e0847dc0   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic   
   From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Anton  wrote:   
      
   > Markku Grönroos kirjoitti:   
   >   
   > > "David Friedman"  kirjoitti   
   >   
   > >> 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.   
   >   
   > This view is generally regarded as the correct one by most scholars. Had   
   > the relationship been "extortion and tribute" as this Donald guy is   
   > suggesting GDP and other figures would not had looked the way they did...   
      
   You may well be correct that the trade was profitable for the Finns--on   
   the evidence of this thread, one plausible explanation is that the   
   Soviets were bribing the Finns to support them in various political   
   ways. But your argument doesn't work. If the Finns had a much more   
   productive economy, as they did, they could have been paying tribute to   
   the Russians and still ended up richer than the Russians.   
      
   --   
    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)