Archive for the 'Kenneth J. Arrow' 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.

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

The Washington Post: A Wikipedia Of Secrets

November 5, 2006

By Frank Ahrens
Sunday, November 5, 2006; Page F07

“Imagine if, in August 2001, the U.S. intelligence agencies had dumped all of their information into one secure, online resource where it was searchable and accessible to anyone who had the proper clearance.”

“Who knows if the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 could have been averted?”

Academia has allowed Russia to build files on plagiarism by profs in academia. This started in 1925 when Dirac plagiarized Max Born and Pascual Jordan with the aid of Fowler, Rutherford’s son in law. Bohr along with other institute directors in Europe were made Fellows of the Royal Society the next year by Rutherford. This helped them get Rockefeller grants that they needed in their poverty after WWI.

Fowler, Bohr and Rutherford families would stay as house guests of each other. Heisenberg was a house guest of Fowler in July 1925. The plagiarism happened in late October 1925 after the preprints of the Born Jordan paper were available. Fowler rushed the Dirac plagiarism into print in early November 1925 before the Born Jordan paper was published. He did it in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Lindemann the scientific adviser to Churchill in the 1930’s and during WWII was a Fellow of the Royal Society at the time and likely heard what happened. It was blatant plagiarism. Born and Jordan changed Heisenberg’s matrix notation and Dirac copied the BJ notation extensively, which showed he had seen their paper.

Dirac kept plagiarizing away. Fermi wrote him a letter about it, this is what is called Fermi Dirac statistics. Dirac later said that spin 1/2 particles should be named fermions.

Klaus Fuchs, Huanwu Peng, Kun Huang, Oppenheimer, and Heisenberg were all Max Born assistants. Peng and Huang went back to China after Fuchs was arrested in 1950. Peng is credited with being a hero of the Chinese bomb project by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

Kapitza was Rutherford’s assistant in 1925. When Niels Bohr was rescued during WWII, there was a Kapitza letter waiting for him at the Soviet embassy in London in 1944. He met with Churchill who was likely told this history and Churchill was mad. In 1945, Terletsky was sent from Russia to meet with Bohr with another Kapitza letter.

The Russians were pushing the Kapitza story in the 1990’s while they got low interest rate loans from IMF. Sudoplatov had a footnote in his 1994 book to remind the profs in the US of this. They got angry but didn’t tell the truth about this, including Bethe and Teller.

So if a Wikipedia on Russia’s plagiarism files had been available in the 1940’s, Klaus Fuchs might not have been allowed into Los Alamos without more questions being asked. This would have showed that the profs in Los Alamos knew he was a risk.

Bethe was the boss of Fuchs in Los Alamos but also was at Bristol with him in 1936. Fuchs was a Lutheran refugee from Hitler, which meant communist. But Oppenheimer and Fuchs had both been Max Born assistants and knew the above embarrassing details, so Bethe just went along.

The Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings were in April 1954. Before Teller testified he and Bethe argued for an hour over what his testimony would be. Teller may have threatened to tell the above. This may be why he was ostracized for his testimony, they were afraid he would tell the above.

Bethe had not told this to the FBI after Fuchs was arrested. Bethe was a known plagiarist and that was already in Physical Review in coy footnotes, including the article on Bethe’s calculation of the Lamb Shift.

Nambu says he was before Bethe Salpeter for the BS equation. But Kita in a footnote tells us he was before Nambu. Kita and Nambu were Japanese and so were easy prey. Nambu is still alive and is a prof at University of Chicago.

Detailed page references on the 1925 plagiarism by Dirac of Born and Jordan, Kapitza’s obituary on Rutherford in 1937 that mentions crediting the work of others, etc. is available in

Russia Used Plagiarism Files to Gain atomic know-how.
Also see Rob Sanchez Vdare H1B DoD for Corson Fock and Chinese assisants of Max Born.

Two Russian profs who may work on these files today are Albert Shiryaev at Moscow State University and Valery Makarov at New Economic School Moscow. Shiryaev does it in finance and Makarov in economics. This includes misconduct at the Federal Reserve, US Treasury, Council of Economic Advisers, US DOJ Antitrust Division Economic Analysis Group, FTC, SEC, IMF and World Bank. This includes profs who may have high level positions there and whose home base university is involved in this, or journals or publishers who they are linked to who are involved.

TOC: US v. Harvard, Bush v. Gore, Russia’s files on Plagiarism

Aldrich Ames and Robert P. Hanssen tipped off the Russians that they had a mole problem inside Russian intelligence. This is why they had Chubais handle negotiations for IMF loans with Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers.

Boris Berezovsky had a Ph.D. in math from Moscow State University and was a manager at the Institute of Control Sciences, Academy of Sciences, USSR. This is the area that analyzed the 1969 NSF grant papers of Robert C. Merton, Paul A. Samuelson, the Stanley Fischer MIT Ph.D. thesis, and the David Levhari TN Srinivasan paper.

They analyzed this for overlapping with the 1966 Nils Hakansson UCLA Ph.D. thesis received at MIT in 1966 because Karl Shell of MIT was session chairman for Hakansson to present the paper at the Dec 1966 Winter Meeting of the Econometric Society. We are neutral on whether this was plagiarism.

Hakansson bio

Hakansson’s contribution was a critical step in both finance and the microfoundations of macroeconomics. It was the joint consumption, savings, portfolio decision under uncertainty for multiple time periods using dynamic programming for the first time. It built on, and cited, the Phelps paper, which it found an error in.

search Merton Samuelson 1969 14 hits

search Merton Samuelson Hakansson 1969 0 hits.

So Harvard is not crediting Hakansson even today in this form. (Merton has cited the 1970 Hakansson paper, including in his book Continuous Time Finance.) One can take off the and see that Hakansson is credited by some.

Merton Nobel Prize autobio written after fall 1997, and after USAO Mass investigation started in spring 1997 says:

” The research with Paul on warrant pricing introduced me to the expected utility maxim and its application to optimal portfolio selection in a static framework. As a consequence of that effort, I began to think about combining the static theory of portfolio selection with the intertemporal optimization of lifetime consumption under certainty found in the growth-model literature. Ignorant of the important work underway by Nils Hakansson and Hayne Leland, then graduate students elsewhere, I attacked the problem of dynamic portfolio theory in a continuous-time framework without having the benefit of their discrete-time formulations. Despite all the mathematics courses that I had taken, l had seen neither stochastic dynamic programming nor the Ito calculus, both of which turned out to be key mathematical tools needed for this research. Instead, driven by “need,” I found them and learned them on my own. Presented first at a Harvard-MIT graduate student seminar in November 1968, my paper on lifetime consumption and portfolio selection under uncertainty was published the following August as a companion paper to one by Paul investigating the effect of age on portfolio risk tolerance.”

In fact, Hakansson got his Ph.D. thesis in 1966. Merton’s August 1970 MIT Ph.D. thesis available on line from MIT cites Hakansson as forthcoming.

Merton’s Ph.D. thesis is at MIT in a set of Nobel Prize winner theses on-line. Merton’s thesis home page at MIT. (This is 13.5 megabytes, and can be downloaded as a pdf and viewed. This is better than trying to view the pdf online.)

In a 1973 J. SIAM article, Samuelson and Merton cite the Hakansson 1966 Ph.D. thesis. In the Stanley Fischer 1969 Ph.D. thesis, Fischer cites Hakansson 1966 but says he was given a copy late and had already done his work.

Stanley Fischer thesis available from MIT here. (This is over 27 megabytes, and can be downloaded as a pdf and viewed. This is better than trying to view the pdf online.) The thesis is stamped by the MIT Library with the date October 7, 1969. It is signed August 18, 1969. It itself calls itself an August 1969 thesis. It appears the final typed version was not however completed until October 1969. Fischer went on the academic job market late it appears and was hired at University of Chicago in fall 1969 not as an assistant prof but as a post doc in effect. This required a visa.

Was the footnote acknowledge Hakansson added after August 1969? Aug 1969 is when the Merton and Samuelson NSF papers were published by Harvard in the Review of Economics and Statistics. Hakansson presented his paper at Harvard Business School in Jan/Feb 1969 as did Stiglitz. Both were at Yale.
Merton claims that even in 1997 he didn’t know Hakansson got his Ph.D. in 1966 and that Hakansson was still a graduate student elsewhere in 1968.

Fischer’s thesis also contains another chapter extending the results to uncertain date of death. It turns out Hakansson has already done that and submitted a paper from Yale on it.

There were close links between Yale econ and MIT Econ at the time, including Duncan Foley and Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz has carried on a feud with Summers and Fischer from the mid 1990’s to date.This has gotten quite personal. Other Harvard econ profs like Rogoff reacted angrily to Stiglitz criticizing IMF policy under Fischer and Summers.

Hakansson has not been made a Fellow of the Econometric Society. See list of fellows. Almost everyone else even remotely close to this was made a Fellow. This is despite most of them not making a permanent contribution to economics the way Hakansson has. Hakansson’s formulas are part of the permanent math of economics.

Stanley Fischer doesn’t really have any such contribution for his entire career. Fischer was made a Fellow in 1977. Most Fellows don’t have a great formula that is a permanent part of economics like Hakansson does.

Even Paul Samuelson arguably doesn’t have a great single formula of the level that Hakansson has. Most Nobel Prize winners don’t have a major mathematical formula reflecting a breakthrough like Hakansson has. Hakansson’s paper and formulas and theorems were some of the great ones of the 20th century.

Almost none of the other participants at MIT, thesis supervisors and commitee members, Ph.D. students at the time, etc. had a formula as important as Hakansson’s or as influential. Yet almost all of them were made Felllows of the Econometric Society.

For a brief period in the early 1970’s, MIT and Harvard pulled back a little.

But then there was the 1972 Warsaw meeting with the Russians with Valery Makarov. From MIT was Martin Weitzman now at Harvard. William Brock from University of Chicago was there, see his CV in pdf. Also there was Martin J. Beckmann. So was Koopmans, now deceased. Attending that conference doesn’t mean they had any knowledge then or now of any attempt by Soviets like Valery Makarov to apply hypothetical pressure to Koopmans or the other Americans.

Did the Russians put on pressure on them to nominate Kantorovich? Vainshtein of the USSR had recently said Leontief of Harvard had plagiarized, in effect, Soviets on input and output. Leontief got the Nobel Prize for this. Kantorovich got the Nobel Prize in 1975 for math econ work. The only prior math econ winners were Arrow and Samuelson.

After this, the tendency to cite Hakansson went down. Hakansson was not made a Fellow of the Econometric Society in the mid 1970’s as he should have been based on comparisons to others. Why? What changed from the early 1970’s when MIT did start to acknowledge Hakansson and the late 1970’s when that became rarer in the economics profession? Was it Russia using this to pressure nominations for the Nobel Prize from math econ winners Arrow and Samuelson, uncles of Larry Summers, that made the change?

Russia got billions in low interest rate IMF loans from Fischer and Summers. Some of the money went missing. Berezovsky got rich from loans for shares in fall of 1995 after the first 10 billion tranche from IMF in spring 1995.

LTCM, other hedge funds, Goldman Sachs and university endowments traded Russian government bonds in the 1990’s. Goldman Sachs paid Bush senior 100,000 dollars to speak in Moscow June 1998. Jack Abramoff took Delay on a trip to Moscow. The oligarchs were paying off Delay in 1998 to keep the IMF funds coming that they were using academic kompromat to pressure out of Fischer and Summers.

–Fischer Interviews


Olivier Blanchard, coauthor on textbook from 1989 that cites Merton and Samuelson 1969 but not Hakansson at all, or Fischer.–

John Yoo, Paul Wolfowitz, and possibly George Bush from Prince Bandar were figuring this out in the 1990’s. They got the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment hearings, along with hearings on loans to Russia, the Fed bailout of LTCM, and during the USAO Mass investigation of Harvard and Shleifer from 1997 to 2005.

Yoo may have told this to Silberman and Hatch who told Scalia. They may have used it to pressure Gore to go away after the decision in Bush v. Gore. Scalia wrote the lone opinion on why they stopped the vote counting early. That may be because he was the one who heard this.

It is possible that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia knew it at the IMF and used that to pressure Bush after 9-11 to ignore their involvement in 9-11. General Ahmed may have said this to Armitage in their meeting and that is why Armitage got so mad. Saudi Arabia got to airlift out its people from the US after 9-11. In November 2001, Pakistan got to airlift out its generals and ISI and soldiers from Kunduz Afghanistan according to Seymour Hersh. This may have been their use of this leverage.

M. A. B. Beg was a physics prof at Rockefeller University. He knew Pais who wrote about the Fock Corson episode in his 1997 book A Tale of Two Continents. Beg was dead by then. Beg was from Pakistan. Beg was an expert in Fock space and may have passed this on to Pakistan. Its possible the Saudis have profs of Muslim or Arab origins who give them info on this for money in the West.

–Reply to a comment at WaPo

quote There is no archive of entries so that a reader can view the history of entries and form an opinion. end quote. Click on history on wiki.

For example, Manmohan Singh, PM of India. Parts of his bio were taken off relating to his experience going to the Soviet Union in 1980’s, etc. Singh gave a speech at Moscow State University indicating knowledge of some of the above and of the cases in econ.

Singh helps balance Pakistan’s knowledge of this at IMF and World Bank. Pakistan had a VP at World Bank and Shaukat Aziz at Citicorp and they know of the kompromat issues used over the decades at IMF and World Bank because of profs there. This is speculation, as are the other posts.

==Excerpt removed from wiki from Singh’s bio from his cv.

A version of wiki that has this is from August 2006. Someone took out the parts indicating his possible cooperation or observation of the Soviets and his work at IMF and World Bank for India where he likely had access to files on academic misconduct of US profs and Russia’s files on them. His speech at Moscow State University on Dec 5, 2005 indicates his knowledge. Notice he mentions Kapitza. This gave him leverage over Bush and Senator Hatch and others to get the India nuclear deal moving forward.

“It is not surprising that your university should have produced great Nobel laureates like Nikolai Semionov, Igor Tamm, Ilia Frank, Leo Landau and Pyotr Kapitza.”

Tamm Dancoff was one of the things the Russians complained off in their own publications in 1955 as overreaching by Oppenheimer protege Dancoff.

“As a student of economics I have admired the work of such great Russian economists as the Nobel Laureates, Wassily Leontief and Leonid Kantorovich.”

Leontief was accused of plagiarism by Vainshtein of USSR in 1969-70 issue of Matekon. Kantorovich got Nobel Prize nominations from prior winners possibly including math econ winners Arrow and Samuelson, the uncles of Larry Summers. Samuelson was on Fischer’s Ph.D. at MIT and on Merton’s. Samuelson got an NSF grant for one of the 1969 papers and supervised Merton to get another NSF grant for another 1969 paper involved in the MIT incident. Its these two papers that Stanley Fischer credits in his 1989 textbook and not Hakansson at all.

India knew of the plagiarism by Dirac with Fowler’s help of Max Born from the 1930’s from Bhabha. Bhabha was in the UK from 1927 to 1939, much of it at Cambridge where the Dirac Fowler plagiarism happened. Bhabha was head of India’s nuclear program.

The excerpt of Singh’s bio removed from wiki:

  Leader of the Indian delegation to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Cyprus (1993)

Leader of the Indian delegation to the Human Rights World Conference, Vienna (1993)

  Governor of India on the Board of Governors of the IMF and the International Bank of Reconstruction & Development (1991-95)
  Appointed by Prime Minister of India as Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (1983-84)
  Chairman, India Committee of the Indo-japan ;Joint Study Committee (1980-83)
  Leader, Indian Delegation to :
  Indo-Soviet Monitoring Group Meeting (1982)
  Indo-Soviet Joint Planning Group Meeting (1980-82)
  Aid India Consortium Meetings (1977-79)
  Member Indian Delegation to :
  South-South Consultation, New Delhi (1982)
  Cancun Summit on North-South Issues (1981)
  Aid-India Consortium Meetings, Paris (1973-79)
  Annual Meetings of IMF, IBRD & Commonwealth
Finance Ministers (1972-79)
  Third Session of UNCTAD, Santiago (April-May 1972)
  Meetings of UNCTAD Trade & Development Board,
Geneva (May 1971 – July 1972)
  Ministerial Meeting of Group of 77, Lima (Oct.1971)
  – Deputy for India on IMF Committee of Twenty on
International Monetary Reform (1972 – 74)
  – Associate, Meetings of IMF Interim Committee and Joint
Fund-Bank Development Committee (1976-80, 1982-85)
  Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors of
IBRD (1976-80)
  Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors of the
IMF (1982-85)
  Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, Asian
Development Bank, Manila (1976-80)
  Director, Reserve Bank of India (1976-80)
  Director, Industrial Development Bank of India (1976-80)
  Participated in Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting,
Kingston (1975)
  Represented Secretary;-General UNCTAD at several
inter-governmental meetings including :
  Second Session of UNCTAD, 1968
  Committee on Invisibles & Financing Related to Trade,
Consultant to UNCTAD, ESCAP and Commonwealth
  Member, International Organizations :
  Appointed as Member by the Secretary-General, United Nations of a Group of Eminent Persons to advise him on Financing for Development (December, 2000)


This post represents opinion, hypothesis, or speculation. Nothing in this should be considered an aspersion on any person. All statements should be interpreted as restated to give effect to this. All statements in the positive should be restated as questions. All other conceivable disclaimers apply.

read more | digg story

%d bloggers like this: