2a12a076   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic, soc.culture.baltics   
   From: valtsu@stadissa.fi   
      
   Eugene Holman wrote:   
   > In article   
   > , David   
   > Friedman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article ,   
   >>  holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> By your account that isn't   
   >>>> relevant to the case of Russo-Finnish trade, since the barter was using   
   >>>> dollar prices both ways,   
   >>> They were not real dollar prices. They were "clearing" dollar prices.   
   >>> Clearing dollars are fictitious units of currency used for book keeping   
   >>> purposes.   
   >> If I correctly understood your previous explanation, they were using   
   >> real dollar prices, just not real dollars.   
   >>   
   >> That is to day, the price in clearing dollars for oil was the world   
   >> price of oil (in real dollars) minus a discount.   
   >   
   (snip)   
      
   > No cash, interest, financial transaction fees, or the freedom of using   
   > real cash are involved. The clearing dollar was a book-keeping device,   
   > nothing more. I remember a similar system being used when Yugoslvian Air   
   > Transport ­ JAT ­ bought its first airliners from Boeing. Short of   
   > currency, the airline paid in hams, which were then used to prepare   
   > various dishes sold for money in Boeing's cafeterias at a dollar price   
   > that Boeing set.   
      
   The JAT case is a pure transaction of a countertrade agreement. It   
   happens to be the same way Finnair used to buy its planes from its   
   former purveyor McDonnell-Douglas > Boeing and the way the Finnish Air   
   Force bought 64 F/A 18 Hornets. Payment was not done in hams nor   
   reindeer meatballs, but a specific agency was established in the USA to   
   sell Finnish products for payment of aircraft. Similar transactions have   
   been done with a big number of countries.   
      
   A question arises - why did the US government go on with a deal like   
   this? Was it because the US government was infiltrated by commies,   
   homosexuals etc.? I guess not. US government saw it as a good deal and   
   that included keeping the Finns happy (=friendly). And there were no big   
   losers or winners - all involved benefited.   
      
   Summa summarum: pure ideology such as pure capitalism in foreign trade   
   is not a goal in itself. Even the US government has a sense of Realpolitik.   
      
   Timo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)