Practically, there will be, but we're not arguing about that.
Perhaps this is where our disagreement lies. Maybe my idea of "ideally" is much more practical than ideal. What's your definition of "ideally"? Mine includes a great number of factors that yours may lack, like price fluctuations, human error, restraints on productivity and resources, inconsistencies in levels of purchase for various individuals, lack of foreknowledge, to name a few. I suppose it might be easier to detail what I'm excluding: corruption, greed, red tape, and this little poem from that same proffessor you don't seem to trust:
A committee of twenty, debates plenty
a committe of ten, decides now and then
to get the most done, have a committee of one
If it is merely our definitions of "ideally" that differ, then it's no use me arguing with you about this. Mine includes many "practical" problems, so that could be it.
However, in a capitalist society, it isn't that different.
Citations please. The reason I say "citations" is because I would bet a bazillion dollars that anyone who experienced both would not agree with you. I don't actually expect or require citations for this though, that was really just to make a point that the empirical evidence will disagree with you.
My ideal communist government would simply be one that acts as the ultimate regulator, giving you a choice of jobs based on specialization and skill, while for the most part stopping insane wealth disparity present in capitalism.
Sounds to me like your ideal "communist" government is more like an insanely-regulatory capitalist government. lol
I can see perfectly a government trying to bolster a sector with talent by directly improving the pay instead of telling someone 'HEY U BE AEROENGINEER KAY?'.
If the field isn't particularly valued, then why would the government be trying to allocate people into that field?
Nope. If a job is needed, the wages for that job will increase. If the wages don't increase, it means that it's not a particularly valued field or has enough people in it. It's that simple. Well, and the base wages would be dependent on the work/education required, I suppose.
And as I said, this is irreconcilable with perfect or near-perfect economics management because money will then be wasted in a field which is being paid more than it is valued.
So you're saying that if the wages don't increase, it's not a particularly valued field. So if the government tries to bolster the sector directly, but the field isn't valued, they're then being paid more than the field is valued. Do we agree on this? Or perhaps the government wouldn't boost that sector at all, even if the people in it do need more money?
You saying that your professor said something isn't a source. I'm sorry, but you'd be pissed if I said 'Well, my grandfather said that communism was the most economically efficient system.' as an argument in communist efficiency, for instance (which he never did). It's not a source.
There is a very important difference in the two scenarios you presented. I offered not what my proffessor said, but what he actually experienced. That is, he has empirical, first hand knowledge of what actually occurs in a communistic state. I didn't say "oh well my proffessor thinks this" or "my proffessor doesn't like that," I said that my proffessor was
there and can testify as to how the scenario
actually was.
However, I do know at least that my math professor who grew up in Romania under a communist regime was extremely regulated in practically his life (until he moved here).
There's no opinion or ambiguity there, simply the state of being: regulated.
You saying "my grandfather thinks communism is the most efficient government" is not the same, it offers nothing but an opinion, unless your grandfather was
actually there and can also say "because things ran smoothly" or "because we were happy with it" or something like that.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the US isn't helping the opposition in some way, to bring Moldova, a slightly pro-Russia communist country, into NATO. I'm not saying it was an American who burned down the Parliament building, but the US and other countries of similar caliber (which was the USSR and... yeah) do what they can to get strategically important countries into their fold.
I wouldn't dare try to convince you otherwise lol
On a serious note, yes, they're helping the opposition I suppose, but if russia started hosting moldovan communist websites for free, I'd take much the same attitude as towards the U.S. doing it. One wants communism (not sure about this, but it doesn't make a difference really), one wants democracy, so they'll help out the people they like. Not really suspicious or anything. Now, if the U.S. started sending troops? Yeah I'm down for calling that out.
As for that website, you're still not getting it. It wasn't a source for facts. It was a source for an analysis of four legitimate websites. It's that simple. If the websites were legitimate, and if the analysis made just a bit of sense, then it served its purpose.
We weren't talking about website analysis though, we were talking about what was happening in Moldova. You've made your point, just in the future do me a favor and link me to the legitimate website that has the actual substance that I care about so we waste less time arguing about nonsense like this.
I'm feeling mild, so I'll just say it'll be hard, but my position is subject to change as my whims do.
Well, just so you know, being the "strict" moderator that I am, I'm more inclined to delete a post than edit it, especially when someone's been warned. Not trying to scare you or anything (lol@me -- internet scare), just letting you know how things stand. That doesn't apply to just you of course, it's just we happen to be having the conversation at this point in time alongside our argument. I'd rather not have you post something I consider flaming, delete it, then have you yell at me about all the substance you put into the post though. It discourages posting -- but from my point of view, if you want to post, follow the rules.
None.