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.

More sports & fitness centers?

Posted on June 6, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Would the availability of more sports facilities lead to better public health?

It would seem obvious that providing more sports facilities would lead to increased fitness and better health among the population. However, there are also several reasons why public health might not improve. In this essay, I will explain why access to sports facilities may not be sufficient to improve our health.

More gyms, stadiums, and fitness centers would certainly be a good thing. First of all, people will not use sports facilities if they are not convenient. After a long day working or taking care of a family, nobody wants to spend a long time driving or commuting to a gym or to swim or play tennis. The closer the facility, the more likely people are to use it. Secondly, having facilities in neighborhoods will encourage friends and families to exercise or play sport together. Playing a sport or getting fit can be more enjoyable with people you know. A third point is that just having sports centers available increases awareness of fitness and health, and this can motivate and encourage people who might not normally use them to join.

However, just having more sports facilities may not be enough. First, the facilities may be too expensive, both to use and to build. Massive stadiums costing governments hundreds of millions of dollars may only serve a few people, and ordinary people may not be able to afford gym or spa fees. Another issue is the need to support people with training, diets, professional sports coaching and goal-setting. Without good organization and professional staffing, many people may visit sports facilities just a few times and give up or do something else more fun. However, the most important thing is changing the mindset of people. Children do what their parents do, and parents do what their friends do. If they are not interested in fitness or sports, the facilities will be underused and a waste of money. Until money is spent on education, people may prefer to play computer games or sit around eating unhealthy food, drinking and smoking.

In conclusion, while I think every school, village and town needs sports facilities, I don’t think that real change can result from just building more sports centers. We need a two-pronged approach which motivates us and our children to become more active and which is affordable and accessible.

Should college be free?

Posted on May 8, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Should college education be free, or should university students be required to pay tuition fees?

Some countries have free education from kindergarten to university, while students in other countries have to pay at every step of the way. This essay will look at some of the reasons for this difference at university level.

Free third level education has several advantages. First of all, everyone can attend, so the gap between rich and poor students decreases as poorer students have more opportunity. The economy also benefits from the increased pool of highly educated labor. An educated workforce attracts employers and foreign investment. Socially, a more educated population should have more choices regarding nutrition, jobs and lifestyle. An additional point is that university fees only contribute a small proportion of the university budget.

However, some people are opposed to free education. First of all, through their taxes, poor families subsidize rich students who can easily afford to pay fees. A second point is that spending government money on free education is often not possible or desirable when a country needs hospitals, roads, and primary or secondary schools. A third point is that a university education is a choice, not a requirement. People who finish college with advanced qualifications are going to earn large salaries and can easily afford to pay back loans. Furthermore, when people get something for free, they often do not value it. If college is free, many students will go there just because they cannot think of anything else to do.

In conclusion, free third level education is not always a good thing. Governments need to think carefully about their policies and ensure that they are using their resources to help all the people in the country equitably.

Government spending on art

Posted on April 26, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some people think that government should support painters, poets, musicians, and other artists financially. Others argue that money should be spent on other, more important, issues. Do you agree or disagree?

Most people like paintings, music, poetry and other forms of art. However, a lot of people also think that governments have more urgent priorities such as housing, hospitals, defense, or water. In this essay, I will discuss whether art should be included in our national budget.

When drawing up its budget, a government has to make tough decisions. First of all, there are basic requirements such as shelter, health, and the protection of the country’s citizens. People need food, medical care, and education before they need music or statues. Secondly, governments tend to focus on short-term needs. They often fail to consider what future generations would need or like to see, and as a result, they minimize spending on museums, galleries or architecture. Another point is that individual politicians may not be very interested in art. They may prefer to spend money on things that will get them re-elected, such as roads or schools.

However, excluding art is a mistake. First, even in tough times, people need music, songs, color, dance, design and other forms of art. These allow people to express themselves and release social and political tension. Furthermore, to include beauty in the design of a building or even a city does not add much to the cost. For a slightly higher cost, even a hospital or a school can be beautiful. Additionally, painting, music, poetry or dance can actually serve a government by expressing a national identity or by attracting tourism.

In conclusion, we should always try to keep some beauty in our life, even if money is tight. If we close off all means of expression, we risk problems for ourselves and our societies.

Writefix.com

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

Tag: government

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

Related Posts:

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

Related Posts:

More sports & fitness centers?

Related Posts:

Should college be free?

Related Posts:

Government spending on art

Related Posts: