c6c5f56e   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic   
   From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Anton  wrote:   
      
   > David Friedman kirjoitti:   
   > > In article <5fnlk.44302$_03.22569@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,   
   > >  "J. Anderson"  wrote:   
   >   
   > >> As far as values are concerned, Finland bought raw materials at lower than   
   > >> world market prices and sold manufactured goods and construction projects   
   > >> at   
   > >> higher prices than it could get on the western markets.   
   >   
   > > 1. Can you provide any support for that claim? So far all we have are   
   > > claims on both sides.   
   >   
   > > 2. Why would the Soviets choose to trade on those terms, instead of   
   > > selling their raw materials on the world market and buying manufactured   
   > > goods on the world market?   
   >   
   > It was politically questionable for both the western and eastern bloc to   
   > become "good buddies" in trade. If trade had flourished between the USSR   
   > and NATO west neither side could any longer have been able to demonize   
   > one another, and their military machines in Europe could have been hard   
   > to justify. If they generally were very suspicious of each other it   
   > makes sense that they did not want to get too much involved in trade   
   > either.   
      
   Individual western businessmen weren't interested in promoting the Cold   
   War--they were interested in making money, as per the famous Marx quote.   
   So your argument depends on western governments preventing their   
   citizens from buying raw materials from the USSR or selling goods to the   
   USSR. But that didn't happen, save for the special case of restrictions   
   on military or military related technology exports--and even then, such   
   restrictions applied only to the particular countries that imposed them.   
   On the contrary, western nations were happy to buy oil and chrome and   
   other things from the Soviets, and sell stuff to them.   
      
   > I also find it credible that ideology-driven communists weren't   
   > that skilled at economics and trade in a way that they could act at   
   > their own best interests, which makes the claim that Finns got the   
   > longer straw from it credible. That's my 2 cents.   
      
   That's possible. On the other hand, it doesn't take much skill to figure   
   out that selling goods at below the market price and buying goods at   
   above the market price is a losing game, economically speaking. The   
   Soviets may have been ideology driven, but they weren't stupid.   
      
   Which suggests that if the terms of trade really were as you and Eugene   
   claim, it was probably a bribe by the Soviets to the Finns, in order to   
   purchase political support.   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)