the managing editor resigned?

19. Did Jacob Wolfowitz tell this to Paul Wolfowitz before Jacob died in 1981?

20. There are many ties from Jacob Wolfowitz to MIT econ in 1969, the year that Robert C. Merton, Paul A. Samuelson, and Stanley Fischer duplicated in part the 1966 UCLA thesis of Hakansson. These include Robert Engle, Robert Solow, and others. Search on Jacob Wolfowitz in the Nobel Prize site.

21. Did Valery Makarov put pressure on US profs at the 1972 Warsaw economics conference? Attendees included Martin Weitzman, then at MIT, now at Harvard, William A. Brock, Martin J. Beckmann and othes.

These are questions, speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.


=Note added

Some earlier Cowles papers by Markowitz are now available on line.  The above has to be revised in light of these.

In particular,

CCDP Economics 278, “Towards a Theory of Financial Behavior” (plus Errata) [15pp] (May 1950)
CCDP Economics 294, “Investment Company Behavior Equations” [7pp] (October 1950)
CCDP Economics 295, “On the Certainty Equivalence and Risk Discount Hypotheses” [16pp] (November 1950)



read more | digg story

David Warsh on Shleifer, Harvard, Russia

November 8, 2006

David Warsh has a great summary of the facts underlying the case US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay. “The Light Gray Curse ” traces the evolution of the case over the 1990’s and touches lightly on the role of Larry Summers. HIID was a Harvard entity under Jeffrey Sachs that administered US grants. Shleifer had the one for Russia.

For a time Shleifer employed Chubais on HIID’s payroll in Moscow. Chubais handled negotiations with Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers for IMF loans for Russia, even when he wasn’t working for the Russian government. This may be because Aldrich Ames and Robert P. Hanssen had told Russia that the US had moles in Russian intelligence.

So they had Chubais handle negotations with the economics professors Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers who controlled loans to Russia. This way, US moles in Russian intelligence wouldn’t know what Chubais was saying to the professors and what file material on them he was using. Speculation on what that might have been including possible plagiarism is discussed in the articles referenced below.

For more on this story see Russia’s Plagiarism Files and links under it.

This article is opinion, hypotheses or speculation. All other disclaimers apply to it and to anything it links to directly or indirectly.

Larry Summers joins DE Shaw as MD

October 21, 2006

Washington Post reports that Larry Summers is joining hedge fund DE Shaw as a managing director.

Speculation on whether Russia used academic kompromat to pressure low interest rate loans in the 1990’s from Fischer and Summers was posted at Washington Post.

The following is speculation. Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer arranged billions in low interest rate loans for Russia in the 1990’s. Boris Berezovsky was the main oligarch for Russia. He had a Ph. D. in math from Moscow State University and was a manager at the Institute of Control Sciences.

There were incidents at UChicago in 1952 and MIT in 1969. The latter involving Fischer and Samuelson the uncle of Summers. There was a conference in Warsaw in 1972, where Makarov of USSR may have put pressure on US profs, some still alive, for Arrow and Samuelson, uncles of Summers to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in economics in 1975. This was part of a larger history by Russia to use such methods starting in 1925.

Russia may have used this again in the 1990’s to pressure loans from Summers and Fischer from IMF and then use those for loans for shares. LTCM may have realized this and traded Russian government bonds. The USAO Mass investigated Harvard starting in 1997. All of the above may have been concealed from it.

Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father knew of incidents up to 1981. Paul may have used this to get the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 during the USAO Mass investigation, and hearings on LTCM bailout and loans to Russia.

Yoo or others may have passed this to Silberman to Scalia during Bush v. Gore and used it against Gore. Above is speculation.

See following for more information.

Russia Used Plagiarism Files to Gain atomic know-how.

The above has a detailed analysis of texts in physics in quantum mechanics on whether Dirac and Fowler plagiarized Max Born and Pascual Jordan and then whether Kapitza knew it and Russia used that to help pressure Niels Bohr in 1944 to advocate to turn over atomic know how to Russia. In a meeting with Churchill after Bohr got a letter from Kapitza at the Soviet embassy in London, Churchill got very angry. Lindemann, Churchill’s scientific adviser likely told him the details. Kapitza had published an obit of Rutherford in 1937 coyly implying that there had been plagiarism at Cavendish Lab. Fowler was Rutherford’s son in law and was involved.

Russia’s Plagiarism Files: Summaries and links

The Washington Post: A Wikipedia Of Secrets

This starts with the 1925 incident and reviews quickly the possible use for atomic know how spying by Russia and also China. It covers in detail, including internet searches the 1969 MIT incidents where Summers’ uncle, Paul Samuelson duplicated in part the work of a 1966 UCLA thesis received at MIT in 1966 by Prof Karl Shell who chaired a session at which it was presented by its author Nils Hakansson. Hakansson also presented his paper at Harvard in early 1969. Hakansson was on faculty with Yale from 1967 with Stiglitz who edited the first two volume of Samuelson’s papers.

A paper extending this to uncertain lives was submitted by Hakansson from Yale to a journal and published in 1969. A similar chapter appeared in Stanley Fischer’s thesis in 1969 without citation. Fischer later cited the Hakansson paper in a 1972 publication. This article then continues to discuss briefly India and Pakistan’s potential knowledge of this entire history starting with Bhabha at Cambridge England in 1927.

The PM of India gave a speech at Moscow State University in 2005 name dropping many of those involved in the physics and econ cases, including Kapitza and Kantorovich.

More on loans to Russia, US v. Harvard, etc.

David Warsh at has extensive materials on the Harvard case but not these other issues of plagiarism, etc.

A recent summary is

The Light Gray Curse

Note that Warsh suggests the possibility of kompromat but doesn’t discuss what it might be. Warsh also doesn’t depart from, although he doesn’t uphold either, the standard story of the 1990’s that professors from Harvard, MIT, and University of Chicago took over and ran Russia and that Russian intelligence accepted that meekly. I.e. at the same time as they were running Aldrich Ames (tried 1994) and Robert P. Hanssen (arrested 2001) and finding moles in Russian intelligence, they also accepted with meekness that these profs would control and run Russia is the standard history.

The standard history, i.e. from Harvard and the government, is that Russian intelligence, which used profs like Klaus Fuchs and Bruno Pontecorvo to get the secret of the atom bomb, had no files on academia in the US, including unouted communists or spies, and simply accepted meekly that Harvard profs would run Russia. Warsh doesn’t say he acceps such a fairy tail, but he doesn’t go beyond suggesting the possibility of kompromat either.

Note that in 1994, Sudoplatov published a book accusing J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Szilard of being quasi agents by going along with Russian intelligence activities. The US profs in physics reacted with fury and were on PBS’s The News Hour to denounce this book. Sudoplatov was retired in Moscow. He had been a top Soviet spy in WWII. He was responsible for the execution of Leon Trotsky in Mexico.

Yet according to Harvard econ dept, etc. Russian intelligence meekly accepted Harvard econ profs like Shleifer, Summers and Fischer taking over and running Russia. According to Harvard econ dept, Russian intelligence despite its great successes simply accepted that Harvard econ dept would run Russia from the HIID grant and from IMF (Stanley Fischer) and US Treasury (Larry Summers). Harvard econ in effect said to the USAO Mass that Russian intelligence never made any attempt to use any files it might have to influence Summers, Fischer and Shleifer but just let them take over Russia without doing anything to stop it. According to Harvard econ, Russian intelligence meekly accepted that Shleifer, Summers and Fischer would run Russia while at the same time it was running as spies Aldrich Ames, a high level agent in US CIA’s counter-intelligence and Robert P. Hanssen a high level US operative in counter-intelligence, both against Russia.

2 Former Treasury Chiefs Add Clout to Hedge Funds”
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 21, 2006; Page D01

Comment page link is here.
All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: