83b01209   
   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 ,   
   >  holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:   
   >   
   > [Most of the post snipped. It repeats claims that may well be true, but   
   > that I don't think have been supported by much evidence]   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > But then, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and quite a lot of other countries   
   > have ended up with successful companies too, without having been engaged   
   > in large scale barter trade with the Soviets.   
      
   They have much larger populations with a longer tradition of   
   industrialism. Finland was an agrarian country of modest means until it   
   was forced to industrialize after WW II in order to pay the war   
   reparations.   
      
   > You seem to keep coming back to versions of "we ended up richer than   
   > they did, so we must have gained by the trade at their expense." But   
   > that simply doesn't follow. There were lots of differences between the   
   > two countries other than their role in the trade between them, including   
   > one enormous difference--Finland was a mostly capitalist economy, the   
   > USSR a mostly socialist economy--which by itself explains the difference   
   > in outcome.   
      
   Finland was a small country on the margin of Europe whose foreign trade   
   was primarily based on the sale of wood and products of the wood   
   processing industry such as newsprint and cellulose, with low added value.   
   Forced industrialization left it a country with a far more diversified   
   industrial infrastructure capable of producing goods with high added   
   value.   
      
   > I'm particularly puzzled by the "as a result of the relationship" part   
   > of this. By your account, the Finns specialized in producing low quality   
   > goods for the Soviet market.   
      
   Not low quality, just mediocre but functional and durable stuff with an   
   emphasis on quantity rather than quality or style. In a capitalist economy   
   goods are constantly upgraded and made obsolete by minor improvemnts in   
   style or technology. The Soviet market, so starved for consumer goods, did   
   not require or want such changes. The Finns could just keep churning out   
   those perfectly wearable baggy men's suits without having to think about   
   such considerations as fashion trends or style: there was no competition.   
      
   > By other accounts, they specialized in   
   > producing ships, especially ice breakers.   
      
   They also produced at least one entire city, Kostamuksha (Kostamus)   
   apartments, factories, shopping centers, and infrastructure, on a   
   key-in.hand basis. The hi-tech Russian minisubmarines that are shown at   
   the beginning of the movie *Titanic* were also built by the Finns.   
      
   > Neither of those explains   
   > success in producing cell phones today.   
      
   Yes it does. An agrarian country with an economy based on selling lumber   
   and basic products of the wood processing industry was forced to reorient   
   itself towards engineering and hi-tech. Norway and Denmark, countries that   
   had populations the size of Finland's and economies traditionally based on   
   agriculture and commerce (Denmark), or forestry and fishing (Norway) are   
   nowhere nearly as industrialized as Finland is today, although Norway's   
   oil has made it extremely prosperous. Briefly put, the Finniish industrial   
   infrastructure is roughly on par with that of Sweden, yet Sweden has twice   
   the population, while Finland's population is roughly the same size as   
   Denmark's and Norway's.   
      
   > If anything, one would think   
   > that if Finnish efforts hadn't been diverted in those directions in the   
   > past, Finland would have developed as a high tech, high quality producer   
   > even earlier.   
      
   No. It would probably have industrialized at approximately the same rate   
   that its Nordic neighbors Norway and Denmark did. And the industry that it   
   developed would probably have been oriented towards wood and wood   
   processing, the country's traditional "green gold". As it is, Finland's   
   main exports in the early 1950s were newsprint and cellulose selling at   
   perhaps $100/tonne. Mobile telephones, designed and programmed, but not   
   actually manufactured in Finland, go nowadays for $100,000/tonne. That, in   
   a nutshell, is how Finland profitted from its rapid and forced   
   industrialization and its asymmetrical trade relationship with the defunct   
   and unlamented USSR.   
      
   Regards,   
   Eugene Holman   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)