dc45018d   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic   
   From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Markku Grönroos  wrote:   
      
   > "David Friedman"  kirjoitti   
   > viestissä:ddfr-CA843D.11405211082008@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...   
   > > In article ,   
   > > Anton  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> > 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.   
   > >>   
   > >> Barter based trade also could be used as ideological propaganda.   
   > >> Communism is after all pure socio-economic ideology.   
   > >   
   > > The issue isn't the barter, it's the terms of the barter--biased, by   
   > > your accounts, in favor of Finland, apparently the weaker party.   
   > >   
   > The Finno Russian trade was profitable for the Finns. The Finnish economy   
   > was naturally hands down stronger than the Russian one.   
      
   I don't see the connection between the first sentence and the second.   
   I'm not even sure what "stronger" means here. The per capita GNP of   
   Finland was surely much higher than that of the USSR. The total GNP of   
   the USSR was surely much higher than that of Finland. I don't see why   
   either of those tells us which side would profit more from trade, let   
   alone explaining why one side would be trading at a loss.   
      
   It sounds as though you are trying to understand economics by analogy to   
   a wrestling match or something similar, which does not strike me as a   
   promising approach.   
      
   --   
    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)