Archive for the 'MIT Economics Department' Category

Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day Stanley Fischer Khan Academy Jumps the Shark

March 29, 2014

On Friday March 14, 2014, Stanford University hosted the SIEPR Economic Summit 2014 Agenda.

http://siepr.stanford.edu/SIEPR.Economic.Summit.2014.Agenda

This day honored Stanley Fischer and Salmon Khan of Khan Academy.

We can search on these two as search strings in quotes at the same time.

“Stanley Fischer” “Khan Academy”

We can do this search for prior to Jan 1, 2014 so we eliminate some of the results for after SIEPR day itself was announced with these two honorees.

“Stanley Fischer” “Khan Academy” Jan 1 2012 to Jan 1 2014

The result of this is to give hits exclusively to a certain blog.  Some other stray hits arise because of social media feeds that make older pages appear to relate to this content, but that is a reflection of SIEPR day itself and came later.

“Stanley Fischer” “Khan Academy” limited to a certain blog NMDR Jan 1 2012 to Jan 1 2014

We find results like

Stanford Misconduct at NMDR

Kaspersky Red October virus and Aaron Swartz Denial of Service Attack MIT

Several more related posts in January 2013 at NMDR are indexed here

Jan 2013 at NMDR

Stanford Misconduct

Stanford Professor J. Darrell Duffie

Moody’s

And so on.

These relate to discussion of

  1. Possible plagiarism by Stanley Fischer of Nils Hakansson
  2. Possible plagiarism by J. Darrell Duffie using a working paper that extends the Hakansson Merton results in a Stanford Ph.D. thesis of 2000 by Jun Liu.
  3. Russia’s use of these.
  4. That Russia can use these to pressure Duffie, Stanford or Moody’s for ratings benefits.
  5. That other countries can piggy back on this such as Iran or China.

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:.ru

 

subscribe.ru/archive/science.exact…/19121202.htmlTranslate this page

Dec 19, 2005 – 16.12.2005, Duffie D. Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory (provisional manuscript). 16.12.2005, Pilgrim M. Dive into Python. 16.12.2005, Tan W.M. …

Mexmat is the Department of Mechanics and Mathematics at Moscow State University. Albert Shiryaev is a professor there. He published a book in 1999 on mathematical finance that likely had help from professors in Europe. Shiryaev was in Zurich in 1997 to 1999.  Duffie visited Zurich in 1997.

Iran has since posted the document if it was not already posted.

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:.ir

At link location pad.um.ac.ir/file/view/371774

India

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:.in

And China

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript”

http://www.soudoc.com零点花园经济之星经济学资源

bbs.pinggu.org/forum.php?mod=viewthread

Feb 24, 2008 – 4 posts – ‎4 authors

中译:动态资产定价理论作者:Darrell Duffie 版次:2001 格式:pdf … 附赠:本书手稿,1999. Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory(Provisional Manuscript).

And so on.

The blog NMDR also joined the critique of Khan Academy with hashtag MTT2k

#MTT2k at NMDR

As mentioned above, searches show this blog NMDR was the only place that mentioned Stanley Fischer and Khan Academy in a meaningful way prior to January 1, 2014. It critiqued both Stanley Fischer for plagiarism, Khan Academy and the role of Russia in this.

Sergei Guriev who was at the SIEPR Day worked at New Economic School Moscow and had a Ph.D. in portfolio theory from MIPT, Phys Tech, the university that Peter Kaptisa set up. Kapitsa started Russia’s kompromat on plagiarism in the 1920s and used it to help get atomic secrets.  The universities concealed that from the FBI in the Klaus Fuchs, Edward Corson, and J. Robert Oppenheimer investigations.

So why did Stanford give an award to Khan Academy and Stanley Fischer and so focus attention back to the blog NMDR and these entries on Stanley Fischer and Duffie and Russia’s possible use of their possible plagiarism to get benefits. Those include IMF loans from Stanley Fischer and possibly rating benefits from Moody’s via Duffie and Stanford?

Why would Stanford raise these together and focus attention back to the blog NMDR?

  1. Taunt the blog in some way?
  2. Tell Khan Academy to copy the work on Peano Axioms at the blog NMDR the same way Stanford plagiarized the same person in the Jun Liu thesis under Duffie and the same way that MIT plagiarized Nils Hakansson in the Samuelson and Fischer papers.
  3. Send a message to professors who know of the Stanley Fischer plagiarism not to tell the FBI, Senate or Federal Reserve about it?
  4. Same message to Ph.D.s at Federal Reserve or Federal Reserve Banks or investment banks.  They depend on academic publications for promotion even at Fed Reserve.
  5. Tell the same groups not to provide information to the FBI, Moody’s, Securities Exchange Commission, Senate Banking Committee about the possible pressure on Duffie, Stanford and Moody’s.
  6. Pressure the author of the blog NMDR not to provide information to these.
  7. Mock the Senate Banking Committee as too stupid to figure this out.
  8. Mock the FBI as too stupid to figure this out.
  9. Mock the Department of Justice as too political or too corrupt to proceed in this case.
  10. Mock DOJ and FBI for not having discovered Russia’ use of plagiarism kompromat to get atomic secrets.
  11. Mock DOJ and FBI for not figuring Russia used this to get IMF loans in the 1990s.
  12. Mock DOJ and FBI for being deceived by Harvard and MIT in US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.
  13. Mock DOJ and FBI for being deceived in numerous federal background checks from the Atomic Bomb Project in WWII to the Stanley Fischer nomination.
  14. Mock DOJ and FBI for not understanding that Aaron Swartz may have been trying to use JSTOR to expose some of this.
  15. Mock DOJ and FBI for not understanding that Russia’s warning about Chechens before Boston Bombing was tied to Chechen resentments against Harvard and MIT and Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers over the IMF loans to Russia in the 1990s that funded the Chechen War.
  16. Send a signal to Stanley Fischer that his 100,000 dollar payment from Stanford was for him to use his influence at Federal Reserve to keep Ph.D.s at Federal Reserve from telling this to the FBI or DOJ.
  17. Frighten Russians in the US and UK who are at US universities and even at Federal Reserve not to tell this to the FBI or DOJ.
  18. Tell Stanley Fischer that is his job.
  19. Tell the Fed employees that Stanley Fischer is there to keep them quiet.
  20. Tell professors at universities that Stanley Fischer is controlling this at Fed and they are safe to keep quiet about it and not tell FBI or DOJ.
  21. Tell employees at financial institutions the same.
  22. Tell all of these people that financial institutions can get Mood’s rating benefits the same as Russia for securities they trade or underwrite if they keep the game going.
  23. Tell employees of US government, universities, and investment banks they can get publications, citations, grants, awards, etc. for going along with this and not telling the FBI or DOJ.
  24. Emphasizing that the universities got away with this in US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay so they can get away with it for the Stanley Fischer nomination.
  25. The best way to convince employees of Federal Reserve Board, universities, Moody’s, investment banks, etc. that they can get away with this and it is safe not to tell the FBI, SEC, FRB, Senate is to mock the abilities of the FBI, SEC, FRB, DOJ, and Senate to uncover this from the 1940s to the present.
  26. SIEPR Day by giving 100k to Stanley Fischer the day after he concealed info on this from Senate Banking Committee and by extension as far as profs know from the FBI and SEC and DOJ mocked them.
  27. By creating the search Khan Academy Stanley Fischer to a webpage that explained it all by someone they know is a victim of this plagiarism, they further mock the FBI, SEC, DOJ and Senate who could contact that person but apparently did not.  This shows to employees of US gov, Moody’s, universities and investment banks that the FBI, DOJ, SEC, and Senate are lazy and apathetic and can’t even do Internet searches or follow up on them.
  28. Over the years the universities, Russian intelligence and others can point out that this has been on Internet for years and FBI, DOJ, SEC, Senate did nothing about it.  That then proves they don’t have to tell them and it won’t do any good to.
  29. SIEPR Day itself and the Stanley Fischer Khan Academy are intended to be used by Stanford, MIT, Harvard, the investment banks, and Russian and Chinese intelligence to show them years from now when the FBI, DOJ, SEC, Senate have still done nothing and Stanley Fischer is appointed that they are paper tigers who can be ignored and it does no good to tell them anyhow.
  30. Thus the NMDR pages exposing Duffie, Stanford, Moody’s, MIT, Harvard, Russian intelligence, etc. do not hurt them but actually help Stanford et al.  This is why Stanford created the search link to the NDMR pages precisely so they can prove to the witnesses that it is safe to conceal this from FBI and deceive them if questioned and that it will achieve nothing to tell them, except that the person who does will have their career harmed as happened to the NDMR blogger and to Nils Hakansson.

Given that the SIEPR Day was the day after Stanley Fischer concealed information on all of this from the Senate Banking Committee, the public, Moody’s and anyone watching from SEC, we can infer that it was not targeted at the blogger NMDR or Khan Academy but to those who could provide information to the FBI and DOJ, in and out of government, to keep quiet and that it was safe to do so.

