Archive for the 'LTCM' Category

LTCM traded Russian government bonds in 1990s using this info

March 1, 2014

This post considers the hypothesis that Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) traded Russian government bonds knowing that Russia had leverage over Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management

Losses included: “$430 mn in Russia and other emerging markets”

John W. Meriwether Former vice chair and head of bond trading at Salomon Brothers; MBA, University of Chicago
Robert C. Merton Leading scholar in finance; Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Professor at Harvard University
Myron S. Scholes Co-author of Black–Scholes model; Ph.D., University of Chicago; Professor at Stanford University
David W. Mullins Jr. Vice chairman of the Federal Reserve; Ph.D. MIT; Professor at Harvard University; was seen as potential successor to Alan Greenspan
Eric Rosenfeld Arbitrage group at Salomon; Ph.D. MIT; former Harvard Business School professor
William Krasker Arbitrage group at Salomon; Ph.D. MIT; former Harvard Business School professor
Gregory Hawkins Arbitrage group at Salomon; Ph.D. MIT; worked on Bill Clinton‘s campaign for Arkansas state attorney general
Larry Hilibrand Arbitrage group at Salomon; Ph.D. MIT
James McEntee Bond-trader
Dick Leahy Executive at Salomon
Victor Haghani Arbitrage group at Salomon; Masters in Finance, LSE

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

Around 1992, arbitrage trader Larry Hilibrand was the top-paid trader at Salomon Brothers. As one of the most mathematically astute traders, Hilibrand became the youngest managing director in Salomon Brothers history. Subsequently, he became a partner at a hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, the failure of which almost caused an apocalypse on the Street.

Hilibrand currently lives in Greenwich with his family.

The traders were professors and Ph.D.s from MIT and Harvard to a large degree.  They knew about Russia having used the plagiarism kompromat already in the 1970s to get Nobel Prize nominations.  They knew Russia had this over Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer.  They likely also knew Boris Berezovsky was a math Ph.D. at Institute of Control Sciences in Moscow before his rise to power and that he could have learned of the 1970s kompromat pressure there.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1997/merton-bio.html

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 (false), 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.

Notice that Robert Merton is talking about Nils Hakansson in his Nobel Prize autobiography as having did work before him that Merton published, as he claims independently.  Hakansson got his Ph.D. in 1966 and was at Yale.  His Yale working paper on uncertain lives somehow ended up as chapter 5 of Fischer’s thesis.

http://www.econometricsociety.org/fellows.asp

Hakansson is not on the list.  Nor is Leland.

Some who are on the list:

(*) MARTIN J. BECKMANN, Department of Economics, Brown University, Box B, Providence, RI 02912 USA (1958).

PETER A. DIAMOND, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, E52-344, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA (1968).

J. DARRELL DUFFIE, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 518 Memorial Way, Stanford, CA 94305-5015 USA (1995).

(*) STANLEY FISCHER, Bank of Israel, P.O.Box 780, Jerusalem, 91007 Israel (1977).

(*) PETER C. FISHBURN, P.O. Box 309, Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-0309 USA (1974).

(*) FRANKLIN M. FISHER, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, E52-274, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA (1963).

(*) DAVID LEVHARI, Department of Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905 Israel (1971)

KARL SHELL, Department of Economics, Cornell University, 402 Uris Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-7601 USA (1972).

ANDREI SHLEIFER, Department of Economics, Harvard University, Littauer M-9, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA (1993).

(*) T. N. SRINIVASAN, Economic Growth Center, Yale University, Box 208269, 27 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520-8269 USA (1970).

MARTIN L. WEITZMAN, Department of Economics, Harvard University, Littauer 313, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA (1976).

(*) LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS, Office of the President, Harvard University, Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA (1985).

Merton’s Nobel Prize was in 1997.  Russia was going full blast in getting IMF loans and LTCM going full blast.  Then in another year it fell apCart.  LTCM had its back office trading done by Bear Stearns.   The street was able to put together some info on LTCM’s positions.  Russia probably knew the large position in its bonds at Bear Stearns were held for LTCM.  This can all be investigated even at this date.

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/expertiseguide/facultybio.html?w=11337

“Eric R. Rosenfeld is a Senior Lecturer in Finance at the MIT Sloan School of Management.”

All those involved should be interviewed.

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

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.

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.

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

Larry Summers joins DE Shaw as MD

October 21, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See following for more information.

Russia Used Plagiarism Files to Gain atomic know-how.

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

Russia’s Plagiarism Files: Summaries and links

The Washington Post: A Wikipedia Of Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

A recent summary is

The Light Gray Curse

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

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

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

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

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

Comment page link is here.
All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: