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:   
      
   > > 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.   
   > >   
   > The trade was very profitable to the Finns.   
      
   That is an assertion. It's been made many times in the thread. It could   
   even be true. But I don't think anyone has offered any evidence that it   
   is true.   
      
   ...   
      
   > Alright then. What makes you believe that the trade was unprofitable to the   
   > Finns?   
      
   I don't--as I've said several times, I don't know which claim is true.   
      
   The reason to suspect it might have been unprofitable is that the   
   Russians were in a much better position to extort tribute from the Finns   
   than the Finns were to extort it from the Russians. The reasons to be   
   sceptical of claims that it was profitable made by Finns but so far   
   unsupported by evidence are:   
      
   1. They have reason to want to believe it, and ...   
      
   2. The nature of the trade was sufficiently complicated so that the real   
   terms may not have been obvious--and the people involved in the Finnish   
   government had reason to want their citizens to believe that the trade   
   was profitable for them.   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)