However, what did people really get? They received anything, but equality. Rich people were still rich, while poor people were still poor. In fact, ruling party was getting more and more of country's wealth. Basically people who worked on higher posts collected all country's wealth, while ordinary people had to work literally for nothing in order to survive. Today's economic model in my country is far from being perfect, and it doesn't even satisfy half of society. According to statistics, 80% of country's wealth is under control of the government. Is it fair? Not at all. Moreover, social status and family's income play important roles in getting better education. Ordinary person cannot afford to pay for education in the best countries universities, however he might be much more educated than a person who is able to pay for expensive education. All in all, this economic model has plenty of disadvantages and can be replaced with other existing models. Some of them were presented in Arora's article "What do we Deserve" .
The first model that was presented by Arora is libertarian model. It represents a free-market with certain rules people must follow. However, people do not start from the same starting point. Social class, gender, income,race, skin color are all matter in libertarian model. According to Arora, ".people don't have real equality of opportunity due to various disadvantages, for example, of family income, social class, gender, race, caste, etc" (Arora). One can easily predict the future of the kids who were born into upper-caste and have better socioeconomic position . These kids have many advantages in getting better education, and all doors are open in front of them. However, some people were less lucky and have to struggle the whole life in order to survive. This model of economic justice doesn't seem to be the one that would satisfy modern society. Majority of the people would like to have equal opportunities despite on individual identities.