e0847dc0   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic   
   From: anton.usenet@gmail.com   
      
   David Friedman kirjoitti:   
   > 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.   
      
   Had the trade been a economical burden it would show in the books. What   
   it probably did do was stagnate R&D and quality for products being   
   exported, the buyers being in an low-expectations market and all.   
      
   --   
   Anton   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)