Aid to Russia

[Mathew Forstater]

Economists love to do this kind of thing. This way of formulating the
question obfuscates and limits more than informs or demonstrates.  History
is obliterated, more complex structural relations are denied, qualitative
factors are left out, and there is no context.  We are left with
unexplored and autonomous quantitative relations between countries in a
history-less, institution-less, people-less vacuum.

For example, what if the historical and structural relationship between
countries such as the US, France, and West Germany and countries such as
Nigeria, Pakistan, and Vietnam affect the relationship among the former
countries??  With Nigeria are you factoring in the "surplus" resulting
from the Enslavement and Colonialism??

By the way, what's the deal with "West Germany"-- is this blocked and
pasted from an old multiple choice exam from trade 101? Or do the numbers
come out differently after unification?

Mat

Brad De Long wrote:


> >
> >Even better, a poor 3rd world source for cheap labor, raw materials,
> >and a dumping grounds for our toxic wastes?
> >
> >
> >Bill
>
> Trade with which of the following generates more surplus for the U.S.?
>
> (a) South Korea or (b) Vietnam
>
> (a) France or (b) Nigeria
>
> (a) West Germany or (b) Pakistan
>
> Brad DeLong