Bourgeois Dignity: Why economics can’t explain the modern world

McCloskeyT

Deirdre McCloskey is a phenomenal writer, economist, and thinker. Visit her website for an explosion of academic productivity and a highly intelligent viewpoint. We share one thing in common. Both of us have had the gravest doubts that economics as it is usually practiced is capable of explaining much. My friend Oban calls it the anorexic profession: not merely starved, but self starving. Its insights are few, but powerful, but it has become wedded to asking very narrow questions and getting very narrow, if important, insights.

McCloskey breaks the mould. Here is how she begins Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World (2010) “Sixteen. The magic number is sixteen. The world is on average sixteen times wealthier than it was in 1800.” She finds that the economic discussion fails to comprehend or explain why ‘the largest revolution in human affairs since the invention of agriculture’, as she puts it, has occurred in the past two hundred years. She looks at all the explanations proferred by the economics profession , and finds them inadequate to explain the scale of the transformation from $3 a day world average in 1800 to $48 a day world average (or $147 a day in formerly impoverished Norway).

After demolishing the usual explanations (rule of law, expansion of trade, rise of the middle class – without reference to ideas, war, slavery, imperialism, or population growth) she settles on changed ideas and social attitudes towards innovation.

Changing social ideas, in short, explain the Industrial Revolution. Material and economic factors – such as trade or investment or exploitation or population growth or the inevitable rising of classes or the protections to private property – do not. They were unchanging backgrounds, or they had already happened long before, or they didn’t actually happen at the time they are supposed to have happened, or they were weak, or they were beside the point, or they were consequences of the rhetorical change, or they required the dignity and liberty of ordinary people to have the right effect. And it seems that such material events were not in turn the main causes of the ethical and rhetorical change itself.

Most of the book consists of a careful elimination of the causes usually offered for the Industrial Revolution, and involves naturally a series of disputes with the standard materialistic explanations offered by the economics profession. Many if not most of the economists with whom she disputes  have been at various times her teachers, mentors or students, and on the whole the arguments are kept at the friendly tone with which old friends argue.

I grant that I am inclined to non-materialist explanations. Materialism is the doctrine that there is only matter and its motions, and that mind is an epiphenomenon, as a shadow is to the body for example, and not a primary cause in its own right. Yet anything we know to be important in our own lives has occurred by decisions we have made, that led to actions on our part.

McCloskey argues in this book that the standard sets of explanations for the huge rise in human wealth since 1800 are insufficient, when they are not merely wrong. Bourgeois Dignity is the second of a series of six books she has planned. The next in the series, Bourgeois Equality (2015) is already out. I have already ordered it.

McCloskey is one of those writers who are so enlightening and well argued that you need not fully agree in order to profit from them greatly.

She may think it relevant, but I do not, that she underwent a sex change from man to woman in 1995. More pertinent, in my view, was that she was an atheist and is now an Episcopalian, and was an acolyte of Milton Friedman and now entertains a broader conception of her profession.

 

The US has lost a quarter of a million jobs in journalism

 

 

newspapers

Who knew we needed so many print journalists in the first place?

Yahoo News reports:

Washington (AFP) – The US newspaper industry has shed more than half its jobs since 1990, losses which have only been partly offset by gains in online media.

Official US Labor Department data showed the newspaper sector lost 271,800 jobs in the period from January 1990 to March 2016, or 59.7 percent of the total over the past 26 years.

The numbers, first cited in a report by the news website Engadget, confirm the massive shift to digital media that has hammered traditional newspapers.

Magazines fared only slightly better, losing 36 percent of their jobs in the same period.

Employment in Internet publishing and broadcasting, meanwhile, rose from about 30,000 to nearly 198,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed.

So, the net loss seems to be about 73,000 jobs when broadcasting and internet are included.

I am far more concerned with net job losses in manufacturing.

What intrigues me, however, is that despite the job losses I now read the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Drudge Report nearly every day, the Straits Times (Singapore) occasionally, and I am awash with information.

I cannot even mention the large numbers of blogs I manage to delve into when I am not too busy.

I feel mildly sorry for the many journalists who have had to find another way of earning a living, but when I contemplate how much better I am most of the time than Geoffrey Simpson, Charles Krauthammer, or Andrew Coyne – I place myself well below Conrad Black and Rex Murphy – I have to wonder, what were all those print journalists doing? Did we really need them? Apparently not.

Getting to Denmark

Francis Fukuyama wrote that the object of all political development lies in “getting to Denmark”.

By this I mean less the actual country Denmark than an imagined society that is prosperous, democratic, secure  and well governed, and experiences low levels of political corruption. “Denmark’ would have all three sets of political institutions in perfect balance: a competent state, a strong rule of law, and democratic accountability. The international community would like to turn Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and Haiti into idealized places like “Denmark” but it doesn’t have the slightest idea of how to bring this about. As I argued earlier, part of the problem is that we don’t understand how Denmark itself came to be Denmark and therefore don’t comprehend the complexity and difficulty of political development.

Certainly anyone who has seen the Danish movie “A Royal Affair” will have observed that Danish society in 1800 was in a state of feudalism that English society had left by the late 1400s: the peasants were enserfed, had no property in their lands, and were obliged by the noble landowning class for everything they grew. Denmark only became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The revolution that saw the end of absolute monarchy in England happened 161 years earlier, in 1688.

How then did Denmark move so rapidly and effectively to become one of the models of the world for stability, progress, peace and good order?

I have no idea.

But after a recent trip there I am pleased to suggest several cultural attributes we could do well to emulate.

  1. It is okay to be clever. From this attribute much else inevitably follows.

IMG_1025

2. It is okay to eat meat and cheese. Charcuterie is a normal serving in a Danish wine bar/tavern. Note the subordination of vegetables to fats and proteins.

IMG_0932

3. Globe-embracing capitalism

Denmark is headquarters to companies as diverse as Lego and Maersk shipping. Lego is cuter so it  gets the photograph. See ‘cleverness’ above.

IMG_0940

4. Vikings (see globe-embracing capitalism above)

 

IMG_1032

Viking shipbuilding techniques should be studied.

 

5. Fit blond people

The people are remarkably fit-looking. Handsomeness and beauty cannot be achieved without breeding for it, and that implies an aesthetic sense and social arrangements whereby beautiful people were encouraged to breed and ugly ones bred out. It means women must always have had the power to turn down the proposals of ugly men, and vice versa. That means in turn that the chastity of daughters was protected by fathers  and brothers without turning guardianship of daughters into purdah. There may be other implications to high degrees of beauty in a population, but I shall refrain from poaching in the territory of American Renaissance.

IMG_0935

 

6. Architecture is taken seriously.

You may not like modernist architecture. But I have to commend a society where new building is not put up without thinking about how it will look in a hundred years. Below is the Danish Royal Opera.

IMG_1020

7. Copenhagen/København

The Danes turn the ‘v’ into a ‘u’ in places, so it is pronounced like Koebenhaun. A dozen times prettier than Amsterdam: no red light district, wider streets, less litter, with a couple of magnificent royal palaces.

IMG_0956

IMG_1015

The Amalienborg (above) features four identical palaces built around an octagonal square, with suitably pompous fountain and statue of King Fredrik V on horseback.

 

IMG_1024

__________________

I recommend that you go there if you can.

New and important: practicable space exploration

yurimilner

 

Yuri Milner, a Russian zillionaire, is proposing to spend $100 million on light sail driven space probes that could reach Alpha Centauri within about 20 years. He has recruited Stephen Hawking to shill for him and has enlisted Mark Zuckerberg for his board of directors.

Alpha Centauri is the closest star to us, at 4 light-years. The light sails are expected to be accelerated to 1/5th C, the speed of light, by a powerful laser.

At noon [yesterday, in fact] today, Yuri Milner, the Russian tech billionaire, will join Stephen Hawking atop Manhattan’s Freedom Tower, where the pair will announce Starshot, a $100 million dollar research program, the latest of Milner’s “Breakthrough Initiatives.” (Mark Zuckerberg will serve on Starshot’s board, alongside Milner and Hawking.) With the money, Milner hopes to prove that a probe could make the journey to Alpha Centauri in only 20 years.

It was great to hear some hopeful news for a change.

On reflection, it is obvious that our own planet’s system might well have been mapped by tiny invisible cameras carried by light sails from another star system in any age past. Going further afield from our mechanistic 21st century headspace, we might allow ourselves to consider the view held by Terence McKenna. He held that the most practical way to get to distant stars is by spores travelling through the depths of cold, foodless, and irradiated space. His view – or, according to what the psychedelic mushrooms told him – their story, was that the mushrooms he ingested travelled as spores between star systems, and can colonize any carbon based system, and communicate with the minds of those that happen to eat them.

If you think this method of interstellar travel and communication is weirder than micron-thin lightsails being sent by lasers, that is merely a local and chronic (centred on our own time) prejudice. Expand the range of allowed possibilities. There is no reason to consider current human technologies, and human-only communications, as the only ways to get around this galaxy.

