Archive for the 'MIT' Category

Did Stanley Fischer, Stanford SIEPR Day and Moodys Leverage help Russia take Crimea?

April 4, 2014

How much did the nomination of Stanley Fischer, Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day giving Fischer 100,000 dollars and Russia’s leverage on Stanford professor Darrell Duffie and thus Moody’s help Russia take Crimea?  Russia took Crimea because it was confident that its world view was correct and that it had leverage over the US decision makers and the West to get away with it.   Putin is an old KGB colonel and if the world is going his way in the old way he understood it, then he is confident to take Crimea while he has leverage over the US and the West.

How much in sanctions can the West impose on Russia?

The following article says not much.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-to-think-about-russia-and-the-ukraine-crisis/

By now, Germany, the UK, France, Italay, Canada, and other countries like Poland, Sweden and other former Warsaw Pact countries are aware that Russia used plagiarism kompromat on Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers (via his uncle Paul Samuelson) to help get IMF loans in the 1990s for Russia. They also know that Harvard, Shleifer, Summers, Fischer, etc. covered that up in US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.  They know that the upper levels of DOJ are complicit in this cover-up, as are other parts of the US apparat including CIA and NSA.

Furthermore, Dominique Strauss Kahn likely used this information to engage in sexual harassment at the IMF and other professors at Stanford and elsewhere have also likely used the plagiarism kompromat to engage in sexual harassment.  Larry Summer’s comments that women are not good in math at the NBER was directed at female econ and law profs who knew of this, that if they came forward they would lose their NBER grants.  NBER fronts for grants in law and economics from the federal government so that the university legal entities don’t see the grant directly from US government. Instead, the NBER does and the universities charge NBER fees for use of their facilities in the grant.  This immunizes the universities or so they hope from penalties from using NBER grants as payments to coverup and for silence during FBI background checks or investigations like US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.

Russia is aware of this.  Larry Summers was appointed without Senate approval, but nonetheless rehired, by the US government in 2009.  That was after it was public on the Internet that Russia had used this and that Summers, Shleifer and Harvard covered this up.  DE Shaw had hired Summers and paid him 5 million a year.  They had traded Russian government bonds during the 1990s and may have known of Russia’s kompromat on Summers and Stanley Fischer at that time.  LTCM also likely did and traded on it.

These firms and others including Federal Reserve and FRBNY are part of this circle of kompromat.  Moreover, New Economic School Moscow now has an employee at Federal Reserve in Washington as well as at universities and likely financial institutions.   So the kompromat network is much broader and deeper.  Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day with Stanley Fischer and Sergei Guriev was intended to frighten Federal Reserve board employees from Stanford and from New Economic School Moscow to keep quiet.

Stanford Professor Michael McFaul was US ambassador to Russia.  During the entire time he was ambassador the Duffie document that has kompromat on Duffie, Stanford and Moody’s was posted on websites in Russia.  Putin treated McFaul with contempt.  This is part of Putin’s contempt for Berezovsky and KGB need to prove he is smarter than profs like Berezovsky in manipulating and controlling profs like McFaul, Duffie, Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers.

Obama is from University of Chicago which hired Stanley Fischer after his plagiarism at MIT and knew of the plagiarism at at the time. University of Chicago helped coverup Russia’s use of plagiarism kompromat to get atomic secrets.  The use of plagiarism kompromat in econ was going on full blast at University of Chicago in the 1990s when Obama was a lecturer there.  The main cases of plagiarism in the 1990s involved University of Chicago directly or indirectly.

Bernanke’s thesis didn’t cite the Stanley Fischer papers but did cite the Paul Samuelson plagiarism paper but not the Nils Hakansson papers that were plagiarized by Stanley Fischer and Paul Samuelson.  Olivier Blanchard was coauthor with Stanley Fischer of a graduate textbook citing only the Samuelson plagiarism paper and not Nils Hakansson. Blanchard is now chief economist of the IMF.   Others at Federal Reserve are involved.

There are profs and Ph.D.s at major investment banks who know of this or who are involved in some of the plagiarism or going along with it.  They get ratings benefits from Moody’s and regulatory benefits from the Federal Reserve including low interest rates and low credit spreads.  They then fund both parties political campaigns.  This just got easier with the Supreme Court ruling lifting yet more limits on campaign finance contributions from the wealthy and connected, claiming there was no evidence of corruption presented by DOJ.  The reason being that DOJ is part of the corruption that exists of this type.

Because of DOJ complicity, Putin feels he has complete leverage on the apparatus of the state in the United States.  Putin controls the reputation of DOJ itself since it has allowed itself to become part of this.  Thus Putin as a KGB colonel feels he really has the organs of state security and prosecution under his kompromat leverage, not just a few econ profs.  He also has the Federal Reserve, at least one ratings agency, the IMF and other financial institutions that benefit from their silence and complicity.

SIEPR Agenda Day on March 14, 2014 was one day after Stanley Fischer’s testimony to the Senate Banking Committee that did not admit to this history.  This was directly during the Ukraine Crimea crisis.  Russia knew of Fischer’s appointment well in advance of its takeover of Crimea that started in late February 2014.  Moreover, Ukraine has indicated it considers the Russian FSB to be implicated in the sniper fire that immediately led to the Crimea Crisis.

At the point that Russia took over Crimea in late February and early March 2014, Stanley Fischer was concealing info from Senate Banking Committee and the public and Stanford was paying him 100,000 to do so.  This helped Stanford cover up its potential liability from Moody’s ratings benefits not just for Russia but for investment banks involved and the securities they trade and underwrite.  This includes the new generation of subprime mortgage derivatives.  Thus Stanford could be liable for trillions of dollars of losses.  So could other university partners such as Harvard and MIT, University of Chicago, Princeton, Cornell, Moody’s and investment banks.

These are the institutions that make large campaign contributions and that control the upper echelon of the Federal Reserve, SEC, FTC, DOJ Antitrust Division, and other agencies of government and regulation.  Thus Putin really does have the hidden or not so hidden kleptocracy under his kompromat umbrella.

As pointed out above, this gave Putin the feeling that he understood America’s elite and its government’s higher echelons and that he could control their reaction to his taking Crimea.  Putin was reinforced in seeing that things were the same as during the days of the Soviet Union, if not more corrupt in America.  So Putin was able to move freely in Crimea.  He felt he understood the world and that the situation was safe for him to take advantage of.  So he took Crimea without any fear.

So far, Russia has escaped serious consequences.  It has also gained in credibility and respect. The US and NATO have lost respect and confidence even among their own peoples.  In Putin’s view, this is because he has kompromat on the US and European establishments.  Plagiarism, academic, financial, regulatory and government kompromat all come together for Putin to give him leverage and insights into the US and European establishment as well as IMF and the financial institutions.

The above is speculation and hypotheses.  Please restate as questions.  Comments and corrections welcome. 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.

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/

The Washington Post: A Wikipedia Of Secrets

November 5, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Hakansson bio

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

search Merton Samuelson 1969 site:harvard.edu 14 hits

search Merton Samuelson Hakansson 1969 site:harvard.edu 0 hits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–Fischer Interviews

Fed

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

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

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

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

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

–Reply to a comment at WaPo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The excerpt of Singh’s bio removed from wiki:

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

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

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

===

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

read more | digg story

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: