XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.nordic, soc.culture.baltics   
   From: valtsu@stadissa.fi   
      
   David Friedman wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >  valtsu  wrote:   
   >   
   > ...   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > 1. The argument that Eugene, and I think some others, have been making   
   > is that the foreign trade of the USSR was based largely on   
   > ideology--that one reason they traded with Finland on worse terms than   
   > they could have traded elsewhere, and did it in the form of barter, was   
   > their ideological opposition to ordinary capitalist exchange. Whether   
   > the claim is true I don't know.   
      
   In a broad sense I agree with Eugene's argument. In the view of the USSR   
   foreign trade was first of all a tool of foreign policy and only   
   secondly business as such.   
      
   > 2. The question that arises for me is why what you describe made more   
   > sense for the Finns than simply selling their products through whatever   
   > the usual channels were, and using the money to buy airplanes. Why set   
   > up a special (I'm guessing Finnish) agency to sell goods in order to buy   
   > airplanes?   
      
   The "agency" I was talking about was a division or a company set up by   
   the American side, McDonnell-Douglas to be exact. This "agency" made   
   purchases from Finland to finance the aircraft deals. The aim was to   
   generate new exports from Finland to the US.   
      
   The reason I brought up this matter is that it was not just the USSR   
   that used unorthodox trade practices and that had foreign policy goals   
   in mind when trade transactions were made. As I previously said this was   
   not a bad thing, all involved were happy. And the Finns ended up using   
   American planes instead European ones.   
      
   Timo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)