Stanford wanted to tell Federal Reserve employees that despite the Stanley Fischer plagiarism and Russia’s use of it being on the Internet since 2006 and the Duffie and Moody’s explained since 2012 and the Russian document since 2005, that the FBI and DOJ could continue to be fooled on these matters into the future and everyone who went along would profit.  They also point out that the blogger NDMR who exposed this was not getting rewarded and the same would happen to anyone who spoke up as to NMDR. Furthermore, if they spoke up, the FBI and DOJ would ignore them anyhow, so they would lose their career and the DOJ, FBI and SEC would do nothing about it anyhow.

Stanford thus intended to delay, impede or obstruct witnesses on all these matters from coming forward to the FBI, DOJ, SEC, and Senate Banking Committees.  This was an act of Stanford not of the individual professor J. Darrell Duffie who does not even run SIEPR.  That also sends the message to all these people that the coverup is bigger than Duffie it is institutional to Stanford and all the Stanford faculty who know of this stand behind the obstruction.  This is a hypothesis.

Note this also comes with the crisis with Russia which started with the Boston Bombing, the firing of CIA agents who reported to Stanford Professor Michael McFaul while ambassador to Russia in 2013 and the Ukraine and Crimea crises.  McFaul was appointed ambassador from Stanford in 2011. The Duffie document was already posted by Russia in 2006. Stanford failed to tell that to the Senate in McFaul’s confirmation or to the FBI in the McFaul background check.

 

Moody’s rates tens of trillions of dollars of securities. If Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, University of Chicago, Elsevier Science, Moody’s and related investment banks are found liable for losses of systematic good ratings, then they would all go bankrupt.  They would be ruined and likely the individual professors as well in investor lawsuits.

The above is hypotheses and speculation.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.  This is draft and preliminary. Comments and corrections are welcome.  This is subject to revision.  Please include the disclaimers in any reference to this page.

 

Obama NATO speech Ukraine Stanford MIT Harvard undermine on Russia

March 26, 2014

Obama is giving a speech to NATO March 26, 2014 on US and NATO policy towards Russia on Crimea and Ukraine.  Obama has made it US policy to isolate Russia and apply sanctions to Russia.  Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Moody’s and the major investment banks have chosen to undermine the policy of President Obama and of the United States.  Obama’s policies are supported by both parties in Congress. Thus Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Moody’s, the banks have chosen to undermine the broad policy of the US government to isolate Russia and apply sanctions to get Russia to stop on its current course as Obama says.

Obama is invoking his grandfather who fought in Patton’s army in World War II.  But Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. are undermining this policy, in effect opposing a policy that Obama equates with Patton’s army.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-and-remarks

NATO has deployed forces to the East including to the Baltic Republics which are NATO members.  Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Moody’s and the banks are thus undermining the US policy to avoid Russia invading the Baltic Republics and thus triggering a crisis with NATO.

Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day organized by John Shoven of Stanford and James Poterba of MIT to honor Stanley Fischer the day after he concealed information from the Senate Banking Committee and the Securities Exchange commission was done to undermine the US credibility with Putin.  Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. know that Russia has used plagiarism kompromat for decades to get its way.  They know Putin believes these are silver bullets that let him do what he want and have leverage over Obama from the Stanley Fischer and earlier Larry Summers’ appointments.

Stanford knows that Russia has posted kompromat on Darrell Duffie who is head of Moody’s.  They know Russia Today has gloated over Moody’s putting the US on credit watch in 2012 when Duffie was head of the MIS Committee of Moody’s with oversight over the credit rating of the United States government.

Darrell Duffie is head of the MIS Committee of Moody’s which oversees ratings of financial securities including the bonds of Russia.

http://ir.moodys.com/governance.cfm

Director since October 2008

Darrell Duffie, Ph.D., age 59, is Chairman of the MIS Committee and is a member of the Audit and Governance and Compensation Committees of the Board of Directors. He is the Dean Witter Distinguished Professor of Finance at Stanford University Graduate School of Business and has been on the finance faculty at Stanford since receiving his Ph.D. from Stanford in 1984. He has authored books and research articles on topics in finance and related fields. Dr. Duffie is a member of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York Financial Advisory Roundtable, and the Board of The Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences and is a Fellow and member of the Council of the Econometric Society and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. He is Chairman of the Market Participants Group on Reference Rate Reform.  Dr. Duffie served as a trustee of iShares Trust and a director of iShares, Inc. from 2008 to 2011 and was President of the American Finance Association in 2009.

Holdings: 23,307 shares

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:mexmat.ru

This document gives Russia leverage over Duffie by virtue of misconduct during the course of his work at Stanford, supervising a Ph.D. thesis of a Chinese student.  This was posted in 2005.  Duffie joined Moody’s MIS Committee in 2008 supposedly to be a trusted outside person who was independent.

The above is draft and preliminary. Comments and corrections welcome. This is hypotheses and speculation. Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

 

 

How can a university withdraw from the Stanley Fischer conspiracy?

March 22, 2014

What does a university need to do to withdraw from the conspiracy related to the Stanley Fischer MIT Ph.D. thesis plagiarism and subsequent related acts?

It has to acknowledge each of the acts and their inter-related nature.

A lie can not withdraw from the conspiracy, that simply is an act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

If universities lie when trying to withdraw from the conspiracy they simply commit further acts in furtherance of it.

A university can’t lie to the FBI, Securities Exchange Committee, Federal Reserve Board, Economic Analysis Group of the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, FTC, to a federal judge, to the Senate Banking Committee, to investors, to donors, to alumni, or to the public and thereby withdraw from the conspiracy.

What does MIT have to do?

  1. Revoke the Stanley Fischer MIT 1969 Ph.D. thesis as intentional plagiarism of Nils Hakansson.
  2. Acknowledge that Russia put pressure on MIT profs to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize.
  3. Acknowledge the same for Kapitza in 1978 for the Nobel Prize in physics.
  4. Acknowledge these were linked.
  5. Acknowledge the universities withheld information from the FBI starting with the Manhattan project.
  6. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI investigation of Edward Corson.
  7. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI investigation of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
  8. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI investigation of Andrei Shleifer, Larry Summers and Harvard.
  9. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI investigation of Aaron Schwartz in particular that he might have been trying to get JSTOR files that can be used to investigate the above.
  10. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI background check of Stanley Fischer.
  11. Acknowledge they have subjected people to fear, and provide a list, to not provide information on this to the FBI, SEC, Senate, DOJ, etc.
  12. Acknowledge that SIEPR Agenda Day March 14, 2014 was intended to signal to potential witnesses not to provide information to the FBI, Federal Reserve, SEC, and Senate Banking Committee relating to Stanley Fischer and linked acts in the conspiracy.

Stanford, Harvard, University of Chicago, Berkeley, Princeton, Cornell and other universities have to do likewise.  So do many financial institutions that are involved.

 

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

Stanley Fischer witness Duncan K Foley New School New York

March 1, 2014

Duncan K Foley was the second chairman of the Stanley Fischer MIT 1969 Ph.D. thesis.  Duncan Foley became a sort of Marxist in the 1970s.  Foley and Fischer were close to Miguel Sidrauski at MIT. Sidrauski was a leftist and his wife was extreme according to Foley.   She was part of the Argentine left and knew people later disappeared.  Foley doesn’t say this, but she may have been in contact with Russia either to supply Russia information on what was happening at MIT or to try to get MIT entangled in plagiarism so Russia could use that to apply pressure to get nominations for the Nobel Prize in economics for Kantorovich.

https://sites.google.com/a/newschool.edu/duncan-foley-homepage/home

https://www.newschool.edu/nssr/faculty.aspx?id=10284

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_K._Foley

Questions to ask Foley

  1. Did Stanley Fischer plagiarize Nils Hakansson?
  2. Did Fischer use the Nils Hakansson 1966 thesis aka Working Paper 101 for Fischer’s thesis?
  3. Did someone with access to the Hakansson thesis supply ideas to Fischer without Fischer knowing at first?
  4. Did Fischer learn that later if it happened that way?
  5. Were Robert C. Merton and Stanley Fischer working directly from the Hakansson papers in their shared office?
  6. Did Miguel Sidrauski tell Stanley Fischer he could copy from the Hakansson thesis?
  7. Who supplied the Hakansson working paper on uncertain lives from Yale to Fischer?  Was it you (Foley)?
  8. Did Franklin Fisher know what was going on?
  9. Did Franklin Fisher take over as thesis chairman because he was editor of Econometrica and knew what was happening to Hakansson?
  10. Because FF shared an office suite with Karl Shell and knew what was happening?
  11. Did Franklin Fisher try to do a limited recovery from plagiarism abetted by others?
  12. Did Paul Samuelson learn of what was happening sometime in late 1968 or early 1969?
  13. Did Samuelson decide to write his 1969 intertemporal paper to provide cover to Robert C. Merton out of respect for Robert K. Merton?
  14. Did you (Foley) get to publish oddball pieces (Marxist in nature) in Journal of Economic Theory (edited by Karl Shell) in part because of these events?
  15. Would you describe yourself now as a Marxist?  Leftist? Socialist?
  16. In the past?
  17. Was Miguel Sidrauski someone who might have had contacts with Russia?
  18. Martha Sidrauski his wife?
  19. What happened to Martha Sidrauski?  Did she marry?  Is she still in the US?
  20. Were there children?  Are they in the US?
  21. Did Paul Samuelson plagiarize Nils Hakansson in Samuelson’s 1969 dynamic portfolio paper?  Directly or indirectly?
  22. Did Robert C. Merton plagiarize Nils Hakansson, directly or indirectly in his 1969 paper on continuous time portfolios?
  23. Did Karl Shell ever say to you that he knew that Stanley Fischer plagiarized Nils Hakansson?  Imply it?
  24. Did Peter Diamond?
  25. Did Peter Diamond have a copy of the Hakansson thesis prior to August 1969?
  26. Who was on the distribution list for the UCLA working series that sent out the Hakansson thesis?
  27. Do you have a copy of the distribution list?
  28. You did an interview on the 1960s and wrote a paper on it.  May we have copies of each of these? “autobiographical essay The Ins and Outs of Late Twentieth Century Economics,” is one.  Microfoundations of macro was the big game in the 1960s?  Hakansson’s thesis was a core step and everyone needed it as a building block? For finance too?
  29. Stanley Fischer published a paper based on his thesis chapter 5 concerning uncertain lives.  This was left out of his list of paper on History of Economic Thought.  Is that because you knew it was plagiarism?
  30. Because you supplied the Hakansson Yale working paper on that to Fischer?
  31. Is there anything else about the History of Economic Thought pages you would like to call our attention to?
  32. Why is it offline now?
  33. Isn’t the HET one of your main contributions?
  34. Did Russia use this to put pressure on Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in economics in the 1970s?
  35. Did they use Martin Weitzman as a relay?
  36. What about Martha Sidrauski?  Have you had contact with her?
  37. Are you familiar with comments Vainshtein made in translation in Matekon around 1970 claiming priority for input output for Russia?
  38. Did that amount to an implication of plagiarism by Leontieff?
  39. Samuelson wrote a paper commenting about Russian archivists changing the year of Leontieff’s birth.  Are you familiar with that?  Was that part of putting pressure on Samuelson, Arrow, etc. to nominate Kantorovich?
  40. Did Russia use this again in the 1990s to get IMF loans from Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers (nephew of Paul Samuelson)?
  41. Has Russia used it for something else?
  42. Was their an effort to keep this information from the FBI and USAO Mass during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  43. Have others used this to engage in plagiarism?
  44. Have other profs used this to engage in sexual harassment?
  45. Did Dominique Strauss-Kahn use this to engage in sexual harassment at IMF?
  46. Does this history of kompromat and pressure by Russia undermine the credibility of the US in dealing with Russia?
  47. In what cases has that happened?
  48. Other countries?  China, India, Pakistan, Iran?
  49. Are you familiar with physics cases?
  50. Was their talk of prior physics cases of plagiarism and Russia using it to build their network, get Nobel Prize nominations in Physics, help manipulate atomic physicists?
  51. Was HET taken down because this webpage was put up in 2006?
  52. Because of the Hakansson family webpage put up?
  53. Because of a request in 2002 for investigation by one of the plagiarism victims to Elsevier and Journal of Economic Theory?
  54. Because Russia posted a document exposing a Stanford professor online in 2005?
  55. Did someone tell Foley to take it down for one of these reasons?  Or just someone involved in these cases?
  56. Did you arrange the visit to the New School in 2002 by Robert Rubin and Stanley Fischer? “The World Economy After the U.S. Recession: Bob Kerrey Interviews Robert Rubin and Stanley Fischer” “Tuesday, April 30, 2002, 7:00 p.m. Swayduck Auditorium, New School University 65 Fifth Avenue New York City Aired on C-Span on Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 8 p.m.
    http://www.newschool.edu/scepa/originalsite/events/schwartz.htm

(This and other pages on specific witnesses will be added to.  Links to primary documents will be added. Readers may wish to post their own questions in the comments.)

This 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.

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/

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.

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

%d bloggers like this: