should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth with poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? or is the responsability of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves?

Accordingly

to some schools of thought, strong economies ought to supply unwealthy

countries

with aid, supporting them with the realization of primary and essential services

such

as food and educational programs.

However

, others believe prosperous states should not commit themselves to any intervention, leaving

this

duty to the country's local governors.

Although

several arguments are supporting both the hypothesis, I personally agree with the idea that puts a moral obligation of action upon the richest

countries

in the world.

Firstly

, because often a discrete amount of the wealth of a nation derives from previous exploitations in damage to poorer

countries

. In fact, thinking about democracies

such

as Holland or Belgium, no one could forget to mention their colonialist experience. Taking advantage respectively of South Africa's diamond mines and Congo's ivory, both the European states strengthened their economies. Beyond these examples, it is clear that we should consider a country's prosperity as the counterpart of steady exploitation.

Therefore

, wealthier nations should give back what they improperly appropriated.

On the other hand

, I strongly agree with those who believe that providing free essential services to

third

-world

countries

would be a benefit for the whole economy. Supporting development among these populations surely needs huge investments at

first

, but

this

effort will definitely be worthwhile.

For example

, ensuring better living conditions will enlarge the economic market, as people will start to spend their salaries

instead

of saving them. In conclusion, even if it may appear a waste of money, wealthy democracies should doubtless provide aid to unwealthy ones, both for moral and economic reasons.