Writing Feedback / TOEFL - What things a movie tells about its country [5]

Full Topic: Films can tell us a lot about the country where they were made. What have you learned about a country from watching its movies? Use specific examples and details to support your response.

A movie is an art form that conveys a plot, or a storyline, through the means of video. As movies are made in a variety of countries, it carries itself many things about the country that the movie was made in. Largely, a film can deliver the native language and the national value to the audience.

The first thing a movie tells about its country of origin is its language. Movies are almost always made in the language of the country it was made in. The audience will get to know more about the language by listening to dialogues and speeches made throughout a movie. Bollywood films are mostly in Indian, and by watching Bollywood films, one can get a peek into the Indian language as well. When watching Hollywood films, most of which are in English, one can get a grasp of American English Second, a film carries its country's national values. Films that are based on a storyline that is related to its country can express values unique to the country. For example, the wild west films that are about stories of cowboys express the American macho spirit the cowboys and Americans at that period had. A more modern example is the Independence Day, which expresses American sense of international leadership, where the American president becomes the hero of the entire world by fighting against ailens. These movies portray the national values a country has.

Traditionally, movies were made by actors, writers, and staff who are from their own country. Even if the current trend is towards globalization, the general characteristics of a film still remain limited to the national level. Therefore, movies are a microcosm that allows the audience to learn about their country's language and virtues.

Writing Feedback / Rising China and its future: planned or liberal economy? [3]

Plese check if I made any logic lapses/ if I jump to some irrelevent conclusions, thanks!

Prompt: Which system will work for China: planned, or liberal economy?

The size of the government, or the capacity of its intervention defines a country's overall economic policies. Among the economic systems, a controversy between a planned economy and a liberal economy was outlined in history since the 1800s. Theories supporting one system challenged another, and the transition between the two policies has frequently taken place. Taking the former system, the Chinese economy is lead mainly by the Chinese government. Many industries are nationalized, and economic development is predominantly achieved by the government. This system that China has taken has proven to be effective. It is evident in the society that the benefits are threefold: planned economic system enables a rapid growth, livable environment, and extensive welfare.

First and foremost, China's rapid growth owes itself to the government-lead development programs. Because the government is very influential to the economy of China, it was able to focus its investment on certain critical industries. Unlike liberal economies, where multiple industries sprang up spontaneously, the Chinese economy was developed through stages, focusing its development on the industries that would make the greatest profit under the situations at the time, in accordance to the economic development stages. For instance, China first focused on lightweight manufacturing based on its abundant labor supply, which would be the optimal industry in the initial stages of development. After some time, it diverted its focus to heavy industries, which was backed up by the financial infrastructure developed in the former stage. A decent example of the planned economy is shown in a nearby country, South Korea. The miraculous economic development of South Korea heavily relied on the role of the government, which also approached the task of economic development by differentiating development stages and the invested industries to go with them.

Second, a planned economy provides a better living environment. In a liberal economy, cities grow by themselves, but in a planned economy, the cities' development is strictly planned by the government. This enables the government to prevent the city problems liberal economies face. The government is able to regulate excessive immigration of citizens so as not to make it crowded. It is also able to plan the transportation system to prevent traffic problems. When it comes to having a greener environment, planned economies are the best at it; a city plan is able to incorporate more nature, like streams, trees and parks, which many liberal economies find doing it difficult due to over-crowdedness. If you compare the demographics of a planned city and an unplanned one, the difference becomes self-evident. The roads and the transportation system in Chongqing, a planned city, are comparatively conveniently placed, in relative to those of Seoul.

Finally, a big government is able to provide extensive welfare. Welfare programs require a large amount of national budget. Therefore it is the planned economic governments that are more capable of securing a great amount of national treasury, thus having more money to provide its citizens with increased health care, education, pension, etc. The welfare programs in Nordic countries, which are renown welfare states, is enabled by the government's size and the economic system it has chosen. The increasing gap of the rich and the poor can be dissolved if the government is able to provide effective subsidies to the poor. The US, on the other hand, which is currently striving to come up with an extensive health care plan, is hindered by the liberalist economic policies it has traditionally clung on.

Some people state that planned economies have stronger intervention by the government. Put in different words, however, the citizens are 'protected' rather than 'interfered' by the government's comparatively bigger role. As has been made clear, planned economies display many benefits, of having a fast development, sustainable development, and increased welfare.

Writing Feedback / Obamacare: Heading Down? (against the health care programs promoted) [5]

Hello! My essay may be misinformed in parts... if you encounter any, please raise any and all questions!

Prompt: Write an essay arguing whether you support or are against the health care programs promoted by Mr.Obama (500~600 words)

Obamacare: Heading Down?

So-called Obamacare, Mr Obama's presidency has brought a new collection of policies regarding welfare to America. His policy for all-citizen medical care is now enacted, but something new doesn't always mean that it is good. It is bound to head towards failure because of its extremity, lack of public support, and inapplicability to various social class.

First of all, Obama's health care is too radical for sustainable maintenance. A new policy has to be introduced gradually, especially for a country with a large population like America to make sure every details of the policy is going to be effective. It needs to take steps by steps to gradually form the shape of the policymaker's ideal. However, enacting a policy all at once as Mr. Obama is doing is risking America to countless side effects. This case of medical care is parallel to many other policies that were too radically enforced and laid many side effects, such as the case of Britain's current prime minister, who proposed to radicalize Britain but only had his ratings lowered.

Second, the policy is not supported by public opinion. Citing the poll done by the ABC news, only an approximately 40 percent of US citizens proposed to believe that Mr Obama would do a better job of handling health-care reform than Republicans, and the same for vice versa. As it has been the traditional spirit of American people to be self-reliant, laissez-faire was their idea, as opposed to Mr Obama and the Democratic party. The bill, on the other hand, could be passed due to an over-majority of Democrats in the congress, but apparently not many people are pleased with it. The principle of indirect democracy impels the congressmen to represent the opinions of the American citizens. However, to push the medical care against the public's opinion is only to show a sign of dogmatism and to incur conflict and political unrest, like the candlelight protests in South Korea. The policy should not be implemented until it is mended to gain popular support.

Finally, Mr.Obama's health care plan is a one-way solution that can not satisfy all ingredients in the salad bowl. America is a country of diversity, which means every members of the society have different needs according to their social class. To the more affluent, a health insurance may not be necessary but may think it only as a waste of their tax. To the extremely poor a medical insurance may even not be enough to make it affordable for them. The idea of an all-citizen medical insurance is a result of ignorance to American diversity.

Obamacare, especially health care, is an improbable approach to improving the health of American citizens. The idea of an all-citizen health care plan is an ignorant decision that is too risky, not supported by the people, and inflexible to diversity. It's time for the democratic party and Obama to take a look back at their policy.