Summers and Russia

by: aaronsw

Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 21:06


The Summers-for-Treasury rumors are a good chance to draw attention to an incredible, but little-known story: how a gang of Harvard professors stole vast sums from Russia and escaped any form of punishment. The full, incredible story was published in Institutional Investor Magazine, but here's the summary:

In 1991, Lawrence Summers was on leave from Harvard (where he was an economics professor) to be chief economist for the World Bank. As the Soviet Union collapsed, he had the US send his protegé, Andrei Shleifer, to teach Russia about privatization. And Shleifer did -- US-style: he privatized Russia right into his pocket.

aaronsw :: Summers and Russia
As Shleifer helped Russia sell off its telephone, oil, gas, and aluminum companies, he and his wife bought up the shares (concealing the transactions by putting them in the names of relatives). He appointed his students to run the organizations selling off the stock, where they instructed their staff to give Shleifer and his friends "the best service."

It was a crazy time -- Shleifer and his staffers used US government money to knock off work and play tennis, hire cars to drive their girlfriends around, and make documentaries about themselves. (When one of the people involved begun raising questions about such things, he was told he wasn't "with the program" and was being "too Western and inflexible". Shleifer fired him.)

Summers consulted with Shleifer and his wife throughout -- they used to walk on the beach together outside their vacation homes in Cape Cod. Summers warned them to be careful: "People might want to make Andrei a problem some day. The world's a shitty place."

People did. The US government sued Harvard, Shleifer, and friends for $120 million. As the case wound its way through the courts, Shleifer and his wife campaigned to get Summers made Harvard's president. They succeeded, and after Shleifer was convicted, Summers had Harvard pay $31 million to make the charges go away. Summers also made sure that Shleifer wasn't punished by Harvard.

So that's Lawrence Summers for you: letting his friends use US government money to loot Russia, then using Harvard money to make sure they aren't punished for it.

Sign the petition.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Summers and Russia | 12 comments
Summers is bad for other reasons (4.00 / 1)
There's a lot of stuff that's going to come to light, but shouldn't his comments about women when he was Harvard president automatically disqualify him? I don't really see why he's under serious consideration.

To me, Geithner is the no-brainer pick for Treasury.


In another thread I asked (0.00 / 0)
how did someone as ignorant as Summers become president of Harvard? And lo and behold you have answered my question. Thanks.

Montani semper liberi

What makes you think that he's ignorant? (0.00 / 0)
You get him off the hook in doing so. I think that he knew exactly what he was doing, and was just a fool for doing it anyway--or utterly lacking in decency.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Mainly what he said about women (0.00 / 0)
being underrepresented in science for genetic reasons. But also his idea that it was okay to ship first world pollution to the third world "because lives are less valuable there."

Ignorant is not the same as innocent, there is usually an effort of will involved. It takes a certain kind of person to go to the best schools in the country and still come out thinking like that.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I don't know what's in his mind (4.00 / 1)
But it's clear what's not in his soul. I don't care how brilliant someone is. If they functionally think and operate no different from a sociopath, then they're not fit for office.

Obama will be making a huge mistake if he picks him. Not just policy-wise, but politically. He will basically be validating the fears that many of us had about him over FISA, but were willing to look past to get him elected, and in the hopes that it was purely tactical.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
please (0.00 / 0)
let's not resurrect the Summers-women thing. What he actually said was bad, fine, but it is not something that most people are going to really care about (being hyper-sensitive about gender is not really a winning move for the left), and was rather mild (being hyper-sensitive about freedom of speech is probably a winning move for the left.)

He basically said "maybe innate differences might explain some of the shortfall of women in the hard sciences." With an emphasis on the "maybe" -- he has never written an article or anything actually claiming this, and he himself said that he was more summarizing the views of other people at the conference.

So, again, I don't mean to defend him, but this storm-in-a-teacup is really a distraction from the real problems people should have with Summers in the cabinet.


[ Parent ]
Well, seeing as how we make up over half (0.00 / 0)
the economy, I do think having a person in a position of power who honestly thinks we are inferior is problematic. Do you really think women, and the problems of women, and decisions which disproportionately affect women will get anything remotely resembling a fair consideration under a Larry Summers Treasury? He has already told us plainly they will not.

Besides the fact that it just betrays a jaw-dropping level of, well, ignorance, and ignorant people do not need to be put in charge of other large sectors of the government. We tried that already for eight years.

Would it be okay if he had said "maybe the reason there aren't many blacks in science is because of innate differences?" That sentence does include the word "maybe."


Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
to repeat and clarify (0.00 / 0)
I don't want to defend his remarks, but you are blowing them well out of proportion. Summers doesn't "honestly think women are inferior" or any of the other things you are saying.

Here's the text of the remarks:

http://www.president.harvard.e...

To paint Summers as a crazed right-winger who thinks women are inferior beings and so on and so forth is off base and blurs the distinction between actually existing crazed right wingers.

And it bothers me that he was slammed so hard by people for remarks he made in an academic -- academic! -- not policy-making context.


[ Parent ]
Temperment and Management Style More of a Problem (4.00 / 1)
I wrote a diary yesterday about his problematic management style.  http://openleft.com/showDiary....

To me, this is the biggest problem with Summers.  If you read his recent Financial Times columns, you can see significant evolution from his Clinton days, making me less worried about certain aspects of his economic approach. See them here, http://www.ft.com/comment/colu...    

He seems to have a very sophisticated and nuanced approach to creating a new comprehensive regulatory regime, but he maintains committed to the current trade regime.  My sense is that he would resist major reforms requiring environmental and wage standards to current and future trade deals, but would come up with a pretty good solution to the problem of regulating leverage.  I don't think Geithner would have a significantly different approach on trade issues and is so close to Paulson and the TARP program (as currently constructed), he doesn't seem to be any less an establishment pick than Summers.  

If these are the two top candidates, I'm not sure why one is better than the other (unless we just think that Summers is corrupt or otherwise too controversial or ill-suited, which he may well be). In general, it would be nice to talk up some third option that would more substantively represent a change from the crowd that's been at the center of creating and managing the current system.  I was thinking Sheila Bair might potentially be an option, but I still don't know enough about her.  But she is on the short list...



So Summers was basically the patron saint of a (0.00 / 0)
corrupt ad-hoc private equity firm that lied to and raided the assets of a defunct empire as it was struggling to rebuild itself as a new country--much as Armand Hammer did when the Czarist empire was destroyed--which was relying on them to help it in this endeavor?

Yeah, that's going to work wonders for Obama's foreign policy as he attempts to present the US as a kinder and gentler empire. Putin and Medvedev are going to just LOVE that one. Everyone knows that Russians as SO forgiving to those who would exploit them.

If Obama picks Summers, he's a fool. I'm guessing--and hoping--that he doesn't, and just dangled this in front of them to keep the neolibs and Clintonites from being a problem prior to the election.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


summer, shleifer & russia (4.00 / 2)
Naomi Klein covers this charming episode pretty thoroughly in Shock Doctrine. Highly recommended reading.

As to the question, "How did someone as ignorant as Summers become president of Harvard?" I can only say that too many of the creatures inhabiting the presidents' offices of colleges & universities are part of an interchangeable cohort of used car salesmen and payday lenders. They lost sight of the educational program so long ago that they view it as nothing more than a quaint affectation, at this point.  (My observation after spending twenty+ years in that sordid mileu.)


I'll try not to spam Treasury threads, (0.00 / 0)
but Nouriel Roubini is clearly the best candidate for the position.

Summers and Russia | 12 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS