Archive for the 'Larry Summers' 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”

http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v51y1969i3p239-46.html 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merton%27s_portfolio_problem

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.

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/Dissertation.pdf

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

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/papers/optimal70.htm

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.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7521.html

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.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i1_7521.html

(See also

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-right-way-to-manage-us-attorneys/

)

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.”

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cwlcwldpp/109.htm

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.

http://www.hakansson.com/

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/nils_bio.htm

http://www.hakansson.com/joyce/joyce_bio.htm

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.

Hostage Taking Scenario at Harvard or MIT during Sochi

January 31, 2014

This post explores a hypothetical scenario of a hostage taking at Harvard or MIT during the Sochi Winter Olympics.  This would be done by Chechen or Muslim groups who wanted to make a spectacular statement linking Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer to the IMF funding of the Second Chechen War that Chechens and Muslims blame for the genocide of Chechens.

In addition to providing such a linkage, it would also expose the FBI as inept and corrupt in the background checks of Larry Summers in 2009 and again earlier in 2013 and for Stanley Fischer for Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

From the point of view of Chechens or Muslims taking hostages at the MIT or Harvard Economics Department, business schools or a dorm or library would create a spectacular propaganda event.  This would be better than a hostage taking of athletes in Sochi because it would tie the responsibility of Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer to the IMF to IMF loans funding the Second Chechen War and genocide of the Chechens.

Moreover, to these groups, the CIA was responsible for fomenting conflict in Chechnya that led to the war.  They also believe the CIA’s motive was at least partly to get oil and pipelines from that region.  This can create a fever of revenge in their minds as they consider that Chechens died so that CIA linked investors could become millionaires or even billionaires.  Secondary targets could be various companies or investment groups linked to this activity.

Anyone with information on these subjects should report it.  See the bottom of the following post on this subject.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/navigating-resources-on-russia-plagiarism-files/

Navigating Resources on Russia Plagiarism Files

January 31, 2014

This post is meant to help in finding information on Russia Plagiarism Files, ie the hypothesis that the Russian government keeps track of plagiarism, or its appearance or post publication efforts to claim credit or deny credit or recognition to rivals or victims.

If you come to a tag page like Klaus Fuchs you will find a stack of articles with the tag Klaus Fuchs with the latest articles first.  You can think of it as a column of articles with the latest article on the top of the column.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/klaus-fuchs/

The latest article may be tagged Klaus Fuchs because it has some application related to Klaus Fuchs.  However, the latest article is not the one to read if you are starting at the beginning.  It will simply confuse you and seem hopeless.

One thing you can do is go to the bottom of the column which is the oldest article.

The top article currently in the Klaus Fuchs tag column is

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/thomas-c-reed-chinese-nuclear-tests/

This article is mostly about Thomas C. Reed citing the tag column Klaus Fuchs.  It is December 12, 2008.

Note the current link to the Reed article is now

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/61/9/10.1063/1.2982122

If we go to the bottom of the Klaus Fuchs tag column, we get

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/russia-used-plagiarism-files-to-get-atomic-know-how/

This article is from 2006.  The 2006 article is more basic and from the beginning. So you would do better to read that unless you can’t think for yourself, in which case you just want to see that Thomas C. Reed linked to these webpages.  Reed was a former Sec of the Air Force and worked with Teller before that to develop nuclear weapons at Lawrence Livermore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Reed

Another place to start on Russia Plagiarism Files is

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/russias-plagiarism-files/

This has links to some other articles.

If you come to a random article webpage from a Google link or a link in an email provided by a friend or unfriend, then you may find it confusing or not of much use.  You have to make some effort to find the right articles to read given your background knowledge.

This navigation page will be added to from time to time.  So you may want to come back to it.

==

As a reminder, See Something Say Something.

If you know something that could be of use in exposing government or academic corruption or in counter-terrorism, speak up.  Chechens or others may have specific resentments against academic, banking, government or international targets.  If you work for one of those or are a student and see something suspicious, speak up.  Report it to someone.  Post a comment on these webpages if you can’t do anything else.

This is currently posted on January 31, 2014.  We are in a fever over Sochi Terrorism.  But the strike may be somewhere else such as Harvard and MIT economics departments or business schools.  If you work or study there, and no one seems to take notice of anything, speak up.  These departments should issue warnings in advance of the Sochi games, really even before this.  They are a special target during Sochi. So are the IMF and World Bank in Washington DC or affiliated locations in Europe.

Russia may also be spreading stories inside Chechen or Muslim groups blaming Andrei Shleifer, Larry Summers, Stanley Fischer or others.  Putin wants to deflect blame for the Chechen genocide and Moscow Apartment Bombings onto the US, British and likely Israel.

After the Boston Bombings in 2013, Putin blamed the CIA for manipulating Anatoly Chubais, this fingered Harvard prof Andrei Shleifer.  If something happens in the US or Europe, Putin will blame the CIA.  If someone is killed, Putin will say they were the next Snowden and were going to expose the CIA.    Russia will have a twisted story to explain whatever happens.  Thus you can’t exclude any target or any scenario because it is too absurd or stupid.

Stanley Fischer’s appointment as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve before the Sochi Olympics was waiving a red flag in the face of Chechens and Muslims. They blame the IMF loans under Fischer and Summers for funding the Chechen genocide in 1999 during the Second Chechen War.  The Kavkaz Center in Sweden pushes this line.  Thus the Federal Reserve is a target and groups or individuals linked to it.  If you know something about any of this, you should pass that on.  This includes Russia’s use of academic misconduct kompromat, pre or post publication.

The universities, the IMF and World Bank, Federal Reserve, banks and other related financial institutions have not passed on what they know to the FBI or JTTF or even within their own organization to their own security people.  They have to take blame for not doing so.  If you have information or academic misconduct, Russia’s use of it, an interest in this subject by Chechens and Muslims, Chinese, or Russians, then pass it on.

Countries like Pakistan and India and likely Iran try to piggy back on this information and use it. So report people from these countries if you know they are involved in such matters.  You can link to this page in a written report or tip as providing background on these subjects.

Don’t be a victim.  These people manipulate not just terrorism but academic misconduct and recognition to advance their national or group interests.  You don’t have to protect them because they are colleagues or leader figures, even if they have important titles or recognition.

Bullying and plagiarism by profs are same thing in Russia Plagiarism Files

August 21, 2009

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6805567.ece

The court heard that Houghton had waged a string of verbal and physical attacks on Miss Moore since the pair were 14 and District Judge Bruce Morgan told her: “Since Emily Moore was 14 you have waged compelling threats and violent abuse towards her.

“Bullies are by their nature cowards, in school and society. The evil, odious effects of being bullied stay with you for life. On this day you did an act of gratuitous nastiness to satisfy your own twisted nature.”

Houghton, of Malvern in Worcestershire, had two previous convictions relating to her vendetta against Miss Moore. In 2005 she was convicted of assaulting her as she walked home from school and was subsequently expelled.

The bullying makes no sense at one level, but make sense in other contexts.  The bully does it out of habit and the way they are, whether by nature or nurture.  Society then lets them get away with more and more and doesn’t treat it as the real harm it is.  Note the method of pretending they are the friend described in the article.  This approach is common in academia and elsewhere.

Paul Samuelson plagiarism “public good”

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i1_7521.html

Edmund Phelps, Insider-Economists’ Insider

Introduction by PAUL A. SAMUELSON

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.

No it wasn’t.  It was Nils Hakansson’s Ph.D. thesis at UCLA.  It was not a public good for horning in.  Paul Samuelson got an NSF grant for his horning in.

http://www.hakansson.com/

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/Dissertation.pdf

MIT had the thesis by 1966 because a professor there, Karl Shell, chaired the session at which Hakansson presented it.  It was one of the top theses of all time in economics and caused a sensation in the profession.  It was not a public good at all.  Public good has an ironic meaning when Samuelson get an NSF grant for his 1969 “horning in”.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/04/09/prof-summers-a-lesson-from-prof-bernanke/

By David Wessel

Asked about the economics of implementing a cap-and-trade approach to climate change at an Economic Club of Washington event today, White House economic adviser Larry Summers deliberately sought to avoid saying anything newsworthy. Instead, he cited a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. thesis written in 1979 by a then-young economist named Ben Bernanke, now, of course, chairman of the Federal Reserve.

http://news-libraries.mit.edu/blog/bernanke-thesis-available/156/

Bernanke cites the Samuelson 1969 paper in his thesis.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/29839/05915220.pdf;jsessionid=F6535BEB64E73E0150C398D6A48A8B55?sequence=1

Page 149 of thesis cites Samuelson but in the citations, Hakansson does not appear.

Stanley Fischer in his 1989 textbook credits Samuelson 1969 and mentions Hakansson not at all.

Hypothesis:

The bullying described by the judge is exactly how Paul Samuelson, Stanley Fischer and the others at MIT treated Nils Hakansson from 1969 to present.  They have bullied him repeatedly.  The judges words describe Paul Samuelson’s actions towards Nils Hakansson.  The others went along with it.

This is what gave Russia leverage over Larry Summers to get the low interest rate loans fro the IMF.  This is why LTCM and other hedge funds bought Russian government bonds, based on their knowledge of this history of bullying.  It was bullying in printed publications of the major institutions of society which control the credentials of the elites which made it far more harmful than Facebook.

Nils Hakansson was not even made a Fellow of the Econometric Society.  So many at MIT in 1969 were made Fellows even though they did nothing of comparable worth.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/russias-plagiarism-files/

Hypothesis:

Summers is still continuing the bullying.  But now he is trying to intimidate those who know from coming forward.  Summers is also bullying Assistant US Attorney Sara Miron Bloom not to investigate what is now on the Internet.  Summers is doing this with Obama’s knowledge very likely.  This includes bullying and intimidating the staff of DOJHQ, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, FBI, etc.  They are all being bullied by Summers and Obama and Nation of Cowards Attorney General Eric Holder.

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_61/iss_9/47_1.shtml

Thomas C. Reed September 2008, page 47

One important “pupil” who paid Fuchs an early visit was Qian Sanqiang. In 1959 Qian was the designated mastermind of Mao’s A-bomb program. In July of that year, Qian made his way to East Germany, where he met with Fuchs at length. (H. Terry Hawkins, now a senior fellow at Los Alamos, told Stillman in 2006, “I read this report in an unclassified publication, that this meeting took place shortly after Fuchs returned to East Germany. Fuchs gave Qian information that greatly assisted the Chinese program.” Also see http://www.oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/klaus-fuchs.) During those long summer days of 1959, Fuchs gave Qian a full tutorial on the design and operation of Fat Man. In all likelihood, he also added his thoughts on the role of radiation pressure in thermonuclear weapons.

Holder, Obama and Summers know AIP has linked to this blog on this.  They know they are facing investigation for this.  They are using bullying to keep the DOJ staff and FBI staff from investigating this.

Joel Brenner talk mentions Russia’s intense effort towards end.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2007/03/29/HP/A/6196/ABA+Speech+on+Counterintelligence+Threats.aspx

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN29426639

“But he said Moscow appears less interested in U.S. commercial and military technology than other countries”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10785968

http://nationalstrategy.com/Programs/NationalStrategyForumReview/SpringSummer2009NSFROnlineJournal/FeatureEssayEconomicandIndustrialEspionage/tabid/189/Default.aspx

http://www.ncix.gov/publications/speeches/ABAspeech.pdf

The above is all hypotheses and should be restated as that if not already.  This is speculation.  Comments and corrections welcome.  This is draft and preliminary.  All other disclaimers apply.

Ron Paul on IMF Russia Loans 1999

December 14, 2007

http://www.house.gov/paul/committeework/bankingtrans/99_9_22.htm

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.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba51201.000/hba51201_0.HTM

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.

Gonzales Resigns Questions for Chertoff if AG

August 27, 2007

The following questions are for Michael Chertoff. Note these are questions not assertions. All assertions should be restated as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

  1. Does Russia keep files on plagiarism by profs in the US?
  2. Does that include possible plagiarism by Stanley Fischer in his 1969 MIT Ph.D. thesis and Paul Samuelson in a 1969 MIT NSF grant.
  3. Samuelson is the uncle of Larry Summers.
  4. Did Russia use this to pressure Nobel Prize nominations from Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow, uncles of Larry Summers in the 1970’s for Kantorovich of the USSR?
  5. Did this happen in part at an economics conference in Warsaw in 1972? There are living persons from that conference such as Martin Beckmann.
  6. Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer had control over IMF loans to Russia in the 1990’s. Did Russia use this information to pressure them?
  7. Did Harvard or the Clinton admin conceal this information from the USAO Mass investigation of Harvard from 1997 to 2005? This was led by Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom.
  8. Did Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, or John Yoo know this and use it to get the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 or to influence Scalia in Bush v. Gore, or to influence Gore to give up and go away quietly?
  9. Was an agreement reached by George W. Bush and his staff as non-federal employees prior to Jan 20, 2001 to conceal this information from the FBI and Senate in nominations and from the USAO Mass investigation?
  10. Did George W. Bush and others form an agreement as non-federal employees prior to Jan 20, 2001 to allow Russia to continue its network of academics or others in the US?
  11. At this point, did George W. Bush and others become effectively linked to actions of the Russian government against the United States and become part of a conspiracy against the United States prior to Jan 20, 2001 as non-federal employees?
  12. Did Michael Chertoff become aware of this agreement at some time?
  13. Did Michael Chertoff fail to notify Congress of this in any prior nomination of Michael Chertoff?
  14. Did Michael Chertoff fail to notify Congress or act on this as an employee of the DOJ or DHS?
  15. Did Alberto Gonzales join this possible conspiracy at some point?
  16. Was the firing of US attorneys intended to further this conspiracy, and to further Russia’s ability to keep its network in the US intact?
  17. Did other nations, such as China, India, Pakistan or Mexico learn of this method of Russia in the 1940’s or 1950’s and then realize that Russia had reactivated this method in the 1990’s to get IMF loans?
  18. The USAO Mass investigation became public in 1997. In 1998, India and Pakistan did nuclear tests. Did they realize the Clinton team by 1998 had already concealed information from the USAO Mass investigation? Were they using that to do their nuclear tests?
  19. In August of 1998, al Qaeda hit US embassies. Was Pakistan relying on its information on the Clinton administration to get away with its support of al Qaeda?
  20. Did Harvard, the Clinton administration and others become accessories after the fact to Pakistan’s support of al Qaeda?
  21. Did they become accessories before the fact as Pakistan continued its support of the Taliban and al Qaeda from August 1998 to present?
  22. Did Bush and his team form an agreement prior to Jan 20, 2001 that they would not hinder Pakistan in its support of al Qaeda as part of furthering a conspiracy to use this information to gain the presidency or influence the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore or influence Gore not to protest in the Senate, an official act, or during the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act effort?
  23. After the 9-11-2001 attacks, did Bush’s team in a meeting with Pakistan’s General Ahmed of the Pakistan ISI allow Ahmed to use this record to get money from the U.S. and lifting of sanctions for its nuclear program, as well as get away with its support of al Qaeda and the Taliban and Afghanistan?
  24. Was this in furtherance of a possible conspiracy formed prior to Jan 20, 2001 as non-federal employees?
  25. Has Bush given India its nuclear deal to keep India from exposing this? Is not Manmohan Singh a former Indian intelligence officer who reverse engineered this for India prior to becoming PM?
  26. Did not Mexico through ITAM and Marcos Moshinsky learn of the 1947 Physical Review Fock Letter, Vainshtein publication in 1969/1970 Matekon and other acts of Russia?
  27. Did Bush give Mexico benefits including illegal immigration and a proposed amnesty and legal family reunification as part of keeping them quiet?
  28. Was Michael Chertoff prior to recent enforcement actions, giving Mexico a hands off policy on illegal immigration as part of this possible conspiracy to keep them from exposing it?
  29. Did Paul Wolfowitz learn of this from his father Jacob Wolfowitz as to events prior to Jacob’s death in 1981?
  30. Did John Yoo learn this from Berkeley econ/J.D. profs, including one who clerked for Scalia in the 1990’s?
  31. Did Scalia and other justices learn of this from econ Ph.D./J.D. clerks from the same universities that are involved?
  32. Has Russia used this to sell arms to Iran including Sunburn anti-ship missiles intended to sink US carriers which carry over 5000 men and women each?
  33. Was this not allowed by Bush and his team as an act in furtherance of their possible conspiracy?
  34. Does Iran know this? Has Iran used this to get away with its support of the insurgency and killing of US men and women in Iraq?

This is opinion, hypotheses or speculation. All assertions should be restated as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

WaPo: “Russia Seeks More Control At Academy Of Sciences”

March 13, 2007

=Original WaPo Article:

“Russia Seeks More Control At Academy Of Sciences”

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page A01

“MOSCOW — The historic autonomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which has pioneered fundamental research in Russia since its founding by Peter the Great three centuries ago, is under threat from government proposals to bring the institution under much tighter state control and end its academic…”

“This is really a war,” Alexander Nekipelov, vice president of the academy, said in an interview at the institution’s august administrative headquarters, a czarist palace on Moscow’s Leninsky Prospekt. “I am sure we are going to win it, but of course we cannot help being worried by the situation.”

Members of the academy, which in 1980 defied Soviet demands that it expel dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov, view the plan as part of a broader trend of increased official control over key parts of Russian society.

==

The Academy of Sciences helps Russian intelligence analyze plagiarism and the interplay between academic and political corruption in the West. This started with Kapitza analyzing plagiarism by Dirac and Niels Bohr being made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1926 to keep quiet about it. Rutherford was president of the Royal Society and his son-in law Fowler was helping Dirac.

==

Putin became head of FSB in July 1998 and may have gotten in on looting a 4.8 billion IMF loan. This may have involved kompromat on US econ profs Stanley Fischer at IMF and Larry Summers at US Treasury.

Russia may have had academic kompromat files on them for decades including possibly plagiarism by Fischer in his 1969 Ph.D. thesis at MIT in which Samuelson the uncle of Summers was involved.

Putin may want to control the academy because his money comes from it and because Berezovsky and Yeltsin were using this in the 1990’s to get IMF loans. Putin’s participation in this scheme is how he became President of Russia.

Thus the Academy is key to the truth about how he got his money and his power. They have reputation control to expose this and he wants control over them to keep them under control. The above is all speculation and a hypothesis.

==

quote During Soviet days, the academy also repeatedly denied membership to leading Communist Party members on grounds that they lacked scientific credentials. end quote.

quote In November 1945 refused to work on nuclear weapons development under Beria, and in 1946 was dismissed from his posts as director of the Institute for Physical Problems and head of Glavkislorod, and resided at his country house until after Stalin’s death and Beria’s arrest in 1953. He conducted there original research on high-power electronics. In January 1955 Kapitza returned to the post of director of the Institute. end quote RAS bio on Kapitza.

http://kapitza.ras.ru/history/PLKapitza/main.html

Beria sent him a shotgun as a present, but Stalin let Kapitza live and stay at his house. One book says Kapitza should have been killed for what he did. Kapitza lived a long time until 1984.

Kapitza’s was Rutherford’s assistant in 1925 and knew of the plagiarism and coverup including making Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society.

This gave Kapitza and the Acad of Sci USSR independence of the Party. Even in the 1980’s, they had this as leverage over Teller and Bethe, both of whom didn’t tell this when Fuchs was arrested or at the Oppenheimer security hearings in April 1954. Born the victim got the Nobel in fall 1954.

==

c. 1994, Sudoplatov refers to Kapitza in his book as Rutherford’s assistant. This is what got Bethe and the others scared to denounce the Sudoplatov book, not just the accusations on Oppenheimer, Fermi, and Szilard.

It was in 1995, they got the big IMF loans from profs Fischer and Summers. They were using the accusations on the physicists to scare the econ profs into giving them money. In Russian physics journal(s), they also pushed Kapitza to remind the Americans.

Putin got in on this with Berezovsky and Yeltsin in 1998 as head of FSB when they got more IMF loans and stole them for themselves. Because the Academy has used its knowledge since 1946 to be independent, even against Stalin and Beria, Putin has to get control over them now before the presidential election where he turns over power.

Putin wants to keep his money and keep the Academy from using this as leverage for its own benefit, as it has in the past. Even in the 1930’s, during the purges, Kapitza used this to demand Landau be released from prison. So Putin is trying to control this independence that the Academy has used even under Stalin from its keeping the plagiarism files on US profs. The above is all speculation.

==
“Members of the academy, which in 1980 defied Soviet demands that it expel dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov,”

Kapitza was alive and still a witness against Bethe and Teller. Teller was a key person in SDI in the 1980’s which gave Kapitza leverage until 1984 to protect Sakharov.

==
Comments WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007031201603

read more | digg story

Above is all speculation and hypotheses.  All statements should be restated as questions.  All other disclaimes apply.

The Right Way to Manage U.S. Attorneys

March 10, 2007

“The actions of an appointed U.S. attorney must be totally off-limits to questions from the White House or anyone in Congress.” from Abbe David Lowell Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A19.

A discussion of whether Bush is trying to influence the Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, and Libby investigations or to intimidate Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom at the USAO Mass from reopening the Harvard investigation follows. This are in response to the article by Abbe Lowell on the US Attorney firings.

==

The following is all hypotheses and speculation. All statements should be restated as questions. All other
disclaimes apply.
Comments at WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007030901752&start=1

==

Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom of USAO Mass is the real target of intimidation? Because Russia used kompromat to get loans from Clinton admin and Bush knew thay by the time of Bush v. Gore? In July 1998, Putin became head of FSB and Russia got another 4.8 billion in IMF loans.

But the money was taken from the bank accounts of the Russian govt to the personal accounts of the leaders. (Note the IMF disputes this in part and had an audit done and claimed equivalent amounts of money from other Russian government controlled accounts were used.) So the Russian government defaulted on Russian govt debt in Aug 98 since the money was not in the govt bank accounts.

Russia 4.8 billion IMF site:imf.org

Russia 4.8 billion IMF

A discussion of some of the IMF Russia and Asia transactions that is more technical is here.

Two professors, Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer had control over the IMF loans to Russia. Putin and the oligarchs and FSB had decades of files on academic kompromat some of it linked to Fischer’s 1969 Ph.D. thesis and an NSF grant involving Paul Samuelson, Summers’ uncle.

The KGB in 1972 at an econ conference in Warsaw may have used this incident and others to try to pressure Samuelson and Arrow, also uncle of Summers to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the Nobel in econ.

This was all possibly hid from USAO Mass from 1997 to 2005 by Clinton admin and then Bush. Did Bush use it during Bush v. Gore to make Gore go away? Gore turned down the presidency of Harvard. Did Marc Rich know this? Libby and Wolfowitz? Jacob Wolfowitz likely knew of the 1969 and 1972 incidents.

The above is speculation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn//comments/display?contentID=AR2007030901752&start=1⊂=AR

Job Offer to Stanley Fischer from Putin in 2001:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/imf/2001/russiaimf.htm

quote Russia Restores Ties with IMF BBC News June 19, 2001 For his part, Mr Putin complimented Mr Fischer, who plans to step down from his IMF role before the end of the year. He also offered him a job. We are always glad to see you in our country, said Mr Putin. If you would like to move from the IMF to Moscow, we can look at various options. end quote.

Putin likely got in on the July 1998 4.8 billion pot of money. So he was protecting his money at this point. After Fischer was hired by Israel in Jan 2005, Putin did an arms deal with Syria and then Iran. Israel and Bush kept quiet. The SVR and FSB are professionals at intimidation. Follow the money. Follow Putins money.
==
search “In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps ” plagiarism

quote 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. end quote Paul Samuelson.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i1_7521.html

old link:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7521.html

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.

Note the text was removed from above link after being posted with this link.

But it can be seen with Google inside:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0691094853

If you type the word plagiarism into the search, you get part of the passage quoted above.  Click on page 1 and scroll down.  This link brings it up:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5yC9Z5q6NmkC&pg=PA1&vq=plagiarism&sig=pyJGziu75ir5psgGewgQai61M1c

Fischer’s thesis was part of the same 1969 events. Samuelson and Merton got NSF grants for their 1969 papers. But it was already in part in the 1966 Nils Hakansson Ph.D. thesis that MIT had a copy of in 1966. Fischer got his US citizenship from his thesis. Above is speculation.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691094853/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8618326-6380625#reader-link
==
search Wolfowitz site:nobelprize.org

Engle Nobel autobio shows Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father was part of this small world in 1969.quote I took Kiefer’s probability and Wolfowitz’s statistics. I was extremely happy. … We married on August 10, 1969. On that day, I turned in my dissertation, received my Ph.D. and we left Cornell for good to take my first academic job at MIT. …
… Many of my students from that time have gone on to do quite well themselves: Larry Summers, …
Frank Fisher, Bob Solow, and Jerry Rothenberg encouraged me to join them on a new project to build a model of the city of Boston. …end quote.
quote Robert M. Solow – Autobiography
So, in 1949-50, I spent a fellowship year at Columbia University, in the lectures of Abraham Wald, Jacob Wolfowitz and T.W. Anderson, along with my fellow … end quote. Solow Nobel Prize autobio.

Solow was on one of the Ph.D. committees of Merton and Stanley Fischer at that time. This was one little world and Russia knew this to use it at the 1972 Warsaw econ conference to pressure Arrow and Samuelson to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the 1975 Nobel Prize in economics. Above is speculation.

==

Paul Wolfowitz was Jacob Wolfowitz’s son and signed the 1998 PNAC letter to make regime change in Iraq part of US goals. Clinton was impeached in fall of 1998 and signed the Iraq Liberation Act in October 1998. At the same time there were hearings into IMF loans for Russia, LTCM bailout, etc.

Robert C. Merton was part of LTCM which bought Russian bonds in Aug 98 betting the IMF would have to bail Russia out. But the money was put into the personal bank accounts of the leaders so it wasn’t there to pay Russia’s bonds, so it defaulted. LTCM went belly up and Congress investigated why the Fed helped arrange a bailout.

The USAO Mass had already started investigating Harvard and Russia and Clinton profs like Larry Summers in spring 1997. If Jacob Wolfowitz had revealed this at that time, Clinton might have been removed from office and this would have become part of the ongoing investigations of Clinton more closely. This could be used again during Bush v. Gore, the USAO Mass was still investigating, in fact to August 2005. The above is all speculation.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2003/engle-autobio.html

==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480_pf.html

The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail
Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist

quote Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.

One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network’s director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay’s vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.

“Ed told me, ‘This is the way things work in Washington,’ ” Geeslin said. “He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash.” Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group’s fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details. Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment on this article.

The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced on June 18 — just a week before the $1 million check was sent by the London law firm — that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans.

House Republican leaders had expressed opposition through that spring to giving the IMF the money it could use for new bailouts, decrying what they described as previous destabilizing loans to other countries. The IMF and its Western funders, meanwhile, were pressing Moscow, as a condition of any loan, to increase taxes on major domestic oil companies such as Gazprom, which had earlier defaulted on billions of dollars in tax payments.

On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. But DeLay, appearing on “Fox News Sunday” on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds “unfortunate” because the IMF was wrongly insisting on a Russian tax increase. “They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF. That’s just outrageous,” DeLay said. end quote

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A01

search Russia IMF july 1998 site:washingtonpost.com

http://www.nationalbanken.dk/C1256BE9004F6416/side/Report_and_Accounts_1998/$file/kap08_01.htm
==

If Russia was bribing Tom Delay, they weren’t using academic kompromat at the same time? This was a big time operation of the Russian goverment to get these IMF loans. They were bribing Tom Delay through Jack Abramoff and at the same time there were pressuing Larry Summers at US Treasury and Stanley Fischer at IMF based on the academic kompromat trail that stretches back to the 1920’s and includes the same methods used to help gain atomic know-how.

Putin was head of FSB in July 1998. This was partly his operation. That is why he became President of Russia, he was part of this. That’s why Berezovsky and Yeltsin trusted him.

They were pushing all buttons at once and that didn’t just include bribing Tom Delay but also pushing academic kompromat buttons. That was while USAO Mass was investigating Harvard from 1997 and questioning Summers on his relationship to Shleifer.

Paul Wolfowitz and the neocons knew the Clinton profs and Harvard were concealing this history from the USAO Mass investigation. They got the Iraq Liberation Act during the Clinton impeachment. Then used this during Bush v. Gore to influence Scalia and then make Gore go away. Scalia has had econ Ph.D./JD clerks from the schools involved from the 1990’s to now. The links are all over the place. The above is speculation.

==

Bush is trying to intimidate the investigation of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, of Marc Rich, and of other investigations that may link to this. Bush is trying to keep Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom from reopening the Harvard investigation into whether Bush’s team knew this in 1998 and formed a conspiracy to keep this information from USAO Mass and use it to pressure Clinton admin figures for the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and then later during Bush v. Gore. Above is speculation.

==

Bush was not a US government employee prior to Jan 20, 2001. Nor were the others during these incidents. If they formed an agreement as non US government employees to keep this information from the USAO Mass office, that was a conspiracy to obstruct justice and to conceal espionage by Russia against the United States. That is what this is about. That is why they put into the Patriot Act that they could appoint interim US Attorneys. They had this problem from before 9-11. The above is speculation.

read more | digg story

The above is all hypotheses and speculation. All statements should be restated as questions. All other disclaimes 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.

http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/au/m.htm#Markowitz-Harry

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

Lawmakers Concerned About U.S.-India Nuclear Trade Deal

November 15, 2006

“U.S. law forbids selling nuclear technology to countries like India that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty & the pending nuclear deal with India would reverse years of policies aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Congressional leaders still have not seen the promised intelligence report as the Senate prepares to vote.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401208.html

Comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn//comments/display?contentID=AR2006111401208&start=1&sub=AR

Many good comments above. India has substantial information on the Clinton and Bush administration. Russia got billions in IMF loans from professors in the 1990’s.

Russia had detailed info on the profs or their home universities, Harvard and MIT. Harvard was investigated starting in 1997 in connection with a HIID grant.

The info Russia had, India and Pakistan had as well as the Bush profs. In 1998, India and Pakistan got their nuclear tests, Russia another 4.8 billion dollars and the neocons got the Iraq Liberation Act. This was all during the Clinton impeachment, loans to Russia, LTCM bailout, and Iraq Liberation Act hearings. During Bush v. Gore, this history was known to both sides.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia knew it on 9-11. Ahmed, head of Pakistan’s ISI had a meeting with Armitage, who signed the 1998 PNAC letter. Ahmed may have raised this issue.

These methods go back to the 1920’s. Russia has talked about plagiarism by Western profs in print since 1937 and used this to pressure profs connected to Los Alamos during WWII. This was already known by both India and Pakistan in the 1950’s. After Klaus Fuchs’ arrest it was obvious. These methods were used to pressure Niels Bohr during WWII and Churchill was told and he threatened Bohr with jail.

See Russia Plagiarism files and other topics related to this.

The above is speculation, opinion and hypotheses. All other disclaimers apply.

read more | digg story

%d bloggers like this: