Developed countries are considered by some people to support for poor ones by supplying them with food and quallified staff to educate their citizens,
while the opponents are sure that unwealthy countries have to solve the issues this issues by themselves. I am agree with the second point of view, due to the
fact that not only does such support overload budgets of wealthy countries but it also decreases the motivation for the citizens of poorer countries to develop
their homelands.
First, although wealthy countries have standarts of life that are uncomparable with undevelopod ones, most of them still have many unsolved financial
issues. It happens so, because the citizens are not equally rich. Some of them even suffer from the lack of basic things. For example, it is proved that
in the USA many people can not afford some medical services as well as prestigious education. Consequently, spending financial resources for support
poor countries, America leave some own citizens without this opportunities.
Secondly, every nation is in charge only for its standart of life. That is why, no one country has a right to demand from those who are more successful to
help it with some problems. In most cases, wellbeing of a country only depends on the will of its citizens to live better. Quite often it happens so that
suffered from extremal climate and from the lack of resourses countries are reacher than those that do not have such problems. In the most of such
countries people just are not interested in put any efforts to change the situation. So, if the countries are economically supported by rich one, their citizens
will be even less interested in improvement of quality of life in the countries in the long run.
In conclusion, support of countries with weak economies by successful ones is not the key to success, because only the nations of these poor countries
are able to to lead their homelands to prosperity.
Developed
countries
are considered
by
some
people
to support for poor
ones
by supplying them with food and
quallified
staff to educate their citizens,
while the opponents are sure that
unwealthy
countries
have to
solve the issues this issues by themselves. I am
agree
with the second point of view, due to the
fact that not
only
does such support overload budgets of wealthy
countries
but
it
also
decreases the motivation for the
citizens
of poorer
countries
to
develop
their
homelands.
First
, although wealthy
countries
have
standarts
of life that are
uncomparable
with
undevelopod
ones
, most of them
still
have
many
unsolved financial
issues
. It happens
so
,
because
the
citizens
are not
equally
rich.
Some
of them even suffer from the lack of basic things.
For example
, it
is proved
that
in
the USA
many
people
can not afford
some
medical services
as well
as prestigious education.
Consequently
, spending financial resources for support
poor
countries
, America
leave
some
own
citizens
without
this
opportunities.
Secondly
, every nation is in charge
only
for its
standart
of life.
That is
why, no one
country
has a right to demand from those who are more successful
to
help
it with
some
problems.
In most cases
,
wellbeing
of a
country
only
depends on the will of its
citizens
to
live
better. Quite
often
it happens
so
that
suffered
from
extremal
climate and from the lack of
resourses
countries
are
reacher
than those that do not have such problems. In the most of
such
countries
people
just
are not interested in put any efforts to
change
the situation.
So
, if the
countries
are
economically
supported by rich one, their citizens
will
be even less interested in improvement of quality of life in the
countries
in the long run.
In conclusion
, support of
countries
with weak economies by successful
ones
is not the key to success,
because
only
the nations of these poor countries
are
able
to to
lead their homelands to prosperity.