Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Short)

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some say that economic development is the solution to poverty: others say it is the cause of poverty. What is your opinion?

Many people today have clean water, good food, comfortable houses and money to spend. Billions, however, live in terrible conditions, often without enough to eat. Why is it that, despite all our economic progress, so many people is poor? In this essay I will discuss if the growth of business and capitalism is keeping people in poverty.

It’s easy to blame economic development for many problems. First of all, huge companies exploit the natural resources of countries. Nigeria’s oil, Zimbabwe’s diamonds and the Brazilian forest are used up, but no money goes to the ordinary people. Second, much industry leads to pollution or environmental damage. Huge dam projects in India force people from their homes, and pesticide poisoning kills millions. In addition, companies don’t care about employees. Some even move overnight to different countries, leaving thousands unemployed.

But it’s impossible to turn the clock back and live without economic development. In the first place, any job is better than no job. People need money to buy food, build houses and pay for their children’s medicine. Second, business and trade mean that good governments have money to invest in better infrastructure. They can build better roads, hospitals, sanitation, and schools, thus attracting more development. Finally, large-scale production provides us with cheap clothes, food, electronic goods and other luxuries. Only free trade and open markets can give us this consumer lifestyle, for necessities as well as luxuries.

In summary, we need to balance the greed of corporations with the needs of our people. Everyone deserves a chance to live a comfortable and dignified life.

258 words (The information below is incorrect)

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Long)

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some say that economic development is the solution to poverty: others say it is the cause of poverty. What is your opinion?

Despite levels of wealth one side and development unparalleled in history, billions of people on our planet are still uneducated, poorly housed Other side, sick, inadequately fed or even starving as a result of poverty. Is this a result of economic development, or can a rising tide of economic development give all humans a basic standard and dignity of life? In this essay, I will ask if economic progress is only for one group Thesis: what the essay will do in our society.

It’s important to realize that economic activity alone is not enough Topic Sentence: Economic development does not always mean the end of poverty. to end poverty. In many poor countries, natural resources such as copper, oil or even land are being exploited Idea 1: companies are exploiting land and other valuable resources by local or foreign companies but with little benefit for the local people. Nigeria’s oil wealth and Zimbabwe’s diamonds are examples where money leaves the country or does not help the majority. Secondly, economic activity can have devastating consequences on the environment Idea 2:Economic development can mean environmental problems. Dam projects in India or the clearing of the rainforest can mean local people lose land and livelihoods. Furthermore, multinational companies are not tied to any country. Idea 3: multinational companies have no moral obligations to any country. Businesses move overnight and outsource to find even cheaper labor or resources, leaving unemployed people behind them.

However, we can’t go back to a Stone-Age existence Topic sentence: We cannot live without developing our economies of barter and living in huts. More people than ever have access to electricity Idea 1: benefits of development, clean water, good schools, and medicine than ever before. Clothes, electronic luxuries such as phones, televisions and computers are cheap. All these things have come about through business and trade. They have provided income for governments to improve the life of their people. Secondly, other systems have failed: Idea 2: Communism and protectionism have not worked very well when India and China opened their markets and allowed people to do business, millions of people were lifted out of poverty. And even in countries where companies pay low salaries or do not look after the environment, Idea 3: Even a poor salary is better than no salary there are more opportunities for workers. What seems like a sweatshop in China or Mexico may be a first step in building a modern economy.

In conclusion, we can’t live without economic progress. Conclusion One side (Opinion) All that we and our governments can do is try to make sure that it is in the interests of our society and our environment. Conclusion, future or recommendation.

373 words. The info below is not correct.

Development and Technology

Posted on October 22, 2011 by Mr Writefix

The rapid pace of development is damaging our environment. Some people say the answer is for all of us to lead a simpler life, but others say that technology can help solve our environmental problems. What do you think?

Our planet is definitely suffering from the effects of seven billion people. Is the answer to go back to living in villages and farms, or is it to find new technological solutions for our problems? In this essay, I will say why we need to consider both these options.

Technology by itself cannot solve our environmental problems. First of all, it is neutral, neither good nor bad: Only the user can decide how it is to be used. Secondly, it is difficult to imagine in advance how new technology can be used, or misused. For example, if we learned how to produce endless cheap energy , would the results be necessarily all good? A third point is that technology generally belongs, at least at the beginning, to the rich and powerful, who use it for their own ends.

However, we cannot just shun technology and go back to living simple lives in villages. For one thing, there would not be enough space in our rural areas. Imagine if all Bangkok’s or Mumbai’s millions left the city and went back to farming or weaving. But we can make a difference by consuming much less, and reusing what we have. A switch from meat to vegetables or beans for one or two days a week would keep us healthier and reduce pressure on the Amazon rainforest. Walking instead of driving, demanding that products be recycled, and thinking about our consumption would make a huge difference.

In conclusion, we should look at ways of using technology to tackle environmental issues, rather than using it for mindless consumerism. When future generations see our mountains of abandoned cars and iPods, what will they think of us? Or will they get the chance?

Childcare: Who should provide it?

Posted on October 8, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Why should the government help working parents by providing childcare facilities?

Should parents, particularly mothers, stay at home to take care of children? Or should they be allowed to help their family and their country’s development by going out to work? In some countries, the government provides financial assistance to parents who use childcare, and I will give some reasons why I think this is a good idea.

Firstly, childcare centres may assist children in their early development. They give children an opportunity to mix with other children and to develop social skills at an early age. Indeed, a whole range of learning occurs in childcare centres.

Moreover, parents and children need to spend some time apart. Children become less dependent on their parents and parents themselves are less stressed and more effective care-givers when there are periods of separation. In fact, recent studies indicate that the parent-child relationship can be improved by the use of high-quality childcare facilities.

In addition, parents who cannot go to work because they don’t have access to childcare facilities cannot contribute to the national economy. They are not able to utilise their productive skills and do not pay income tax. In fact, non-working parents can become a drain on the tax system through social welfare payments for dependent spouses or other tax rebates, instead of earning their own money and paying tax.

In conclusion, government support for childcare services assists individual families and is important for the economic well-being of the whole nation.

What’s the best way to help poor countries?

Posted on June 13, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many poor countries receive financial help from richer nations, but poverty is still a problem. Should we give other kinds of help to developing countries in order to eliminate poverty? What other kinds of help can we give, or is money sufficient?

There is a saying that the poor will always be with us, and it sometimes seems that despite years of poor countries being helped financially, the need is just as great as ever. Where has all our foreign aid gone? Why has it not helped? In this essay I will discuss whether we need to reconsider the types of aid we give to poorer countries.

There are many different forms of development aid. When we hear about earthquakes or floods, it’s natural that we rush to our cupboards to look for blankets, clothes, and tins of food. These pile up outside collection depots in our country and cost a fortune to ship to the suffering country, where they clog up warehouses for months and often end up on the black market or make local food or clothing businesses unprofitable. Another form of aid is military aid. We generously sell our planes or tanks to our friends in developing countries, or even give them loans to buy our stuff. Since these countries have frequent wars or need to keep down their own population, it’s a good business, for us. A third type of aid is human expertise. We send consultants and economists, engineers and academics, trainers and managers. They drive around in imported four-wheel drives and live in expensive, secure villas, eating imported food.

Of course, financial aid is not perfect either. Too often, our money disappears into the pockets of ministers and generals and their friends, never reaching the needy. However, the right amount of money, given to the right people in the right way, can do more than our jet fighters, expensive generators, and bags of expired pasta can. Money moves quickly: it does not need trucks or petrol or airlifts. It stimulates local business and allows the people to make their own choices about what to buy and what the most urgent needs are, short and long term. If correctly distributed, money gives people independence. Yes, teach people to fish and you teach them for a lifetime, but give them some money, and they can set up a fish canning factory or a shrimp farm, employing and feeding hundreds.

In summary then, money is still a good way to help other people. Of course, it cannot be thrown at the problem, but without cash, every other form of aid is useless. In our blessed, comfortable lives, we cannot function without money – why should we expect the less fortunate to do so?

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Tourist attractions often have two admission prices: one for locals or residents, and one for foreigners or visitors from far away. Some see this as discrimination, while others accept it as being fair. In this essay I will say why I think it is reasonable for foreign visitors to pay more.

I don’t think locals should pay the same as foreign tourists. For one thing, a historical attraction in my country is part of my heritage. My ancestors built it, and I should have free or cheap access so I can know my history. Second, let’s face it : most tourists are rich – or at least richer than us locals. If they can afford to fly from Australia or China to see a castle or a rare animal, than they can pay a few dollars more. In addition, I pay taxes in my country, so I have already paid a lot more from my salary than the foreign tourist who is only here for a few days.

I think foreigners should pay more for several reasons. First of all, it raises money to maintain the attraction. The higher admission fees from foreigners are important in Egypt or Mexico to preserve world-class historical sites. Secondly, tourists pay far more for their flights, hotels, and cocktails. A few dollars extra to visit a museum is nothing. Third, most tourists only visit the attraction once in their lives. Who is not prepared to pay a little extra for a special occasion?

To sum up, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to pay a little extra when I am in a new country, and vice versa. In fact, I’ve already started to save for my next trip!

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many languages are disappearing every year. Is this a bad thing, or could having fewer languages help bring people together?

Will we all think the same way in future? Or will countries communicate better? In this essay I will look at a future with fewer languages.

Many people worry about threats to their native language. They think they will lose their identity, and fear losing their culture, or even their religion. They worry that we will lose diversity and instead begin to think and act in the same way worldwide. Some even worry about the increased danger of conflict in a world with just five or six major languages.

However, this is too simplistic. It is true that many languages have disappeared and will disappear. But it’s important to remember that languages are alive, not static. English people do not talk like Shakespeare, and Greeks do not talk like Aristotle. Arabic changes, and so do Mandarin and Thai. New languages are developing right now. Second, even if a language changes, ideas remain. Not many Europeans speak Arabic today, but six hundred years ago it was the language of science. No one speaks Latin or ancient Greek, but the ideas of their philosophers still survive. Third, sharing a language is no guarantee against war. Many countries have vicious civil wars where both sides share a language.

In conclusion, our native language is one way of expressing our ideas and worldview. If it’s useful, we should use it, but we should also realize that our identity and potential is not limited to the geographical accident of our birthplace and native language. What’s more important is that we learn to think, reflect, and genuinely communicate with others, regardless of what languages we use.

Effects of ageing on society (long)

Posted on June 5, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In countries such as Japan, the population is getting older. Are the effects of an ageing population positive or negative?

In many countries such as Japan or Russia, the average age of the population is becoming older. Most people think this has a negative effect on a society, but it can also provide some opportunities. In this essay, I will look at some effects of ageing on a country.

When a population gets older, many roles in the society change. First of all, there may be fewer young people to take care of older parents or family. This may cause a breakdown in family relationships. It can also mean that older people need care in nursing homes. There is also an effect on work. Older workers may not want to do hard physical work or to work in poorly paid jobs. This may cause a shortage of workers and the country may have to import foreign workers for these positions. A third effect is on government spending. Instead of spending on schools and colleges, healthcare may become a priority to treat diseases such as cancer, diabetes or heart conditions.

However, not all the effects have to be negative. Although some people claim that older people do not have new ideas, older employees can be extremely productive and efficient and this can help companies to succeed. There may be less crime in the society, since there may be less competition for jobs or other needs. Some people worry that an older society will be more conservative and will be focused on the past. However, this could also mean a more compassionate society which is less focused on material things. Another possible outcome of an ageing society is that there may be people to take care of young children. In addition, children might have a better education if schools and colleges were not as crowded.

In conclusion it’s probably better for a society to have a good equilibrium in which all age groups are balanced. However, we need to be ready for demographic changes in order to provide our citizens, young or old, with the best opportunities.

Effects of ageing on society (short)

Posted on June 5, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In countries such as Japan, the population is getting older. Are the effects of an ageing population positive or negative?

In many countries, the population is getting older. Some people believe that this has negative effects. Other people think it can be positive. In this essay, I will look at the positive and negative impact of ageing.

It is true that there are some disadvantages to an older population. First of all, there may not be enough people to work. The economy will decrease, and the government will have to bring in foreign workers. A second reason is that there will not be enough young people to look after the old people. They might have to go to special homes for old people. A third point is that older people don’t buy many things or spend a lot of money. This will also reduce the economy.

However, there are some advantages to having a lot of older people. First, they have a lot of experience in life and in work. A company with experienced employees will be successful. Older people may also have good viewpoints on life and society and will get on well with others. Another advantage is that old people can teach their grandchildren well. In addition, the schools will not be crowded, and there may be less crime. Older people do not usually steal or fight, and there will also be fewer accidents because they drive more carefully.

In conclusion, older people can contribute extensively to society. However it is best if the society has a balance between the energy of young people and the experience and wisdom of the old.

Universities and rural areas (long)

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Not many young people living in rural areas have access to university education. Universities should make it easier for people from rural areas. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Now that the majority of the world’s population live in cities, it’s easy to forget that millions still live in the countryside, far from most of the world’s prestigious schools and colleges. In this essay, I will suggest how universities can make it easier for students living far from cities to receive a good education.

It’s not necessarily a good thing for colleges to open physical campuses in rural areas. First of all, land costs money, and building labs, libraries and research units is eye-wateringly expensive. Secondly there is the problem of staff. Not all university staff will be able or will want to relocate to small towns or villages far from their colleagues. A third issue is inefficiency. A tiny campus in a rural area may only serve a few hundred students, compared to extensive facilities for thousands of students in a city. In addition, students in a small campus may miss the interaction and atmosphere of a larger city university.

However, there are many ways to facilitate third level education outside the cities. For one thing, there are many technological solutions. Radio and television have long been used to extend the reach of education, and now almost all bricks-and-mortar universities offer some form of distance education via email or the internet. These are not perfect solutions, but they can work well. Another approach is to offer beginner-level courses in rural campuses and then require students to transfer for their final years. Yet another approach is specialization, where particular departments or faculties disperse across the country, perhaps with agriculture in one province and engineering in another. However, a very important point is to offer scholarships and to have special entry requirements or quotas for students from rural areas. Many people in the countryside may lack the financial resources to live in cities and pay high tuition fees.

In conclusion, many universities nowadays welcome diversity and equality in their policies and student bodies. It’s important for them to also make sure that students from rural areas also get the best education they can.

You can find a shorter version of this essay (241 words, compared to 343 for this one) here.

Writefix.com

Argument essays, graphs, other writing, and speaking for IELTS, PET, and TOEFL

Category: Economy

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Short)

Related Posts:

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Long)

Related Posts:

Development and Technology

Related Posts:

Childcare: Who should provide it?

Related Posts:

What’s the best way to help poor countries?

Related Posts:

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Related Posts:

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Related Posts:

Effects of ageing on society (long)

Related Posts:

Effects of ageing on society (short)

Related Posts:

Universities and rural areas (long)

Related Posts: