XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic   
   From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi   
      
   In article , David Friedman   
    wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   >  Markku Grönroos  wrote:   
   >   
   > > "David Friedman"  kirjoitti   
   > > viestissä:ddfr-EB3686.11101914082008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET...   
   > > >   
   > > > 2. Your evidence that he is barmy mostly consists of his holding views   
   > > > that disagree with yours.   
   > > >   
   > > No, that is not the point. He has been told by people who know about the   
   > > Finno Soviet trade that what he says about it is baloney. Skim the thread   
   > > from the start and you will see the light.   
   >   
   > On Usenet (or elsewhere) the fact that one has been told something does   
   > not imply that it is true. James corrected one error, although it took   
   > him a while. But, so far as I can tell, the question of whether the   
   > trade was actually biased in favor of Finland or in favor of Russia is   
   > still open, despite confident assertions of the former.   
      
   From the standoint of profitability it was definitely biased towards   
   Finland. A gigntic infrastructure originally built to pay war reparations   
   could continue to be used and developed to serve a gigantic and   
   insatioable captive market.   
      
   From the standpoint of socialist ideology is was favorable to the Soviets.   
   Consumer goods that their population craved and would pay a premium price   
   for, but which the Soviets did not want to produce themselves for   
   ideological reasons, were supplied in abundance. Additionally, the   
   relationship brought the USSR the benefit of serving not only as an   
   example of the peaceful and symbiotic co-existece of countries with   
   different socio-economic systems, it also provided the Soviets with a   
   Western mouthpoice for some of its political initiatives.   
      
      
      
   In the longer term the Finns profitted more. When the system collapsed,   
   they had a bloated infrastructure that could be retooled and downsized, as   
   well as unpaid clearing dollar debts that Russia, which inherited the   
   Soviet-era debt and the obligation to pay it, eventually paid in cash. The   
   Russians wound up with warehouses full of the consumer goods, sme of it   
   unsellable, that the Finns had been busily producing for them, but they   
   lacked the industrial infrastructure to produce such goos for their home   
   market, forcing them to seek other, cheaper souces for the products of   
   light industry until they eventually got their act together.   
      
   As a result of the relationship, Finland today is the second most   
   industrialized country in the Nordic region and has several compnies whose   
   brand names are well known for quality and innovation in the world   
   marketplace. No Russian manufacturer of industrial products has a similar   
   presence in the wrld marketplace.   
      
   Regards,   
   Eugene Holman   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)