100% Socialism does not work. It is proven by China already.

There is no possibility that no one is poor and no one is rich. However, the experience this prof used on so-called Obamas socialism isnt accurate either. His argument and experiment makes perfect sense for a 100% socialism country. However, it doesnt when clearly America is not, or even close to 20% of socialism. You dont have to agree with my following arguments but the current worship of free market and complete dame to the socialism needs to be rethought of. You might just been living in an ideology for too long. 1. A persons grade cannot be compared to ones life. A person who studies little will be happy when he gets a good grade due to the averaging effect from the good graders. However, with life, in reality, a person who cant find a job will most likely have no identity, feel no value of himself, feels neglected and unwanted. If its you, just because you will receive freely, wil l you exchange your job for that? 2. His argument has an underline assumption that if one works hard, he will get good pay, excluding all effects with previous educational investment, ones intelligence, or ones holding of resources. So send a 2nd grader to Harvard, tell him to study hard. Show me all his work and his grade at the end. Or a person with answers from final last semester to compete with one who didnt have money to buy a textbook and has to work to pay tuition. 3. Another assumption in his argument is that every student has equal power to have a good grade or at least have equal chance under his teaching. However, in reality, the richer holds so much more barging power than the poor in this society. They have think tanks, lobby groups, knows government officials, connection with other riches. People are equal in terms of civil rights but they are definitely not equal in terms of wealth and power comparing to the poor under the current social context. Here are the 5 statements he has made and my responds in the current social context. 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What is prosperity? A person with luxury life or a person with daily food? Taking from corporations did not caused these lower class to wear LV and drive Benz. They are protected from falling off the edge of their lives. Legislating the wealthy out of prosperity? Truly it does? With 1% of what top 1% owns is already prosperity. Tell me, who is legislated into any prosperity? And who is legislated out of any prosperity? Complete socialism does not work because human is greedy. But the reality is we are running on largely free market with the idea of welfare state. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. Question: are you sure that the person who get the money is actually working? Most of the upper class owns business, with investment and real-estate that they can profit from. They did work previously and possibly still working in their companies. So lots of them, even they stop working today, will still get paid. Another question: so if one isnt being productive, why is it still called work? If its money creating money (finance), and the person has only worked for the start money, where did the rest of the money come from? I dont know, but definitely not from his work. But it is true that one person receives freely means another person has worked for it. So

most possibly, the non-workings are profiting out of the workings, these sitting-at-homes and getting-paid people are living on exploitation of the low wages of lower classes. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. I totally agree with this one. The higher the power is, the easier it would be to take from lower power than the other way around, right? The upper class in this society owns power, not just wealth. The government balances their power by distributing helps to the poor, which is the lower power. Yes, the government sometimes collaborates with these wealthy people (actually most of the time) but still it is a higher power over wealthies under some situations. This power is acted on the rich with the collection of tax. If government doesnt give to the lower power or is non-existing, just picture it, wouldnt the other high power who also holds financial power just keeps growing bigger and bigger and out of control without the care to the lower power? And the poor will never be rich without a few of our riches giving out some money occasionally. If today the prof doesnt exist, every student has different level of knowledge and resources, the A student would be better off without leaking his knowledge to the F student, the F student who is poor and cant purchase a textbook and has to work over hours to pay tuition, the prof isnt available to help, wouldnt the A get more and more, the F keeps getting F? 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! No you cant, but wealth is not the accurate metric to measure a societys well -being, or common good. Otherwise, why are there homeless in America? You think its because all of them are lazy? Or that the riches and us have set the bar of entering the society so high with all the middlegrades and good-grades who have put massive amount of pre-investment into good education. Does the increase of total wealth increase individual wealth? NO. 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

I agree. However, we know America wouldnt be completely socialist and that makes all the difference. Lets put it this way. Assume the lower class, the 89% of people, makes $12 gross, I, the 20%, make $35400 (just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).(http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html). If today I have to pay 50% to the government then I have $17700 left, the government will then give the rest of $17700 to other 4 people (idealisticly), they each get 4425+12=$4437, which means I am still 4 times richer than them. However, I would always wanna be richer because of my greed, so even 50% of what I earned was taxed, I would still work to get even more! So does an increase on tax have that big of an effect on my motivation to get more? NO. Now the problem comes as that if the people who receive get lazy and stop working. Some of the people, yes, they do. But have you got tax returns before? How much are they? Comparing to your $12 salary, do you actually get $4425 from the rich? NO. most likely, if

lucky, you can get $2 which is already 1/6 of your total salary. If you are desperately poor, then even if the government funds your whole life, you wont have a comfortable one, oh, lets forget about prosperity. Plus, you have to bare with the riches who think of you as a lazy animal who enjoy their wealth in the trailer park. Plus, the possibility is that you will desperately want a good job to support yourself. Reality is, many of these people dont have the education to start with, or even a permanent address or emergency contact.
If we are to believe lies like this that the poor are satisfied because they are given lives by the rich due to 10% of socialism, put ourselves in their shoes to experience the insecurity, scare, hopelessness, weakness and danger that they are facing. The pressure these people feel of having to overwork, being forgotten or scare of not having a job and losing houses, we will never get to actually KNOW when we merely just fail a class and get an F. The thing is that you cant measure a person based on their wealth. A persons internal value is not tightly connected to wealth. Total socialism wouldnt work, neither entire free market. If a society survives on the base of how much GDP it makes, then it better not be a society at all. If a society is run by an economist, then its better to not have a society at all. Because anything in our life would be measured in chart, diagrams and turned into another way to profit. Economic prosperity can be a shadow of social prosperity but not the other way around. Social prosperity is based on morality, justice, liberty and education. The economy model isnt the core of the society, people are. Economic model did not and will never fix internal human flaws, including laziness and greed, think of what will?