Archive for the 'DOJ Economic Analysis Group' Category

Stanley Fischer witness Franklin Fisher MIT 3rd thesis chairman

March 3, 2014

Franklin M. Fisher was the 3rd thesis chairman of Stanley Fischer.  The first was Miguel Sidrauski who died in 1968. The second was Duncan K. Foley.

This post considers the hypothesis that Stanley Fischer plagiarized Nils Hakansson in 1969 in Fischer’s MIT Ph.D. thesis. Fischer claimed he saw Hakansson’s 1966 thesis late, after writing relevant sections of Fischer’s thesis. Fischer didn’t comment then about Hakansson’s uncertain lives working paper at Yale which corresponded to chapter 5 of Fischer’s thesis.

Optimal Investment and Consumption Strategies Under Risk, an Uncertain Lifetime, and Insurance,” International Economic Review, 10, October 1969, 443-466.

Optimal Investment and Consumption Strategies Under Risk for a Class of Utility Functions,” Econometrica, 38, September 1970, 587-607; reprinted in Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance (eds. W. T. Ziemba and R. G. Vickson), Academic Press, 1975, 525-545. Interview of Stanley Fischer by Olivier Blanchard 2004/2005 Essays on assets and contingent commodities.

Author: Fischer, Stanley
Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics
Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date Issued: 1969

Description: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics. Thesis. 1969. Ph.D.Vita.Bibliography: leaves 193-195

dc.contributor.advisor Franklin M. Fisher. en_US Fischer, Stanley en_US 2005-08-11T12:00:00Z en_US 2005-08-11T12:00:00Z en_US 1969 en_US
dc.description Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics. Thesis. 1969. Ph.D. en_US
dc.description Vita. en_US
dc.description Bibliography: leaves 193-195. en_US
dc.format.extent vii, 196 [i.e. 197] leaves en_US
dc.format.extent 27933841 bytes

Questions to ask Franklin M. Fisher

  1. Karl Shell had a copy of Hakansson’s thesis at MIT in 1966 from public records.  You shared an office with Shell while he was at MIT through 1968.  Did you have a copy of the Hakansson thesis at that time?
  2. Did you talk to Shell about it?
  3. Was it a major breakthrough?
  4. You became editor of Econometrica which was going slow on publishing Hakansson’s paper. Who was the referee for the Hakansson paper at Econometrica?
  5. Why was the Hakansson paper published so late?
  6. In a letter dated June 4, 1969 from Econometrica to Hakansson, the final version of his paper was accepted.  That letter is signed by Jacques E. Dreze, Co-editor.  Did you see that letter prior to its being sent?
  7. Was there any change in referee?
  8. What were the referee’s objections?
  9. Why were similar objections not made to the Samuelson and Merton papers published in August 1969 at the MIT/Harvard journal Review of Economics and Statistics?
  10. Doesn’t Fischer’s thesis follow Hakansson’s thesis as a template and not Samuelson’s discrete time 1969 paper?
  11. For example, Hakansson does second order conditions for an optimum as does Fischer, but Samuelson does not.
  12. Did you see a copy of Hakansson’s uncertain life paper prior to the conclusion of Fischer’s thesis in 1969?
  13. Who was your office mate after Karl Shell left?
  14. In the published paper version of Fischer’s thesis he acknowledges that what is chapter 5 is equivalent to Hakansson’s paper “Optimum Investment and Consumption Strategies under Risk, an Uncertain Lifetime, and Insurance”, International Economic Review, 10 Octoboer 1969 443-466.
  15. Fischer’s paper is “A Life Cycle Model of Life Insurance Purchases,” International Economic Review, (February 1973), 274-77.  This is chapter 5 of his thesis.
  16. When did you first learn of the Hakansson IER paper?
  17. Did Duncan Foley have a copy from Yale?
  18. Did Martin Weitzman?
  19. Did Joseph Stiglitz?
  20. Did Robert C. Merton?
  21. Did Paul A. Samuelson?
  22. Did Peter Diamond?
  23. Were you surprised when you saw it?
  24. Did you discuss this with Duncan Foley?
  25. With Karl Shell?
  26. Who was referee on the Hakansson IER paper?  Fischer’s?
  27. Did Russia learn of this in early 1970s?
  28. Was this used by Russia to pressure Nobel Prize nominations in econ for Kantorovich of the USSR?
  29. How did Koopmans at Yale get onto the same Nobel Prize?
  30. Was Milton Friedman upset that Koopmans got the prize ahead of Friedman?
  31. Was Marschak known to be a communist?  Marschak was on Hakansson’s committee. Was this used as leverage to plagiarize him?
  32. Was Koopmans rumored to be one?  Also used as leverage to plagiarize Hakansson?
  33. What happened at University of Chicago in 1952 involving Econometrica and these people?  Two people had to resign and the editorial office was moved to Northwestern.  What happened?
  34. Did this have to do with the Markowitz paper and thesis?
  35. Markowitz had to wait for his Ph.D. until Cowles left Chicago in 1955.  He got it the quarter after Cowles left.  Is this linked?
  36. Was this known to Samuelson? He was President of the Econometric Society that year.
  37. Was that Samuelson’s leverage to plagiarize Hakansson in his 1969 paper?
  38. Did Samuelson’s paper come after the Stanley Fischer thesis?
  39. Did Robert C. Merton and Fischer work together as office mates with Fischer doing discrete time and Merton continuous time?
  40. Did Samuelson learn of this and want to provide cover for Robert C. Merton because he admired Robert K. Merton?
  41. Duncan Foley has described Miguel Sidrauski, the first chairman of the Fischer thesis as leftist and his wife Martha as even more life and linked to people who disappeared in Argentina after the 1960s.  What do you know of them?
  42. Miguel Sidrauski and Fischer bonded closely?
  43. They were both Zionists we learn from Foley and from the Blanchard interview. Did they bond on that?
  44. Did Miguel Sidrauski let Fischer plagiarize Hakansson?
  45. Did the Sidrauskis have a relation with Russia that you ever heard?
  46. Was the Fischer plagiarism a ploy to ensnare MIT and Samuelson to pressure Samuelson to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the econ prize?
  47. Was Sidrauski in on it? The source?
  48. Duncan Foley is a type of Marxist.  What did he know of this if anything?
  49. Who told Russia? Or did Russia figure it out?
  50. Did Russia tell Martin Weitzman they knew about it at an econ conference in Poland?
  51. Was he a messenger to Samuelson?
  52. Was Andrei Shleifer a similar messenger later from Anatoly Chubais and Russia to Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer to get IMF loans?
  53. Did LTCM and DE Shaw trade Russian government bonds in the 1990s knowing Russia was using this as leverage?
  54. Was this told to USAO Mass during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay from 1997 to 2005?
  55. During Aaron Swartz investigation? One can use JSTOR files to help discover or prove this.
  56. Does Russia have a complete copy of all the JSTOR files in Russia?
  57. Was this ever told to the FBI during any investigation or background check?
  58. Did anyone tell this to Israel?  When?
  59. Did Israel do a background check on Fischer when it hired him as central banker in 2005?
  60. Were you questioned by Israel then?
  61. Did Israel already know of this?
  62. Did David Levhari tell them?  Did you?
  63. Did you tell the US after you learned Israel knew of it?
  64. Did you explicitly tell Israel that Fischer plagiarized Hakansson?
  65. Did you say Robert C. Merton was in on it?
  66. Did you say Paul Samuelson was?
  67. Did either of those talk to Israel at that time on this?
  68. Did they repeat what they told Israel to the FBI?
  69. What about Larry Summers?  Andrei Shleifer?
  70. Hay got a Ph.D. in math from Steklov Institute c. 2003. Did you know of this? Was it to keep Hay from telling what he knew to the FBI to get a plea deal during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  71. Did Summers protect Shleifer during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay because Shleifer was the conduit for this from Chubais? Knew of it?
  72. Did others know?
  73. Did Robert Vishny or Jose Scheinkman help Shleifer?
  74. What did Daniel Rubinfeld know of this?
  75. Who knew what when as of the ASSA January 2005 meeting in Philadelphia?
  76. Were you there?
  77. Who talked to Daniel Rubinfeld?
  78. What did Rubinfeld know?
  79. You, Schmalansee and Rubinfeld were all at MIT in 1969 and were all involved in US v Microsoft on both sides.  Did you tell any lawyer of this?  The judge?
  80. Lawrence Lessig was special master on that case.  Did he learn of it then?  Later?
  81. Did Aaron Swartz learn of this from Lessig?  From the Internet?
  82. Was Aaron Swartz investigating this when he downloaded the JSTOR files?
  83. Did Swartz commit suicide to protect someone before trial?  Someone who was going to come forward?
  84. Peter Diamond was added to the Swartz committee after someone asked MIT to investigate these matters as part of the Swartz investigation in 2013.  Did you hear of any discussion of this?
  85. Abelson is a friend of Lessig.  Was Lessig being protected?
  86. Was this told to the FBI in the background check for Stanley Fischer?
  87. How much of this does Russia know?
  88. Who has Russia approached?
  89. How much do China, India, Pakistan, and Iran know about this?  Have they approached anyone.
  90. Olivier Blanchard did not know what Stanley Fischer’s thesis was on in the 2004/2005 interview linked above.  How is that possible?  Part of their book together was on the same subject. No one at MIT told Blanchard?
  91. Does this show Fischer did plagiarize Hakansson?
  92. Robert C. Merton states in his Nobel Prize autobiography that Hakansson and Hayne Leland were graduates students elsewhere.  Hakansson got his Ph.D. in 1966 and Leland in 1968. Merton’s paper was published in 1969.  So they were not grad students then.  Was this to cover up that Hakansson went to Yale and the working paper version of Hakansson’s IER paper went to MIT to the office Merton and Fischer shared together while Merton did the continuous time version of Fischer’s discrete time knock off of Hakansson?
  93. Neither Merton nor Fischer followed Samuelson’s 1969 paper as a template?
  94. In 2003, Samuelson wrote it was not plagiarism.  Did Karl Shell tell Samuelson that someone asked for an investigation of a related plagiarism case in 2002 to Elsevier?
  95. Should the DOJ Antitrust Division have approved the Elsevier Academic Press merger?
  96. Daniel Rubinfeld has written that Elsevier’s big bundle violates the antitrust laws.  Do you agree?
  97. Is the role of Elsevier in this and the role of econ Ph.D.’s and econ profs at DOJ Antitrust Division Economic Analysis Group the reason that Elsevier can violate the antitrust laws?  Others?  Do investment banks know this?  Does Goldman Sachs?
  98. Do they get regulatory benefits?
  99. Bernanke’s thesis at MIT under Fischer doesn’t cite Fischer’s thesis or papers or Hakansson but does cite Samuelson 1969.  Bernanke knew this?
  100. Did Bernanke bailout the banks because they knew this?
  101. Did the Fed help bailout LTCM in 1998 because of this?
  102. No one told the FBI all this time?
  103. Does Russia know all this?
  104. Is this why Putin feels so confident he can invade Crimea and get away with it?
  105. Did Obama know this when he hired Larry Summers?  Did anyone tell the FBI then?
  106. Did anyone tell the FBI this time about Stanley Fischer?
  107. Does Obama know it anyhow?
  108. Does Putin have this as leverage over Obama?
  109. What about China, India, Pakistan, and Iran?  Others?

The above are hypotheses and speculation.  Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


Neocons: Traditionalism for me, Globalism for you

October 9, 2007

This is a continuation of the discussion of Lawrence Auster’s traditionalism discussion. See that post and linked ones for references to Auster or Vanishing American.

Neocons at AEI and elsewhere have set up a situation of all the benefits of traditionalism for themselves. They have tenure or strong bargaining power or both. They have extended networks of friends who can help them get jobs or money or resources on an ongoing basis. When they get together with their network it helps them advance in getting money.

This used to be true in traditional societies. You hunted or farmed or fought off invaders or marauders together. Your extended network and your livelihood and defense were all linked together. Every social occasion advanced your personal interests.

For professors, think tank dwellers, journalists, White House staffers or Senators or CEO’s this is still true. They have an extended network that helps them advance themselves. Social networking and business networking are linked. They get self defense from this network against marauders like a crusading assistant US attorney who needs to be reassigned or have their case reassigned.

For the rest of us, the neocons want to take away whatever bits of this are left and deny it to us. They want us globalized. They want our network to disappear. We have the social networking of losers not champions. We can’t help people in our network get jobs, because new jobs are at the level of H-1B wages down to illegal immigrant wages. Social networking with us doesn’t help anymore. There isn’t any need to know extended kin, because they don’t have good jobs to tell us about either.

The good jobs are locked up in the AEI network and aren’t available to the rest of us. So we can only network in fear and commiseration. We can tell each other when we lose our good job, but can’t help the person or give help to find another good job. Those are locked into the AEI network or similar out of reach networks.

The AEI Davos network spends its time taking away the good jobs from the rest of the people. So we are living in fear. Our social and family network can’t help us. They don’t have the resources to help us because the good jobs are disappearing. So they can’t help us find them.

Mitt Romney gained his fortune by working the Bain and Company side of that network. He helped corporate managements in small towns see the light, to ditch the people and get short term profits so they could cash out their options. The result is that traditional family and social networks in America can’t offer help, they are just line ups into the work and reeducation camps the neocons provide us, if that.

Meanwhile the neocons and professors and journalists are living rooted traditional lives. They have permanent jobs and places in their community. They have extended networks that can get them jobs or money or financial opportunities. They get regular opportunities to give papers, op-eds, present at networking gatherings that increase their security and opportunities.

They want traditionalism for them and globalization for us. Their institutions push that as hard as they can. For that they are well paid. Institutions which were supposed to put a break on this are co-opted. The Antitrust Division of the DOJ is effectively controlled by Deputy Assistant Attorney General econ or law profs who approve mergers and takeovers.

The investment banks and corporations doing the deals are then paying them as consultants or their expert witness firms and hiring their students to high paying jobs on Wall Street. That leads to higher salaries for these profs because this is what fuels high tuition, dream job opportunities that come from the former DAAG econ and law profs.

The takeovers and consolidation and approvals have been rubber stamped by a small group of econ prof DAAGs who are parts of the same types of networks discussed above. They have written books together, are on the same journals, are part of a small set of large expert witness firms, etc.

DOJ staff econ Ph.d.’s are the students of these profs. The profs write the letter of recommendation to the current prof who is in charge of the econ Ph.D.’s in DOJ. The prof at DOJ decides which Ph.D.’s to hire. They are then promoted by the prof at DOJ who runs that section. The Economic Analysis Group at DOJ is always run by a prof on loan from a university.

From the time a student enters grad school to the time they retire from DOJ as a Ph.D. economist staffer, their entire career is controlled by the same group of about 10 econ prof DAAGs. This is how its worked for a long time. DOJ doesn’t make it easy to datamine the statistics on this, but one can pull it together from searches.

DOJ Antitrust can’t do any action without an econ Ph.D. signing off on it. That means if the investment banks and management consulting firms can coopt the econ profs who control this system then they can get anything approved. Even the merger of Exxon and Mobil would be approved, and was.

The same system is working to offshore U.S. know-how. Russia, China, India, and other countries analyze this system and get in on it. They are taken care of. The result is that the globalization process happens faster and the rest of us lose out faster.

antitrust expert witness

Most DAAG econ profs are linked to the Handbook of Industrial Organization of Elsevier

Elsevier’s merger with Academic Press was approved in 1999 by DOJ. Daniel Rubinfeld, not DAAG then, later put up an analysis that this violated antitrust laws. That was later taken down.

Elsevier charges huge library subscription fees, unlike the case in the 1960’s. This huge inflation in rates charged libraries was the basis, in part, of Rubinfeld’s analysis.

Some of the analysis is still available:

search Daniel Rubinfeld Elsevier Academic Press

“economic analysis”

“economic analysis” “deputy assistant attorney general”

Wall Street hires the econ undergrad, grad students and law students of these profs. That lets the universities charge high tuition, in part, because dream jobs on Wall Street help fuel high tuition. But dream jobs on Wall Street are fueled by the DOJ Antitrust Division approving mergers and acquisitions. No M and A deal approvals, no M and A profits. M and A is a major driver of profits on Wall Street.

This cozy little world has all the advantages of traditionalism. Everyone knows everyone. Everyone has a permanent place. They have extended networks they have known for decades. Most have multiple jobs and affiliations and multiple pots of money. They have multiple secretaries and support people to smooth their lives. They spend their time in conferences and Davos and other resort meetings. The people who were supposed to be protected instead are losing their jobs.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. Graph page 16:

Income inequality is huge.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills:


Mitt Romney is the presidential candidate of this network.

After graduating from Harvard, Romney went to work for the The Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.[15] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a Bain & Company spin-off private equity investment firm called Bain Capital.[16] During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent,[17] making money primarily through leveraged buyouts.[18] He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino’s, Sealy Corporation and The Sports Authority.[19]

In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm’s employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.[17]

Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[20]

He and his wife have a net worth of between 190 and 250 million USD.[21]

Mitt Romney is a beneficiary of the cozy networks that made possible his fortune. Electing him is putting the fox in charge of the hiring of the DAAG econ profs and law profs who manage the technical work at DOJ.


From Vanishing American

Too often, children have no contact with older people, and the elders are isolated in ’senior communities’ or homes, rarely seeing their grandchildren or other relatives, who live far away.

So we are dwindling away, and fewer of the younger people bother to keep up the extended family ties that were so central to the older generations. Coming to the family reunions and to family holiday celebrations is not a priority with the younger generations.

This isn’t a problem for the elite networks.

William Kristol

William Kristol (born December 23, 1952 in New York City) is an American neoconservative pundit, analyst and strategist. He is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the founders of the neoconservative movement

William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Sunday and on the Fox News Channel.

Mr. Kristol recently co-authored The New York Times bestseller The War Over Iraq: America’s Mission and Saddam’s Tyranny.

This links to

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, as well as chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century. Before starting the Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the first Bush Administration. From 1985 to 1988, he served as chief of staff and counselor to Secretary of Education William Bennett. Prior to coming to Washington, Mr. Kristol served on the faculty of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government (1983-1985) and the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania (1979-1983).,2933,2120,00.html

William Kristol is a political contributor for the FOX News Channel (FNC) and serves as a regular contributor to Special Report with Brit Hume, the highest rated political program on cable television.

Irving Kristol

The philisophy of neo-conservatism is two-faced. Its traditionalism for those inside it, and globalization for the rest.

Lawrence Auster discusses Kristol on immigration:

“KRISTOL: I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.”

“KRISTOL: And they’ve been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. “

“What’s happened that’s so terrible in the last 20 years?”

“as well as his very lucrative speaking career, which by some reports nets him $100,000 to $200,000 per year.”

William Kristol serves on the board of trustees of the Manhattan Institute (paid?)
Bill Kristol, while editor of the Weekly Standard, was paid $100,000 for serving on an Enron advisory board over two years.
Kristol says he does “a fair amount” of speaking to corporate groups and doesn’t normally disclose it.

search William Kristol speaking fees

All those speaking fee gigs are arranged by secretaries at his magazine or at the company or institute. They often provide a private aircraft presumably for himself and whoever he wants to go with him. He may have a lavish suite at a 5 class hotel as part of it and a limo to take him around. He gets treated with caviar traditionalism to say how we should get globalization. He tells CEO’s, take the money, fire the employees. “Take it.” “Take the …” Be an uber-CEO straddling across history like a colossus. While we petty men and women get globalization.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

%d bloggers like this: