644cd5f6   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic   
   From: anton.usenet@gmail.com   
      
   constantinopoli@gmail.com kirjoitti:   
   > On Aug 14, 1:18 am, Anton  wrote:   
   >> James A. Donald kirjoitti:   
      
   >> Nobody is denying capitalism is more efficient in creating wealth.   
   >> However it is in the very same capitalism there would be a noticeable   
   >> deficit in the books if you give away more stuff than you receive.   
      
   > What you specifically mentioned was GDP, and a high GDP is compatible   
   > with giving away more stuff to the USSR than you receive from the   
   > USSR.   
      
   I stand corrected on this point. In the long run however an export   
   surplus alone can not keep your GDP totals high. You need to have the   
   means to also increse the "C + I + G" part, and be able to continue keep   
    "X" going.   
      
   > You are simply wrong when you write:   
      
   >>>> Had the relationship been "extortion   
   >>>> and tribute" as this Donald guy is suggesting GDP [...]   
   >>>>  would not had looked the way [it] did...   
      
   > GDP in fact very well can look as it did even as a country is paying   
   > tribute, provided the country is sufficiently productive.   
      
   Exactly. "Productive" is key here. I honestly don't belive a country can   
   remain productive for an extended period of time if there is a "vampire"   
   sucking all blood out but not injecting anything back.   
      
   > So that part   
   > of what you're saying is just incorrect. Which leaves us with:   
      
   >>>> most scholars. Had the relationship been "extortion   
   >>>> and tribute" as this Donald guy is suggesting [...]   
   >>>> other figures would not had looked the way they did...   
      
   > So tell us what these "other figures" are which "would not have looked   
   > the way they did".   
      
   First: if the trade had been "paying tribute" it would have shown in the   
   balance sheet, that's for sure. Imbalance did occur later, but by that   
   stage the USSR was in bad economic shape and in the beginning of its   
   end, taking the first steps towards falling apart. (Russia did pay back   
    the debt the USSR owed Finland, late yes, but it did.)   
      
   Second: Finland built after WWII a "wellfare state" structure, with its   
   publically funded healthcare, free education from elementery school   
   education to university level etc etc. If the Finno-Soviet trade had   
   been all tribute with nothing or next to nothing in exchange, it could   
   hardly have been possible to financially support all these sectors, or   
   it would have required an enourmous productiveness from other sectors,   
   which seems very unlikely for a country that had been badly bruised in   
   WWII, *and* paid reparations to the winner. You have to keep in mind   
   that Finland was an agrarian country until the mid 20th century. The   
   wealth that supposedly should have supported all of that simply didn't   
   exist, but it had to be built from scratch.   
      
   --   
   Anton   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)