The Ancient Chinese Mushroom – Lingzhi

I wrote several blogs about supplements, herbs, and natural remedies that I take or experiment with. I am interesting in slowing down aging and want to live a long, fulfilling life devoid of illnesses, diseases, and health problems. The blogs are:

• The Power of Herbs, Supplements, and Natural Remedies – explains which herbs I take and why I take them.
• Everything You Wanted To Know About Hyaluronic Acid
• The Power of Grape Seeds
• The Health Benefits of Resveratrol
• The Ancient Chinese Mushroom – Lingzhi
• The Super Antioxidant – Astaxanthin
• The Super Nutrient – Spirulina

The Chinese knew Lingzhi or Ganoderma Lucidum for 2,000 years while the Japanese call it Reishi. Lingzhi, an herbal mushroom, possesses many miraculous health benefits. The Chinese associate Lingzhi with a long life and call it the "Mushroom of Immortality" or the "Elixir of Life." Many recognize Lingzhi as one of the most effective medicinal herbs used in Traditional Chinese Medicine for more than 2000 years. Lingzhi is often depicted in images with the God of Longevity.

Li Shi-Zhen wrote about Lingzhi in the Ben Cao Gang Mu in 1590 AD during the Ming Dynasty, one of the first pharmacology books in China. The Supplement to the Materia Medica, published between 502 and 536 AD mentions Lingzhi. They attributed Lingzhi with boosting energy, strengthening the heart and circulatory system, enhancing memory, slowing aging, and extending longevity.

Lingzhi naturally grows in densely wooded mountains with high humidity and dim lighting. Hikers and explorers find it thriving on the dried trunks of dead plum trees. Wild Lingzhi grows on two or three plum trees out of 10,000, making it extremely rare. Before the health industries could cultivate it, only the wealthy and nobility could afford to take it.

As the Lingzhi mushrooms ripen, they release spores – the seeds to germinate the next generation of mushrooms. The spores pack more potency than the mushrooms, and thus carry more value. Before people can consume the spores, they must be cracked so it can release the beneficial chemicals and active ingredients.

Lingzhi contains polysaccharides, beta-glucans, triterpenes, organic germanium, alkaloids, and amino acids. Polysaccharides help boost the immune system and increase the action of white blood cells. Beta-glucans, forms of complex sugars, prevent and slow down the growth and spread of cancer cells. Some people add Lingzhi to green tea to inhibit tumor growth. Finally, the triterpenes give the mushroom its bitter taste and help reduce blood pressure and relieve allergies. Some believe Lingzhi enhances a person's health by:

• Improving the body's use of oxygen and relieving coughs and asthma
• Alleviating allergies
• Restoring and boosting immunity
• Enhancing physical endurance and sharpening mental abilities
• Calming the mind and the nervous system
• Improving circulation and reducing blood pressure
• Regulating the glucose levels in the blood
• Slowing down and preventing the spread of cancer
• Helping the body to eliminate toxins
• Positively influencing the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys

Chinese philosophy refers to the qi or chi – the life force circulating through the body. They believe people become sick and unhealthy if this life force becomes unbalanced in the body. The healers (if you believe in this) use acupuncture, acupressure, and Lingzhi to restore the qi's balance.

If you are taking immune-suppressing drugs, then you may want to avoid taking Lingzhi. Lingzhi may counteract these drugs because it potentially stimulates the immune system.

Since I live in Malaysia with a large Chinese community, I easily found Lingzhi at the Chinese herbal stores. Ironically, the clerks asked politely if I have cancer. I replied no and say I am searching for the Fountain of Youth.

I bought dried, sliced Lingzhi, shown below. Although the Lingzhi looks like wood chips, it makes one nasty cup of tea. I boil about six slices of Lingzhi in water for 15 minutes, pour it into a coffee cup, and add a teabag.

I also found a pre-made mix of Lingzhi and ginseng in liquid form. Each box shown below comes with six small bottles of dark, ominous looking liquid. According to directions, an adult drinks one bottle per day, six days in a row.

The top of the box:

The bottom of the box:

Engaging Students in Economic Courses

Introduction

Many students find economics courses difficult because the courses are technical, abstract, and theoretical. Unfortunately, the students fail to grasp concepts, ideas, and theories in economics, and they never learn to apply economics to relevant events in their lives [1].

Many economics instructors contribute to the learning problems of economics because the graduate programs do not prepare students to teach economics [2]. Instead, the graduate programs teach and train students in economics analysis. If these students enter the academe and begin teaching, they lack modern teaching techniques. Furthermore, college and university administrators only require the instructor to complete a graduate degree in economics in order to teach economics [3]. These new professors resort to the chalk and talk as they were taught in graduate school.

For students to learn economics, the professors must use engaging examples, cases, and puzzles to encourage students to learn [3, 4]. Unfortunately, most students never discover the connections and links between theory, mathematics, and application to real-world problems [5]. Then economics courses gain a bad reputation that frightens the students away [1]. Subsequently, the students usually rate the economics instructors the lowest on campus as compared to professors teaching other subjects [6].

Professors have few incentives to improve their teaching, and according to Elzinga [7], the economics profession produces few great teachers. Even if instructors become aware of pedagogies to improve their teaching, they rarely implement them [7]. Professors and instructors have no incentive to improve their teaching. Besides, this additional effort detracts time away from critical research. University administrators usually reward professors and instructors on their research and the amount and value of grants the professors bring into the universities. Unfortunately, the instructors cannot share their current research with the undergraduate students. Researchers write highly technical, theoretical articles filled with mathematics. Most students would not understand them [2] because the content of the scholarly articles vastly exceeds their comprehension.

The undergraduate economics courses are not improving. In many cases, professors teach material that they never use in their profession themselves [3]. They continue adding topics and raising the course’s complexity while the textbooks become thicker and more ominous [1, 8]. The students never master the basic ideas because the instructors keep forcing and exposing the students to learn more topics [1]. After completing the course, the students quickly forget their economic knowledge [1].

For instructors to change their teaching habits, colleges and universities must experience stress to force people within the institution to change. For example, many economics departments witnessed a 30% drop in economics majors during 1991 [2]. Several scholars showed interests to improve teaching economics to reverse this trend [2]. Furthermore, the economics profession spurred research in improving the effectiveness in teaching, helping professors to meet their research obligations [8]. Unfortunately, this trend has reversed itself, and students started majoring in economics in large numbers again removing the stress from the colleges and universities.

Two factors, however, may put economics departments under stress again. First, the population in the United States is aging, and fewer young people graduate from high schools. Thus, fewer students will enroll at colleges and universities. Second, college graduates are experiencing difficulties in finding employment in their specialties in the difficult U.S. job market. Young people started questioning whether to attend college especially if they must finance their education with student loans, which have surpassed $1.1 trillion in 2014 in the United States. Consequently, universities and colleges will shift their focus on retaining students, forcing professors and instructors to put more effort into their teaching.

This reflection helps me move beyond the convention in economics and improve my teaching. I want the students to remember the ideas, theories, and concepts they had learned in economics after the course ends. Then students will retain economic knowledge for the rest of their lives, contributing to their future insights, decisions, and thinking.

Teaching Feedback and Teaching Quality

During my first semester at Curtin University – Sarawak, attendance continued dropping at the tutorials, and students were silent during class discussions. I resorted to old habits and would cram as much material as I could within that one hour because I had more tutorial questions than I could cover during the time. I kept forgetting the golden teaching rule – a learning constraint depends on how quickly students can learn and master the material, and not the speed the instructor can cover it [1, 3].

I used a five-minute evaluation to rate my teaching style half way into the course. The five-minute survey contains 19 questions, and the questions are organized into five groups: Content and Coverage, Knowledge, Communication, Engagement, and Organization. For each question, students rated my teaching style on a scale: 5 (excellent), 4 (good), 3 (satisfactory), 2 (low), and 1 (very low).

Only 90 out of 140 students had completed the questionnaires. I could have a sample bias if the absent students were not engaged and skipped class because they found the class useless. I displayed the data as a histogram.

Students answered four questions for the Content and Coverage. The question and its corresponding histogram are displayed in Table 1. From the results, I need to improve my teaching. Even though the most common response was a 4, the second most common equaled 3, or satisfactory. Consequently, I must change the content of my courses and implement more active learning because students are not receiving enough content and coverage from my course.

Table 1. Content and Coverage
1. The material was covered in enough depth for my needs.	2. Then material covered helped me to tackle the assessment tasks effectively.
3. The material was covered at the right depth with regard to my previous learning.	4. The teacher showed how topics and theories in the unit were related to each other.

The students rated my knowledge of economics highly in Table 2. For Question 5, most responses recorded a 5 with the second being a 4. For the other two questions, students rated me as a 4 for most responses and 5 for the second most common response. Thus, students believe I possess a high-level of knowledge in economics.

Table 2. Knowledge
5. My lecturer had current knowledge of the subject.	6. My lecturer seemed well informed on the material presented.
7. My lecturer was well informed in related subject areas.

Communication skills comprise another strong trait. I decompose complicated ideas down into small parts and pieces, transforming the complicated ideas into simpler ones. Then I show how the parts and pieces work, and how they relate to the bigger picture. This aspect of my teaching shows on the Communication part of the questionnaire in Table 3. Most students rated my communication as 4 with 5 being the second most common response. Boex [9] determined the lecturers’ ability to present the material becomes the second most important characteristic for effective teaching and learning.

Table 3. Communication
8. My lecturer explained concepts clearly.	9. My lecturer had a style of presentation that allowed me to take adequate notes.
10. My lecturer used examples, applications, analogies, or illustrations that increased my understanding.	11. My lecturer communicated his/her enthusiasm for the subject.

According to Table 4, one area I need to improve is help students engage in their learning. Although the most common response was 4, the second most common response was a 3 for three questions. Unfortunately, I resorted to the chalk and talk, trying to cram as much material as I could within the hour. I overwhelmed some of my students and lost their engagement and interests during the lessons.

Instructors should engage students in economics courses because undergraduate economics courses build upon knowledge over time. In order to succeed, students must completely understand the material taught in the first week of class in order to comprehend the material in the second week [2]. Then the courses continue building upon the knowledge learned in earlier times throughout the course. If the students are not engaged in their learning at the beginning of the course, they will likely experience problems throughout the course. For instance, Boex [9] discovered motivating students was the third most important characteristic of effective economics instructors, and engaging students could help motivate the students.

Table 4. Engagement.
12. My lecturer used a style of presentation that held my interest.	13. My lecturer encouraged students to participate in the class.
14. My lecturer was made to feel that I was a valuable member of the class.	15. My lecturer was motivated to work hard in this unit.

Boex [9] determined the most important attribute for teaching effectiveness is the lecturers explain concepts and theories with clarity and organization. As shown in Table 5, organization is one of my strong traits in teaching. I strive to write notes on the whiteboard clearly and succinctly with plenty of bullets and numbering as I break down complicated ideas into simpler ones. On two questions, the most common response was 5 with 4 being the second. However, on the other two questions, most responses were 4 with 3 being the second. Unfortunately, I did not coordinate different learning activities into the course and did not clearly outline the objectives. Hence, I will change my teaching methodology and experiment with techniques to engage students better.

Table 5. Organization
16. My lecturer was well prepared for each class.	17. Different learning activities were well coordinated.
18. My lecturer set out clear objectives for each teaching session.	19.  My lecturer used class time effectively.

Engaging Students

I developed three strategies to improve students’ engagement for economics courses. First, I will develop and use more team activities for the economics tutorials. Second, I plan to implement more current events into the classroom, showing students how economists analyze the real world. Finally, I will experiment with Gapminder, when I lecture on economic ideas and concepts involving several countries.

Team Activities

I changed my teaching tactics half way through the semester for my tutorials and implemented more group activities. The desks in the tutorial classrooms are clustered into four seats along a row. Thus, the students formed groups comprising between two and four members. Then the groups worked on an activity during the tutorial. Wilson [10] had shown when students work in teams, they usually produce superior work than students working individually. Teams with four or five members can process information efficiently and arrive at the best solutions [10].

The first team activity illustrated the similarities and differences between private goods, public goods, quasi-public goods, and common resources. I wrote two definitions on the whiteboard:

1. Rival – one person consuming a good prevents another person from consuming that same good.
2. Excludable – provider of a good or service can restrict sales to paying consumers.

Conversely, students would know non-rival and non-excludable as opposites of the definitions. Furthermore, I defined quasi as almost or similarly. I usually define unfamiliar terms to the students because mastering the vocabulary comprises a large portion of learning economics.

Students worked as teams to classify the following goods using the two definitions. Every team had a handout that is presented in Appendix A. I gave further information in the parenthesis below for some goods to make the examples clearer.

• public health
• national park
• police force
• national defense (army and navy to protect the nation)
• suburban roads (e.g. roads around Curtin University)
• Community Business District (CBD) roads (e.g. roads in downtown Miri)
• Internet
• Tigers (the animals and not the beer)
• broadcast TV (over the airwaves)
• Foxtel (Similar to a channel on Astro)
• pizza

After ten minutes, we went through the activity to classify the goods.

Another activity illustrates how the little pieces relate to the whole economy. I showed how a central bank uses contractionary monetary policy to influence the economy. I drew a flow chart of the economy, similar to the flow chart in Appendix B. I extensively wrote why each piece behaves the way it does with each piece having the following information.

• Central bank: Sells assets that removes funds and money from the banking system

↓

• Bank reserves: Banks have less funds to lend and borrow

↓

• Cash rate: The interest rate rises

↓

• Other interest rates: interest rates usually move together. If the cash rate increases, then other interest rates tend to rise.

↓

• Interest rates affect the economy.
  • Consumers reduce their consumption (C) and increase their savings because they can earn greater interest rates from their bank accounts.
  • Businesses reduce their investments (I) because their borrowing costs rise.
  • Central bank removes money from the economy, making money more scarce.
    • Thus, money becomes more valuable.
    • Currency would appreciate.
    • Exports (X) fall while imports (M) rises.

↓

• Equation relates changes in Aggregate Demand, AD = C + I + G + X – M
  • Since C, I, and X fall while M increases, the aggregate demand shifts leftward.
  • Both real GDP and the price level fall, which causes deflation and rising unemployment.
• Note – The Reserve Bank of Australia directly controls the cash rate and would increase it for contractionary monetary policy.

After explaining contractionary monetary policy to the students, they worked as teams to complete the impact of expansionary monetary policy on the economy. Appendix B shows the correct, brief answers for expansionary monetary policy.

Students responded to the group activities well as I diminished the monotony of chalk-and-talk lecturing.

Applying Ideas and Concepts of Economics to Current Events

Another teaching technique is the instructors restrict the number of topics covered in economics courses and focus their resources to help students deepen their understanding of essential ideas and concepts. Then students apply and use the core ideas and concepts repeatedly to solve problems, puzzles, and questions the students will experience throughout their lives [1]. For example, the instructor applies ideas and concepts to a current event during class by illustrating topics found in student newspapers, country’s newspapers, or The Economist. Furthermore, the students could bring a magazine or newspaper article to class [4]. Then students use the concepts and ideas they had learned to analyze the article [4]. For higher-level economics courses, students can further their analysis by applying more analytical and critical thinking skills to analyze their news articles [4].

Applying economics to current events helps align the instructor’s activities to achieve the outcome goals of Economics 100. For example, students analyze and evaluate economic issues using the theory they had learned in class. Students use thinking skills because they analytically solve problems and analyze real world events. Subsequently, students use information skills to investigate new ideas. Finally, students gain an international perspective if they analyze articles from other countries [11].

Students will benefit because not only do they gain insights to understand economics [4], but they may enjoy the economics courses more. If a student performs poorly on the exam, then instructors can utilize the analyzing articles as a supplementary tool to assess students' learning [4]. Finally, instructors do not need as much time to conduct classroom experiments after they started using it [4]. The teaching technique becomes a habit.

Gapminder

Instructors could add software to bring complex economic ideas to life during a lecture. For example, lecturers can use Gapminder – a trend-analyzing software tool that utilizes colorful graphics to display how variables move over time. Hence, the software converts sterile statistical data into colorful, animated graphs that livens boring numbers [12]. A screenshot is displayed in Figure 1. Gapminder has several applications in macroeconomics when instructors discuss key macroeconomic variables such as Gross Domestic Product, inflation, and economic growth. Gapminder was founded in 2005 by Ola Rosling, Anna Rosling Rönnlund and Hans Rosling as a non-profit venture [12].

Figure 1. Screenshot of Gapminder

Conclusion

One of the valuable lessons I derived from my teaching reflection is to keep my course material fresh and current. For example, Elzinga [7] referred to IBM using tying contracts during the 1970s by forcing its customers to buy both computers and punch cards together. He would bring a punch card to lecture to show the students since companies were using punch cards when the student’s parents attended elementary school. Furthermore, I should keep experimenting with teaching techniques to discover novel methods to raise my students’ learning. Then students can utilize the knowledge they gained from my courses throughout their lives.

References

[1] Hansen, W. L., Salemi, M. K., & Siegfried, J. J. 2002. "Use it or lose it: Teaching literacy in the economics principles course." American Economic Review, 92: 463-472.

[2] Gullason, E. T. 2009. "A compilation and synthesis of effective teaching strategies in the economics discipline." Journal of Business & Economic Studies, 15: 83-96.

[3] Bartlett, R. 1993. Empty buses: Thoughts on teaching economics. Eastern Economic Journal, 19, 441-446.

[4] Zhang, Xu and Richard Vogel. 2010. “Making Economics Relevant: Introducing Social and Global Issues into the Classroom.” Faculty Resource Network. Available from http://www.nyu.edu/frn/publications/engaging.students/Zhang.Vogel.html (Accessed 6/9/2014).

[5] Peart, S. J. 1994. The education of economists: Teaching what economists do. Journal of Economic Education, 25, 81-87.

[6] Cashin, W. E. 1990. Students do rate academic fields differently. In M. Theale & J. Franklin (Eds.), Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice; new direction for teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; pp. 113-121.

[7] Elzinga, K. G. 2001. Fifteen theses on classroom teaching. Southern Economic Journal. 68: 249-257

[8] Johnston, C., McDonald, I., & Williams, R. 2001. The scholarship of teaching economics. Journal of Economic Education, 32, 195-201.

[9] Boex, L. F. J. 2000. Attributes of effective economics instructors: An analysis of student evaluations. Journal of Economic Education, 31: 211-227.

[10] Wilson, P. N. 2005. Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design classroom exercise. Review of Agricultural Economics, 27: 288-296.

[11] School of Economics and Finance. 28 Feb 2014. 1234 Economics 100. Curtin Business School, Miri Sarawak Campus.

 [12] Gapminder. na. About Gapminder. Available at http://www.gapminder.org/about-gapminder/our-mission/#.U6E7gqCgZws (access date 6/18/2014)

Appendix A

Appendix B

Ken Szulczyk's Theory Why Monetary and Fiscal Policies Could Fail during Recessions

I present my theory on business cycles and explain why fiscal and monetary policies can fail during recessions and crises. I wrote, organized, and combined many known economic facts into a cogent, logical story, explaining the impact of economic expansions and recessions upon an economy. I show two characteristics – two and seven – as new deductions while everyone knows the other characteristics well.

As an economy traverses along the business cycle, people, businesses, and government experience good times. Companies are earning profits, and they hire and expand their workforce. Moreover, they invest in machines, equipment, and structures. Consumers are optimistic because they experience growing incomes, job prospects, and feel good about their futures. They spend a large portion of their after-tax income, called the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) and save the remaining portion, called the marginal propensity to save (MPS). Subsequently, banks freely lend to businesses and families. Businesses invest in machines, equipment, and structures while families buy houses, cars, and appliances. Finally, government collects more tax revenue as business activity keeps expanding. Then it usually spends the tax revenue to build roads, to improve infrastructure, to expand government, and so on.

Marginal propensities to save and to consume become the vital concepts. If we would give a person $1 more dollar of after-tax income, then that person saves the MPS part and spends the MPC portion. Moreover, economists believe these propensities remain constant while I believe they vary with the economy's state. For example, households and families raise their savings or MPS and reduce their spending or MPC during a recession or a crisis. Consequently, the changing propensities affect the Keynesian multipliers.

The Keynesian multiplier effect starts with consumers spending most of their incomes in the economy as consumers inject money into the economy. This increased spending causes companies to sell more goods and services, and they earn profits, and expand the labor force. Companies hire additional workers, who earn wages. These workers become consumers who spend a large portion of their salaries in the economy, contributing to economic growth.

The multiplier effect boosts the activity in the economy as the government boosts spending, or businesses raise investment in the economy. For example, a computer company builds a new factory in Small Town, U.S.A. The computer company directly affects the economy by investing $30 million in building the facility and hiring new employees. The construction workers and newly hired employees earn wages. With more income, the employees and construction workers spend more in the economy. They buy new houses, new cars, appliances, and electronic gadgets. Moreover, they dine more at restaurants, watch movies at the cinemas, and frequent coffee shops.

Then the multiplier effect kicks in. These companies serve more customers and make more profits and income. Thus, these businesses hire more workers and work their workers longer. These employees earn greater incomes and increase their spending and savings, and the process continues indefinitely. The $30 million investment in Small Town, USA could generate more than $30 million in incomes as the injection increases the business activity in the economy.

The multiplier effect could create other benefits. For instance, a computer company employs more white-collar workers, and people gain and acquire computer skills. The economy gains a more educated workforce. Furthermore, government collects more tax revenue as a community's income rises. Then government usually raises its spending and provides more services to the community.

The Keynesians, unfortunately, view the savings as leaking from the economy because they treat savings as if people hide their money under their mattresses, or inside the walls while businesses squirrel away their savings in massive, impregnable vaults. However, workers, consumers, and businesses in well-developed countries deposit their savings into banks. Thus, the banks become critical to economic development as they inject the savings into the economy via lending. Banks use the savings to grant loans to businesses, so companies can invest in machines, buildings, and equipment. In addition, the banks grant loans to consumers to buy houses, cars, and appliances. Thus, banks become the first Characteristic of the boom-bust cycle because the banks channel savings into investments in the economy.

Characteristic 1: : A strong banking and financial system lays the foundation of healthy economic growth.

Our economy continues growing and flourishing. Rising incomes fuels consumers' optimism. So consumers continue spending and saving. Businesses experience increasing sales and continually hire workers. Subsequently, the people and businesses continue depositing their savings into banks while the banks lend out the savings. Many economists believe the total savings must equal total investment. However, the banking system as a whole creates and expands the money supply.

For example, a person deposits $20,000 into his savings account and earns a tiny interest rate. The bank puts this money to work. It must retain a small portion of the funds and can lend out the remainder because a central bank imposes reserve requirements. A bank must hold onto a portion of the funds, ensuring this bank has money sitting in a vault or as a deposit at the central bank to meet depositors' withdrawal. In this case, we set the required reserve ratio to 10%. Thus, the bank grants $18,000 home improvement loan and retains $2,000 in the vault.

A homeowner takes the credit and buys $18,000 in materials at a construction store. The store deposits this money into its bank. The bank lends out $16,200 for a car loan to a taxi company and retains $1,800 in the vault. The taxi company uses the car loan to buy a new car at a car dealership. The dealership takes the funds and deposits it in its bank, and the deposit-loan cycle continues.

Similar to the multiplier effect, this deposit and loan cycle becomes an infinite process. Economists focus on the money supply, and the banking system as a whole creates extra money in the economy. However, we can define the home improvement loan and new car as investment. Of course, not all bank loans result in investment. Banks grant credit cards that allow people artificially to prop up their spending.

The banking system could amplify and enhance savings, so one dollar in savings can support more than a dollar in investment, which becomes Characteristic 2. It depends on whether businesses and households use the bank loans to invest in capital or artificially prop up spending. A country such as the United States where most people spend their incomes, the banking system can amplify the meager savings that let banks lend out as loans.

Characteristic 2: The banking system could multiply the investment through the deposit-loan process, causing investments to exceed savings during economic expansions.

The banking system creates a side effect as it amplifies savings. Many businesses and families use bank loans to buy real estate. As the economy continues growing, the banks continue granting loans. Businesses and families create a strong demand for real estate that pushes up property values, which leads to Characteristic 3. As people and businesses continually buy real estate, the bank loans inflate asset bubbles. As people and businesses witness the bubbles, they become exuberant and invest more into the appreciating assets. Even banks join the exuberance and could relax their lending standards. Even if the bank forecloses on a property, they know they can sell the property at a greater price, knowing the bank could come out ahead.

Characteristic 3: A growing economy with a strong banking system automatically creates asset bubbles.

Most companies do well during the expansion cycle while poorly performing companies can hide losses from the investors, banks, and stockholders. These companies can hold on and can convince banks to continue lending to them and convince investors to buy their stocks and bonds. Nevertheless, an event triggers an awareness that leads to shock, and eventually to extreme paranoia. The event could be a plunge in the stock market, currency devaluation, or a wave of massive businesses bankruptcies. Bankers and investors start scrutinizing every company's financial statements more closely. They discover the problems at the poorly performing companies and become horrified at the companies' losses. Then banks and investors stop lending, which becomes Characteristic 4.

Characteristic 4: Banks and investors become fearful to lend and invest during a crisis. Companies and people cannot borrow from the banks while investors stop investing in companies.

The badly performing companies begin contracting and laying off workers. The workers become fearful of the crisis, and they serve a dual role as consumers in the economy because they reduce their spending and boost their savings. Companies experience a decline in sales, and lay off more workers. Thus, we enter a vicious cycle where we have Keynes's Paradox of Thrift. Consumers continually reduce their spending and raise their savings while businesses witness drops in sales. Then businesses lower their production and stop investing into structures, machines, and equipment, which becomes Characteristic 5.

Characteristic 5: Investment falls during recessions and crises as companies become pessimistic of the future.

Consumers and families remain afraid and continue saving. Even if they deposit their savings into banks, the banks are afraid to lend. On the other side, firms and households may not want to borrow especially if they accumulated large amounts of debt during the economic expansion. Thus, savings no longer enter the economy and fuel investment. Furthermore, Keynes's Liquidity Trap strikes the economy. Even if the central bank reduces the interest rate to zero, banks refuse to lend. Then expansionary monetary policy stops working, which becomes Characteristic 6.

Characteristic 6 – Keynes's Liquidity Trap: As a central bank reduces interest rates, banks refuse to lend while businesses and households may not want to borrow. Thus, low interest rates have no effect on the economy, causing expansionary monetary policy to become ineffective.

Many economists believe the investment and government-spending multipliers are constant and equal about two. Thus, for every one dollar in additional investment or government spending boosts incomes in the economy by $2. However, the multipliers vary with people's and businesses' perceptions of the economy. For example, people see friends, relatives, and acquaintances being laid off, and they become nervous and start saving. Thus, people save more and consume less, causing the marginal propensity to save to increase while the marginal propensity to consume to decrease.

During a recession or crisis, people and businesses raise their savings, so the marginal propensity to save becomes high while the marginal propensity to consume becomes low. Economists calculate the simple multiplier by using 1/MPS. Thus, as the marginal propensity to save rises, then the multiplier becomes smaller, leading to Characteristic 7. Consequently, as the government injects more spending into the economy, people earn wages and siphon this spending out of the economy through saving. Even if people deposit their savings into banks, the banks are afraid to lend. Finally, if the government reduces income taxes to spur consuming spending, the taxpayers save this, so decreasing taxes during a recession also becomes ineffective.

Characteristic 7: The Keynes's investment, government spending, and tax multipliers change because they depend on people's and businesses' perceptions of the economy. Thus, the government-spending and investment multipliers vary with the state of the economy.

If the government tries to boost government spending or reduce taxes to expand the economy during a recession, the multiplier stops operating. Thus, government spending or taxes have little influence on the economy during recessions or crisis. Even if the government greatly expands spending and accumulates a massive debt, the economy would respond weakly.

We need three conditions for fiscal and monetary policies to work on the economy. First, people must start spending again to create sales for businesses. Second, companies must become optimistic as they experience increasing sales. Thus, they hire more workers and invest in machines, equipment, and structures. Finally, banks begin lending to families and businesses again that fuels investment into the economy. Thus, these three conditions become necessary to get the economy functioning again.

Most recessions last briefly because the three conditions return to normal quickly. Subsequently, government could restore confidence and faith in the economy by using fiscal policy. If people believe the government's policy to expand spending or reduce taxes, people begin spending again while businesses start investing again, and the banks begin lending.

However, we know fiscal policy had failed in Japan during the 1990s and in the United States after the 2007 Great Recession. I cannot answer for Japan, but the U.S. government created massive insecurity in the economy after the 2007 Great Recession. Many companies do not know how their costs will change with the new federal health care plan. Furthermore, the U.S. government passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to inject $831 billion into the economy. However, many experts and economists complained this amount was too small. Thus, the U.S. government has failed to restore the people's, businesses', and banks' confidence in the economy.

People continue to save and reduce consumption. Meanwhile, companies continue to shun investment and refuse to hire workers while the banks refuse to lend. Thus, we have the last characteristic - Characteristic 8.

Characteristic 8: Both monetary and fiscal policies can become ineffective during recessions and crises. Government must use its policies to restore people's, businesses, and bankers' optimism, faith, and confidence. Otherwise, the economy begins stagnating, and the country enters an extended recession.

For fiscal and monetary policies to be effective, they must restore faith and trust. Therefore, people will raise consumption and reduce savings raising the marginal propensity to consume and decreasing the marginal propensity to save. The faith restores the businesses wanting to invest in structures, machines, equipment, and technology, and to hire workers. The faith also restores bankers' confidence to start lending to lend to businesses and households. Then businesses begin borrowing from the banks and financial institutions while the financial markets start lending to businesses and households. As government uses the fiscal policy, the increase in government spending or fall in taxes has the appropriate effect on the economy because everyone in society has restored the Keynesian multipliers.

The Five Disastrous Mistakes I Made for Managing Disruptive Students

I taught economics at Suleyman Demirel University between 2008 and 2009, a private university located in Almaty, Kazakhstan. This country was once controlled by the Soviet Union before 1991. Kazakhstan inherited the Soviet education system with a strong foundation in mathematics and sciences. 

I recently started teaching and used the standard chalk and talk. I taught Production Economics to third year students, which can be a tough course. I used basic differential calculus and introduced students to game theory. The undergraduate students studied topics that professors would cover in graduate schools in the United States. I had five extremely bright students with two possibly being brilliant, and seven male students who were rotten to the core. 

The seven horrible students talked in class and usually arrived late. As a late student strolled into the classroom, he would disrupt the entire class by shaking everyone’s hand in his row and greet them before sitting down. 

I yelled and screamed at them. I would snap at the late student and would demand to know why he came late and why he must disrupt the whole class as he walked in. 

On one Saturday morning, the male students were excessively loud, as if they were throwing a party in the classroom during the lecture. Finally, I became furious as my face erupted into a bright rosy red, and I stormed out of the classroom half way during the lecture. 

At that time, I was young and impetuous. Even though I am a little older and a touch wiser, I can still be impetuous on occasion. Nevertheless, I never reflected why these seven male, misbehaving students acted the way they did. During that time, I emulated my U.S. professors who used the traditional teaching methods. We, students, must address the professor with his or her proper title. We were afraid to disrespect the professor or talk in class, unless to ask a question. We did not want to incur the professor’s wrath. Of course, I demanded my students act like the way I acted during my college days. Students must sit quietly at their seats, transcribing their notes, and only occasionally asking the professor questions politely. 

I let the frustration and angry simmer inside me. Some days, I wanted to toss my textbooks and white board markers into the trash and quit the teaching profession. However, I always awakened early in the morning, showered, and ate breakfast, dreading the long bus ride to the campus in the morning. Other times, I contemplated about wrapping my hands around one of the bad student’s neck, squeezing the life from him, and quieting his talking forever. Then rationality would invade my head as these questions flashed through my mind. Where would I hide the body? Could I handle the barrage of questions from the administration, and hysterics and tears from the parents? What is prison life like in Kazakhstan? However, I never reflected on why the students could not behave in the classroom. 

After reflecting on my classroom behavior, I made five serious mistakes. 

First Mistake: I assumed the students possessed a strong foundation of mathematics. Their previous instructors could have passed the bad students hoping never to see them again. I never assessed the mathematics skills of my students. Perhaps, the bad students could not sit quietly and listen to the lecturer speak in an alien language. They felt frustrated sitting in their chairs while the other students surrounding them nodded their heads in understanding. Then the bad students relieved their frustrations by lashing out at me. 

Second Mistake: I never nurtured a high-quality relationship with my students. I arrived at the classroom to deliver my lecture and waited in my office during consultation hours. I rarely interacted with my students outside the classroom. I never fostered an atmosphere filled with trust, mutual respect, and harmony (Kilmer 1998). According to Seidman (2005), instructors have fewer discipline problems if they nurture a high-quality relationship. 

Third Mistake: Students would prefer the instructor to talk to the disruptive, chatty student after class (Carter and Punyanunt-Carter 2009). Students do not want the instructor to yell at the talking student during class and demand whether the student needs to leave the classroom if he or she must continue their talking (Carter and Punyanunt-Carter 2009). 

Fourth Mistake: Instructors especially the inexperienced could be afraid to discipline or punish the student. As in my case, instructors never know whether the administration will back and support the instructor or take the student’s side (Seidman 2005). I should have sat down with the dean and discussed my options. Then if the dean would have agreed, we should have brought the disruptive students to the dean’s office and discussed their classroom behavior. 

Fifth Mistake: Students may not know how to behave in a classroom (Kilmer 1998). During Soviet times, the students would never disrespect their professors and authority figures, unless they wanted to work in the freezing labor camps scattered across Siberia. Once communism released its grip on society, the people became free while education transformed into a piece of paper that could be bought as a commodity. Political connections determine students’ future in Kazakhstan, and how far they would rise in a company or government agency. Thus, students have no incentive to do well in their courses. They will graduate and utilize their connections to jump-start their careers. 

Since disruptive students were becoming the norm at the university, the dean and faculty should have bonded together and designed a disciplinary plan. I became disturbed when an instructor described his second year students as “very naughty.” I would have taught these students next year if I had stayed at the university. Perhaps, the university should offer a course about classroom behavior, study skills, and study strategies. 

Unfortunately, the good students became the victims. They sat in the classroom and wanted to learn while they witnessed the instructor yell and scream at the misbehaving students. Alas, one or several bad students can taint and disrupt the class for everyone – one bad apple spoils the pie. Good students want the instructor to manage the classroom well (Seidman 2005). If good students experience a bad learning environment, they could withdraw from the university. Consequently, a university filled with instructors possessing poor classroom management skills can drop the university’s retention rate (Seidman 2005) as good students (and possibly good instructors) flee the university. 

References

1. Carter, Stacy L. and Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter. 2009. College students’ perceptions of treatment acceptability of how college professors deal with disruptive talking in the classroom. College Student Journal 43(1): 56-8.



2. Kilmer, Paulette D. 1998. When a few disruptive students challenge an instructor’s plan. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 53(2): 81-84:



3. Seidman, Alan. 2005. The learning killer: Disruptive student behavior in the classroom. Reading Improvement 42(1): 40-6.

Paul Krugman and the New Keynesians

I just had read Paul Krugman’s book – End the Depression Now - for the second time. Everyone regardless of political philosophy should read this book. Even though Paul Krugman has become the top spokesman for Keynesian economics, he writes clearly, succinctly, and intelligently for an economist. Perhaps, Paul Krugman should rewrite Keynes’s book. Unfortunately, the world’s two most famous economists, Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx, are incredibly long-winded writers as every sentence overflows with superfluous words, and sentences stretch across pages.

Paul Krugman is correct in many ways but errs in other ways. The world continues to struggle from the Great Recession that struck the world in 2007. Something seriously happened to the U.S. economy, and many people do not get it. Paul and I get it, and I understand why most people do not get it. Everyone grew up during the prosperous times when the U.S. economy plowed ahead and created millions of jobs while the U.S. military and U.S. businesses dominated the world. If someone wanted to work, the person would simply fill out several job applications and wait for the phone call. Then this person had a job. Then this person could apply for other jobs while working, and gradually transition themselves into better positions.

Nevertheless, something had changed. After the 2007 Great Recession, the U.S. economy has become stuck like a truck spinning its tires in the mud. Jobs had become scarce while the unemployment rate gradually falls towards the 5% rate, which we consider normal. However, many smart people know something had broken in the U.S. economy.

Many politicians and leaders view the falling unemployment rate as a barometer on the economy’s health. However, a falling unemployment rate masks two problems. First, the U.S. government does not count discouraged workers as unemployed. Discouraged workers want to work, but they stopped searching for employment because they believe they can’t find a job in the economy. Second, some people found part-time jobs after being laid off during the 2007 Great Recession. However, some of these people want to work full time and not part time.

What had happened? Something struck the economy like the Ebola virus coursing through a healthy person’s body. Of course, I argue the transition from a manufacturing economy to a service-oriented one had replaced many good-paying, full-time jobs with low-paying, part-time jobs. Then we add an overbearing, all-controlling government that further damaged our economy. Now, we arrive at the first rule - just like the socialists and communists, Keynesians accurately describe the poor’s plight and misfortune.

Rule 1: The Keynesians, Socialists, and Communists can accurately describe the plight of the poor and misfortune in our society.

Paul Krugman correctly assessed Europe’s plight. European leaders have fallen into the austerity trap - governments must increase taxes and reduce government programs. If people picked up an elementary economics textbook, they would discover austerity would be a disastrous policy. During recessions, government should increase government spending and/or reduce taxes because the government injects money into the economy, raising consumers' incomes and spending. Similarly, the government could reduce taxes, allowing taxpayers to keep more income, so they can increase their spending and help expand the economy.

Paul Krugman, however, has missed the point. The European countries never used Keynesian economics correctly, which becomes Rule 2. Governments should use austerity during economic expansions that would slow the economy. Austerity helps create budget surpluses to reduce the government’s debt and strengthens a government’s finances. Then during a crisis or recession, government can boost its spending and lower taxes to expand the economy. Unfortunately, European governments reduced taxes and boosted government spending during the economic expansion, weakening their financial resources. As European governments tried to increase government spending during the 2008 Financial Crisis, investors became leery, pessimistic, and fearful. They stopped investing in Greek, Spanish, and Irish bonds. Investors believed these governments had issued too much debt, and the governments would experience troubles repaying the bonds with interest. We know this became true. Remember the Greek haircut? Euphemism for forcing the bondholders to take a 50% loss on their Greek bonds.

Rule 2: For pure Keynesian economics, government reduces spending or raises taxes during economic booms and boost spending or reduces taxes during recessions. Thus, government strengthens its finances to handle downturns in the economy.

Keynesians are biased towards government spending, which becomes Rule 3. Don’t get me wrong. I understand the concept well. Every economy has four broadly defined sectors: Consumers, businesses, governments, and exports-imports. During a recession, consumers and businesses become fearful and pessimistic about the future. Consumers reduce their spending, buy fewer imports, and boost their savings. As businesses sell fewer products or services, companies lay off some of their labor and reduce their investments. Meanwhile, if the recession had spread to a foreign country, then foreigners buy fewer exports from us. Consequently, our economy takes a huge hit from lack of spending. Consequently, government becomes the only entity that can defy the recession and can boost its spending to overcome society's lower spending.

Rule 3: Keynesians have a bias towards government spending. Nevertheless, government can reduce taxes to expand the economy and raise taxes to slow the economy down.

Many Keynesians discourage businesses, government, and consumers from saving, leading to Rule 4. They must spend all their incomes in the economy to buy goods and services, and keep the economic machine turning. Since everyone becomes fearful and saves more during recessions, people remove money from the economy. Thus, Keynesians are correct if people hide their savings under their mattresses while business and government store their money in vaults. On the other hand, if companies and people deposit their funds into banks, then banks can lend out their funds. Consumers borrow to buy houses, cars, and appliances while companies borrow to invest in buildings, machines, computers, and equipment. This explains why the Asian tigers - Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea - grew phenomenally. Asians are phenomenal savers who deposit their savings into banks. Then banks could grant loans to businesses that invest in their economies that fuel their extraordinary economic growth rates.

Rule 4: Keynesians are against businesses, government, and consumers from saving. They must continually spend to prop up the economy.

Here is where Paul and I begin to diverge. Keynesians pick certain periods to show Keynesian economics works, which becomes Rule 5. They always point to a particular time such as the U.S. government preparing the U.S. economy for World War II. The U.S. federal government ramped up spending to build ships, trucks, weapons, and supplies for soldiers. U.S. manufacturing went into overdrive and stomp on the economy’s accelerator. Many young men joined the armed forces while many factories hired women to work in the factories. No question, Keynesian economics had worked.

Rule 5: Keynesians choose their times well to show Keynesian economics works. Then they neglect other times when Keynesian economics had failed.

Everyone forgets Franklin Roosevelt, who started his presidency in 1932. The president boosted government spending during the 1930s by creating numerous alphabet soup agencies and sponsored massive public works projects. Did the U.S. economy recover? No - the U.S. economy had entered a recession in 1937. Of course, the U.S. government also raised taxes, which the government should never do during a recession, and the U.S. government encouraged companies to keep paying high wages to the workers. The high wages ensured the workers retained their purchasing power. Unfortunately, people increase their savings during uncertain times and reduce their spending.

Let’s say the Great Depression was an anomaly. I can find another significant failure of Keynesian economics. Japan entered its two-decade malaise starting in the early 1990s. Japan also used Keynesian economics since the 1990s as the Japanese government amassed a public debt to GDP ratio of 200%. Consequently, the Japanese economic engine continues sputtering and struggling along since the 1990s. What makes Japan unique is the Japanese government bonds are held within Japan, and thus, Japan has little risk of foreigners triggering a financial crisis, which I explain later in this blog.

Returning to our side of the world, the U.S. federal government has dumped trillions of dollars into the economy since the start of the 2008 Financial Crisis, and we have witnessed the weakest recovery ever. Of course, Paul Krugman said, if Keynesian economics does not work, then government must scale up its spending, which becomes Rule 6. Using Paul’s analogy from his book, the broken economy represents a car with a defective battery. The government must only replace the battery to get the car running again. Well, the government has spent $700 billion to bail out the financial institutions and another $831 billion for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Then the Federal Reserve, our central bank, lent about $2 trillion to bail out the banks. Replacing the battery has become expensive while that damn car still won’t start. The U.S. economy measures about $16 trillion, so if government continues boosting its spending, it will dominate and control our society, similarly to the Soviet Union, where the bureaucrats controlled the entire economy.

Rule 6: Communists and Keynesians only differ in their scale of the government's planning.

I do agree with Paul Krugman – government should never decrease government spending or boost taxes during a recession. Nevertheless, I must add one caveat - government must have strong finances to weather the downturn. In his book, Krugman cites Minsky, an unknown economist. Minsky expounded a simple idea. A company with low debt can expand quickly by taking out bank loans, which we call leveraging. The company continues doing well and keeps expanding while banks keep granting the company more loans. Then a crisis happens, and banks start examining their loans. If banks believe the company has too many loans, the bank cuts the company off, which imposes hardship onto the company. The company begins deleveraging by cutting back on spending and repaying its loans. If a financial crisis strikes the company, then the company may nosedive while the bankers, stockholders, and bondholders panic. Subsequently, the company accelerates towards bankruptcy.

For example, Lehman Brothers bankrupted in October 2008. It began with a leverage ratio of 26 to 1 in 2003 that surged to 39 to 1 in 2006. Consequently, Lehman Brothers borrowed $39 for every $1 it had in equity. Equity measures a company’s financial strength by taking its assets and subtracting its liabilities. Investors want a low leverage ratio because they want to recoup their investments if the company bankrupts. Unfortunately, Lehman Brothers borrowed to buy expensive real estate at the height of the housing bubble.

Did you catch the irony? The U.S. federal government has a leverage ratio too. We know the U.S. government has accumulated $17 trillion dollar debt, but we do not know the government’s equity. Although the U.S. government spends about $3.5 trillion per year, this does not represent equity. We must add all the government’s assets, such as military bases, equipment, government buildings, and other assets and subtract its liabilities. I bet the government's current leverage ratio tilts towards the high side. If a government debt becomes too high, investors will stop buying the government bonds, triggering a financial crisis. Then government must deleverage by paying down its debt and selling off its assets. Unfortunately, the U.S. government holds many assets that it cannot sell, such as military bases, weapons, and so on.

Paul Krugman argues the U.S. government could ramp up its spending that would push the U.S. debt to new records. Although a high debt could trigger a financial crisis, a government does not have to deleverage if it experiences financial trouble. A government could force its central bank to buy government bonds. Thus, the central bank prints money to cover a government budget shortfall. However, printing money leads to inflation and weakens a currency. (The Greek, Irish, Italian, and Spanish governments have no control over the central bank. They only have the power to tax, spend, and borrow. Since investors do not want to buy these government bonds, these governments cannot expand government spending or reduce taxes during a recession.)

Here is where Paul Krugman stumbles in his book, which becomes Rule 7. The U.S. federal government cannot weaken the U.S. dollar by forcing the Federal Reserve to buy U.S. bonds because people around the world hold U.S. dollars to save their purchasing power. If the U.S. government weakens and depreciates the U.S. dollar, people will stop holding U.S. dollars. Then many countries will stop investing in U.S. government securities. For example, China holds roughly $1 trillion in U.S. securities. If the Chinese believes the U.S. government will depreciate the U.S. dollars, then those U.S. government bonds and U.S. dollars plummet in value. Thus, China will dump those dollars and bonds that would trigger a financial crisis. Then the world rushes to unload the U.S. dollars and U.S. government securities, and we Americans will truly experience hard times.

Rule 7: Government cannot debase its currency if the world uses the country’s currency as the world’s transaction currency. Thus, the Eurozone and United States cannot devalue their currencies to jump start exports.

I am not anti-Keynesian, and I do not object if a government builds and expands roads, hospitals, schools, and infrastructure during a recession to create jobs. Nevertheless, the government must possess good finances, which becomes the most important rule – Rule 8.

Rule 8: The politicians have butchered Keynesian economics. Most governments did not raises taxes or reduce government spending during good times, so they could reduce their debts and strengthen their finances. Then governments would have the resources to combat the downturns in the economy.

Is Multiculturalism Destroying Society?

As the U.S. economy is stuck in a rut, natural born Americans search for someone or something to blame for our problems. Unfortunately, the foreigners have caught the eyes of the Americans. Thus, some Americans claim multiculturalism is destroying our society as the foreigners undermine our American values.

How do we define culture? Culture binds the people together to form a society. Thus, culture becomes a glue as the people share the same language, religion, history, culture, and cuisine. Then they teach and pass down this culture onto their children. Subsequently, culture breathes life as people share the same experiences, identity, and fellowship.

Are the foreigners diluting and weakening our culture? In the old days, the U.S. government let foreigners move into our country. The foreigners moved into a neighborhood filled with people from their country or even from the same region in their country. Then the immigrants learned to speak English and sent their children to public schools. Their children learned English while they assimilated into the American culture. Many of these children became Americans and moved out from the immigrant neighborhoods in the pursuit of their dreams. Along their journeys, they forgot their language, history, and roots of their home countries and adopted everything American.

Now, things have changed. New immigrants entering the United States are not assimilating into society. They form tight knit communities that retain their language, customs, and culture. Some of these communities became large enough to influence elections in their districts. Then our government and institutions frown on our American culture and encourage these communities to retain their culture and identity, avoiding the assimilation into society. However, many factors could undermine our culture, but we notice the foreigners who choose not assimilate into society.

In the old days before cable and satellite tv, people had a limited number of tv and radio stations – usually five tv stations and 7 radio stations. With everyone watching the same programs and shows and listening to the same music, the people shared similar experiences. Moreover, they read the same books listed on the bestseller lists and watched the same movies while sitting in the cinemas. As people huddled around the water cooler during breaks at work, people discussed what they had seen, had listened, or had read the previous night. Our media bonded people together so we formed an identity, a shared experience.

Through technology, people currently have access to a numerous assortment of shows and media. Basic cable offers around 30 channels while satellite tv can provide hundreds of channels. Furthermore, satellite radio allows listeners to choose from a variety of music genres. Some people listen to radio talk shows that center on political or Christian themes. Presently, people do not watch the same shows and movies as they split themselves into small groups and cliques. Since they no longer share the same experiences, they isolate themselves at work and eat their lunches alone at their desks. Unfortunately, culture no longer brings, binds, and bonds people together.

We witness the same phenomenon with books, magazines, and newspapers. For instance, Amazon allows readers to select and buy roughly ten million books because Amazon lets artists and writers self-publish their works, immersing consumers with a large amount of music and books they can enjoy. Thus, everyone reads different books, listens to different music, and watches different movies and tv shows. With the internet, people have access to thousands of blogs, international newspapers, and websites. Thus, people no longer share the same experiences or think the same ideas. Thus, culture becomes fragmented, lost, and damaged.

Leaders in government, organizations, and schools helped chisel away at our culture. Children no longer pledge their allegiance to one flag, to one nation under God. Thus, the children never learn to appreciate their heritage, culture, and history. Moreover, many leaders view religion as an antiquated institution that an enlightened society must eliminate. However, religion becomes another force uniting and binding people together. Now, many Americans no longer attend church on Sunday, and they no longer feel proud to call themselves Americans.

Our leaders spread their disdain to the traditional family – another antiquated institution that must be broken up. Before the 1990s, everyone stressed the nuclear family – the husband, wife, and children. Now, leaders in our institutions encourage the new age relationships – lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender. Perhaps the leaders encourage these new age relationships because religions of the world stress the union between a man and a woman. However, this new sexuality comprises a small portion of the population with some estimates ranging, at best, up to 3.5% of the U.S. population. Nevertheless, sexuality issues dominate the news, media, and public policies. Of course, heterosexuals must keep their details of their relationships in the bedroom secret while the new, sexually free can scream in your face about their exploits.

Several factors are destroying our culture and heritage. Multiculturalism represents a small factor, but one that everyone easily notices. Everyone has driven through the unassimilated communities with the foreign language written on the signs and windows. Even if the United States banned foreigners from entering the country, we would still experience a fractured, fragmented society. Technology has evolved that allow consumers the freedom to choose a multitude of foods, music, books, tv shows, and movies. We belittle religion, encourage people to explore their sexuality, and frown down upon marriage. Thus, we no longer share the same media, experience, and heritage as our society has fractured into many cliques and small groups with diverging interests. We, Americans, have lost ourselves while our culture no longer binds us together.

Has Technology Made Our Society Worse?

People at one time were self-sufficient and made many of their goods at home. They grew vegetables in backyard gardens, and planted fruit and nut trees around their properties. They raised chickens in backyard coops supplying the household with fresh eggs and chicken. If they had enough land, they could raise pigs, goats, horses, and cows. Then people used natural ingredients to prepare their family meals. They pickled and jarred their own vegetables and made their own jams and jellies. Some families brewed their own beers and fermented their own wines. The men fixed and repaired the homes, barns, and mechanical devices while the women sewed their own clothes, blankets, and quilts. If a family over produces a product, they could barter with a neighbor for another.

Then technology happened, which led to large-scale specialization. Businesses sprang up and manufactured products and services, filling the stores' shelves with mass-produced products while they transformed labor into automatons working on the assembly lines. The young people migrated from the farms as they searched for jobs in the cities with greater salaries and acquired specialized skills to work in the factories. Then society began losing its craftsmen, artisans, and know how. The young no longer want to maintain the traditional ways while the old can no longer pass down their trades and skills to the next generation. Both China and United States are losing skills and traditions of the elders as everyone consumes the same mass-produced products and services that fill every stores' shelves.

Being self-sufficient, people need not rely on outsiders for their jobs, incomes, and security. They create their own work at home and isolate themselves from the vagaries of the national economy. Even if a country were suffering from a severe recession or depression, self-sufficient people would lightly feel the economy's problems. They rely on themselves for their income, wealth, and prosperity. Unfortunately, technology has converted self-sufficiency into economic growth as companies grew into monstrosities wreaking damages on our psyches, health, and souls.

Look at our society! Whole industries sprang up to replace self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, people rely on grocery stores, fast food joints, and restaurants to provide processed foods saturated with preservatives, chemicals, and dyes. Many people forgot the art of cooking but they can plop processed foods into a microwave to heat them up quickly. Then some people begin wondering why so many people are stricken with sickness, debilitating diseases, and poor health.

People producing their food would never add chemicals, preservatives, and dyes to their food and feed it to their children and loved ones. Even restaurants that do not add chemicals always dump sugar, oil, fats, and salt to heighten the food's taste. Subsequently, companies and corporations have taken over the family farms and boosted the insanity of technology. The corporations genetically modify vegetables and animals to boost yields. Our political leaders promised genetically modified food would never enter the human food supply, but they lied, of course. When the voters are not looking, the companies and corporations lavish the politicians with kickbacks, bribes, and gifts.

The whole food supply chain feels the insanity of technology. Monsanto genetically modifies corn and soybeans, so farmers can spray Roundup on the weeds and crops to kill the weeds. Remember Roundup is an herbicide that kills plants on contact. Then poultry farms reengineered chickens, so they grow from egg to a fully-grown chicken within a month instead of the usual two months. Sometimes the chickens grow too fast that they keep falling to the ground from their own weight. Finally, farmers raise salmon in ponds and feed them leftover wastes. Farm raised salmon contains little healthy fats while natural ocean salmon brims with healthy fatty acids and nutrients.

Modern production and technology have transformed our society into a throwaway society. Industries and companies sell their products for the lowest prices. People no longer repair clothes, and they quickly throw clothes away after they become faded, torn, old, or out of style. In the good ole days, many electronics and appliances lasted several decades. Currently, electronic gadgets and appliances easily break or quickly become obsolete. People no longer bother to repair their broken appliances. Instead, they toss them into the trash and speed to the nearest store for replacements. Unfortunately, the technicians and repairmen have become a causality of our throwaway society.

Technology causes shifts in our society as some industries rise while others fall. For example, people switched their incandescent light bulbs to the energy-efficient fluorescent ones. Thus, the factories producing the fluorescent lights bulbs expanded and grew while the factories making incandescent fell still, silent, and inactive. Workers who made incandescent light bulbs saw their skills become obsolete and useless as society no longer needs them anymore. Thus, skilled workers must keep updating their skills, or they will perish in our modern society.

Technology has turned full circle as companies have begun competing fiercely. Manufacturing companies and factories continually replace their workers with machines because humans have become too expensive to employ while a machine can stamp out thousands of parts per hour and never demand wage hikes. Then companies try to sell a product or service for the lowest price. Unfortunately, to produce at low costs, companies manufacture clothing, textiles, and electronics in third world countries by paying slave wages to the workers. Accordingly, the developed world has relocated its factories to the developing countries, enslaving them with technology, exterminating their culture, and filling their heads with materialistic needs.

Technology has become synonymous with computers, reducing human contact and intimacy to strokes on a keyboard. People and families enter virtual worlds in the machine as they navigate through artificial worlds or play computer games. They no longer play cards or board games with friends and family. They stopped reading books, newspapers, and magazines. Then the books and magazines gather dust as they sit on the neglected shelves. Thus, young people become smart using technology but they can no longer read and write. Young people listlessly sit down and become lost in their cellphones, ignoring the world around them. Technology has quickly isolated us from our fellow humans and channeled our contacts through cold, impersonal devices.

Businesses over rely on computers and have become a hostage to technology. Businesses use computers to power cash registers, ATM machines, and electronic commerce. Unfortunately, computers fail during blackouts as businesses cannot sell products and services. Then commerce breaks down and grinds to a halt. Of course, people cannot use the internet or cell phones without electricity. They sit in the dark, pouting, wondering why they cannot read their email or access Facebook.

Technology has made our modern society less stable. Self-sufficient people would feel a small impact from downturns in the economy. During the Great Depression, many U.S. families lived on farms and produced their own food. People who have the ability to produce their own food or make their own things do not need to work in the nation's factories. They remain their own bosses in their homes and work near their families.

Unfortunately, our modern society has become flawed. Agriculture comprises a tiny fraction of the U.S. economy. A severe downturn in the economy can be quite disruptive if a large number of people become unemployed. Then people and families would see their incomes plummet, and they would reduce their spending. They are no longer self-sufficient, cannot grow their own food, or produce their own things. When laid off workers stop paying their mortgages, the banks will foreclose and evict them from their homes. As the people become homeless, they are left starving on the streets with no ideas of self-sufficiency. In the rush to join the technological world, the people forgot their roots and how to sustain for themselves without relying on technology.