XPost: soc.culture.nordic   
   From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Anton  wrote:   
      
   > [Followup-To: s.c.nordic and rec.arts.sf.misc]   
   >   
   > David Friedman kirjoitti:   
   > > In article ,   
   > >  Anton  wrote:   
   >   
   > >> You must be surprised then, I don't consider David nuts :) Although in   
   > >> my view the guy has a clear bias towards James' view which is evident in   
   > >> that he is so eager to challenge our postion, but not James' despite   
   > >> that his has been proved to be mostly misconception, speculation and   
   > >> even sheer utter nonsense ...   
   >   
   > > For instance his repeated, but eventually withdrawn, claim that the   
   > > trade was done in terms of rubles, not dollars--which it now appears was   
   > > correct?   
   >   
   > James said: "they were PAID in worthless rubles". Which of course was   
   > baloney.   
      
   "Worthless" was false. But the response, that the transactions were in   
   clearing dollars and rubles had nothing to do with it, was also false,   
   at least according to the long article discussed here--it was in   
   clearing rubles. And it looks as though the worth of those clearing   
   rubles, from the standpoint of the Finnish business exporting, came from   
   the willingness of the Finnish authorities to exchange them for Finnish   
   currency. That's consistent with James view of what was really going on,   
   although it doesn't compel that view.   
      
   > > I've pointed out what seem to me errors in James' arguments from time to   
   > > time, but given the nature of the exchange, pointing out errors on the   
   > > other sides   
   >   
   > So you have "sides" in the issue. Earlier you claimed "I don't know the   
   > nature of this trade, but I'd like to find out".   
      
   Yes. One side asserts that Finland clearly benefitted, economically   
   speaking, from the trade. Another side asserts that it lost. I didn't   
   say that I was on one side--only that James was on side and some other   
   people on the other side.   
      
   > The most effective way   
   > to find out is of course to challenge all the most significant   
   > assertions made. Having preconceptions yourself is not the best starting   
   > point for the quest of unbiased, factual knowledge on the subject.   
      
   And what preconceptions do I have? James clearly had preconceptions.   
   Eugene did. You seem to have. I've been arguing throughout that there   
   are several possible explanations of what happened, and asking for, and   
   trying to find, evidence to decide which are more likely to be correct.   
      
   ...   
      
   --   
    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)