McKenna’s True Hallucinations is well worth a read. And if a taste for psychedelics makes me a bad conservative…I offer no apologies. The same taste made me immune to all materialistic doctrines: marxism, materialism, reductionism, freudianism, and any of the nonsense so well described in Roger Scruton’s Fools, Frauds and Firebrands.

 

 

Two charts explain Trump: why the US social contract is breaking

fredgraph

 

fredgraph1

Steen Jakobsen, chief economist at Danish investment bank Saxo Bank, believes the “social contract” — the agreement between the ruled and the rulers — is now broken, and this can be seen in the rise of Donald Trump.

Jakobsen says we may have reached a nadir in terms of political ambitions, investments, capital expenditure, employment, inflation and growth. He sees this as the end of “planned economies” that were adopted after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In a recent research note, he said the ratio between employee compensation to gross domestic product in the U.S. is the lowest in history and corporate profits are at their highest-ever point. This, he believes, is a key reason why U.S. citizens now want anything but the traditional establishment.

from: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/hillary-clinton-cannot-win-us-election-economist.html

 

 

A villain’s life celebrated

mauricestrong

 

The Establishment is turning out for one of the biggest villains this country has ever produced: author of the Great Global Warming Scam, progenitor of trillions of dollars of wasted wealth, immiserator of nations, wrecker of economies, blighter of landscapes with noxious bird-killing giant windmills, preventer of economic development in the poor nations of the world, Maurice Strong. In today’s Hill Times

There will be a celebration of life for former public servant Maurice Strong at 3:30 p.m. in the Sir John A. Macdonald Building in Ottawa. Along with members of Maurice Strong’s family, this celebration will include Governor General David Johnston, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Speaker of the Senate George J. Furey, Speaker of the House of Commons Geoff Regan, Ontario Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna, as well as former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, John Ralston Saul, and former prime ministers Joe Clark and Paul Martin. James Wolfensohn, former World Bank President, and Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations will also be at the ceremony. A broad range of Senators and Members of Parliament will be coming to pay tribute along with representatives from the diplomatic corps.

Those who long for earthly justice will wait for centuries before this man’s reputation matches his vile deeds and influence.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Mathew 16:26

 

Trump scares the Davos crowd

I guess that Trump has the minimum amount of money these days to buy himself complete political independence. That is what scares the rulers of the earth today, who are congregated in Davos, Switzerland, busy networking with the latest chattering class memes. Goldman Sachs does not own him. He can run a Presidential campaign out of his own pocket.

This alarms our invisible government.

The prospect of Trump in the White House is ratcheting up anxiety among the 2,500 business and political leaders gathered at the Swiss ski resort for the annual World Economic Forum. With less than two weeks before voting in primaries gets under way and Trump in the Republican Party lead, those who fear a rise in protectionism and economic mismanagement are speaking out against the billionaire property developer.

“Unfortunately I do think that if there were to be a Trump administration the casualty would likely be trade,” said Eric Cantor, a former Republican House Majority Leader and now vice chairman of Moelis & Company. “That’s a very serious prospect for the world.”

Be afraid, elites, be very afraid.

The presidential race shows that the U.S. is not immune to the wave of populism sweeping the globe. In the U.S. case, the economy has recovered faster than other developed nations from the global slump of 2008 and 2009, and yet wages haven’t kept pace with a rebound in corporate profits. That’s helping candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders who say the system is rigged against average Americans.

I recall that great patriot, public servant and war hero, George Herbert Walker Bush, being defeated after one term by a hillbilly genius called Bill Clinton because Bush was thought to be out of touch with Americans in an ordinary economic downturn. Here we are, in an eviscerated economy, and a President playing golf more than he is at the office, and a Democrat representative of the billionaire class trying to succeed a Democrat representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. How likely to you think Hillary is to be the next American President?

Kai Murros

This man must not prevail! But not before you see his lecture. No pussy-footing with this guy. A genuine white nationalist.

Quotes:

“psychopathic capitalist class and their parasitic minions”.

“complete annihilation of the decadent academic class.”

“to become a monster to protect those you love”.

‘the epicentre of the global capitalist system must in the coming years suffer the violent convulsions of the national revolution”

“the iron will to rebuild, recreate, and rejuvenate the nation”

He apparently means what he says and I am interested, if not baffled, why he has not come to the attention of thought control authorities. Oh well. Genuine national socialism must be so powerless as to leave the authorities amused by its presumption.

Murros preaches an unadulterated Nazism, a term which is seldom applied correctly: a combination of racial romanticism, utopian fantasy, anti-capitalism and anti-Marxism, and appeals to violence. I can hear Ferric Jaggar and the Iron Dream in the distance.

IronDream

 

Skyhookers versus the Up From Belows

There is an immense cosmic Opinion Bowl, the Cosmodome. It seats a hundred million people, most of whom, at a given time, are dead spirits. They shout as lustily as the small minority of the audience who at any given time are living.The game lasts eternally. There are time-outs for civilizational collapses, plagues, and really serious wars. If the Opinion Bowl has been at various times destroyed, it has always been rebuilt. In the Opinion Bowl one fight has gone on since the dawn of civilization. It is a struggle for dominance in explanations, between the Skyhookers and the Up-From-Belows. There are other matches too, besides the Skyhookers versus Up-from- Belows, and sub-fights within the factions. The immense, indeed near infinite audience, forms into factions and tribes at the speed of thought.

Prominent captains of the Skyhookers have included Plato, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Aristotle, Descartes, Pascal and other luminaries of the Western canon. Monotheists tend to be Skyhookers, but not exclusively, nor even to the extent of denying the arguments of the Up-from-belows. Indeed the question of theism – is there an organizing God? – tends to confuse the debate somewhat, because the debate is really about whether matter is sufficiently self-organizing for conscious observers (us) to emerge from the primordial stews, or was there some help – guidance if you will – from the future, from where we will end up, allowing for an overall purpose and direction in history. Such a view – the importance of observation – is consistent with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics.

Unfortunately the two thousand year-long  dominance of Plato and Aristotle, two of the greatest skyhookers who ever thought, who were blind to the virtues of evolution, of trade, of self-organization, of growth and development, biased the intellectual life of the West to static thought, to anti-mercantile attitudes, and to the idea of immutable characters and essences. Aquinas’ adoption of Aristotle in the 12th century, and his acceptance by the Church as official orthodoxy, kept Skyhooker attitudes firmly entrenched in the core of official Christianity. It took a Reformation and a scientific revolution to loosen the links between Christianity and Aristotle. It now asserts that faith in Skyhooks is just that, faith, and if you do not believe in the Great Skyhook, you have not understood the Gospels properly.

The Up-from-Belows started out small but in the last few centuries have grown to dominate the game. First it was Epicurus, then Lucretius who set Epicurus’ thought to one long poem, and the near miraculous finding of a lost text of Lucretius in a German monastery at the time of the Renaissance. Lucretius is the first exposition of a materialist world of self-organizing atoms without the need for gods to explain anything. No wonder the Platonists were not anxious to preserve it. Later came Adam Smith, David Hume, Darwin, Friedrich Hayek, economists, and other proponents of the self-organizing capacities of nature and man. Atheists are, in general, up-from-belows, but many proponents of the Skyhook tradition also acknowledge the reality and importance of the self-organizing features of nature, which includes human beings.

Now Skyhook is a term of derision, like Puritan, Tory, Quaker, Whig, Protestant, Grit. The Skyhookers think that the entire universe has been brought into existence by a Mind, and that it is pervaded or organized by something like thought, and that behind the appearances is a Big Thinker, who has brought reality into being. Not just quarks and leptons, the strong force and the weak force, electromagnetism and gravity, but mind itself. They point out that mind is a feature of this universe that has to be explained.

Other skyhookers think that minds in the future are, by the force of their observations in the future, bringing into existence a state of affairs conducive to life, consciousness and intelligence. This view was the basis of the recent science fiction movie, Interstellar.

The Up-from-belows, when they wade into cosmology, get into trouble with mind. Their views are frequently materialist, and their ideas of matter are seen, by Skyhookers, as constricting limitations of the largest kinds on whatever could be real.  Daniel Dennett is a prominent example. Extreme materialists end up denying the existence of mind, or denying the particular appearance of qualities (known to the trade as qualia). If everything is self-organizing matter, and we know that matter is dead – so to speak – then mind is found in brains, and dies with brains. Brain generates mind, and not the other way around. This conclusion is an undiscussable reality for the extreme materialist.

The Sky-hookers say that Mind is a feature of this universe that needs explanation, and they rely on the Benign Designer God as their Super Turtle, the explanation that stops the need for an infinite regress of explanations. The Universe rests on the back of an Elephant, and the Elephant stands on the back of a Turtle, and either it’s turtles all the way down (infinite regress), or a Super Turtle ends the regression. That is what I mean by a Super Turtle.

Many Up-from-belows say that the question is absurd: we are here by fluke. Others say that we live in a multiverse, and in this world of infinite possibilities, we just happen to live in the world that generated minds to observe it. So they offer the same explanation as the flukers, only disguise it under the multiplication of universes. Many up-from-belows  disparage the idea of  an Intellgient Designer, but hold that physical laws are Platonic abstractions that exists outside of time and space.  Designer God, fluke, multiverse, the immutable Laws of Nature which exists outside human influence: each is a Super Turtle. The whole issue is explored entertainingly and well by Paul Davies in the Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?

Just because the Up-from-belows wander into conceptual and metaphysical difficulties when they ponder the origin of everything, and the nature of mind, does not mean that they are wrong about how  human institutions have evolved.

Thinkers as different as Darwin and Hayek are in the Up-from-Below camp. It is frequently amazing to me that people who celebrate the process of biological discovery called evolution tend to be squeamish about the process of price and product discovery called capitalism.

The basic idea is that humans create order without thinking about it, and that order causes changes in us, as we adapt to it and develop social customs that allow for greater wealth creation and more complex societies. Such an idea infuses thinkers like Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. In fact Charles Darwin is known to have thoroughly read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations when he was in university.

matt-ridley

 

This has to be the most long-winded introduction to a wonderful book by Matt Ridley, the Evolution of Everything. I strongly recommend it.

Ridley engages in a thorough exploration that evolution applies to everything: religions, moralities, biology, technology, languages, laws: a complete bottom-up self-organizing explanation of everything.I do not find it necessary to agree with every argument of a writer, especially when they are engaged in a serious romp through vast reaches of important subject matters. For a splendid stimulation of your mind, even as you may argue with it as you read, Ridley’s book makes a great Christmas gift.

He is not the kind of writer who obliges you to agree with him on pain of being cast into outer darkness.

PS:
If you google this book, ignore especially the Guardian’s mean spirited assassination attempt. Kirkus Reviews discusses the actual ideas of Ridley fairly.

 

Sabotage as normal bureaucratic behaviour

 

wally

 

A declassified CIA document called “Simple Sabotage” makes fascinating reading. It is impossible to discern what differentiates sabotage, as a deliberate ploy to slow down production,  from everyday behaviour typical inside a bureaucracy. Just think of Wally in Dilbert, and see how many characteristics of Wally are found below. Or if you work in government or a large private company,  download and widely distribute the CIA handbook on “Simple Sabotage” to your co-workers. See if anyone recognizes themselves. See if you can spot your own behaviour. Are you a saboteur?

Simple sbotage does not require specially prepared tools or equipment; it is executed by an ordinary citizen who may or may not act individually and without the necessity for active connection with an organized group; and it is carried out in such a way as to involve a minimum danger of injury, detection, and reprisal.
Where destruction is involved, the weapons
of the citizen-saboteur are salt, nails, candles, pebbles, thread, or any other materials he might normally be expected to possess as a householder or as a worker in his particular occupation.His arsenal is the kitchen shelf, the trash pile, his own usual kit of tools and supplies. The targets of his
sabotage are usually objects to which he has normal and conspicuous access in everyday life.

The interesting thing is that acts of bureaucratic sabotage are indistinguishable from behaviour we would normally call “bureaucratic”.

(a) Organizations and Conferences
(1) Insist on doing everything through
“channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken
in order to expedite decisions.
(2) Make “speeches,” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length., Illustrate your”points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments.
(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible, never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently
as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6)Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any  decision; raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated is within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
(b) Managers and Supervisors
(1) Demand written orders.
(2) “Misunderstand”  orders. Ask endless
questions or engage in long correspondence
about such orders. Quibble over them when you
can.
(3) Do everything possible to delay -the
delivery of orders. Even though parts of an order
may be ready beforehand, don’t deliver it until
it is completely ready.
(4) Don’t order new working’ materials until your current stocks have been virtually exhausted, so that the slightest delay in filling your order will mean a shutdown.
(5) Order high-quality materials which are
hard to get. If you don’t get them argue about
it. Warn that inferior materials will mean inferior work.
(6) In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that the important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers of poor machines.
(7) Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw. Approve other defective parts whose flaws are not visible to the naked eye.
(8) Make mistakes in routing so that parts
and materials will be sent to the wrong place in
the plant.
(9) When training new workers, give incomplete or misleading instructions.
(10) To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work.
(11) Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
(12) Multiply paper work in plausible ways.
Start duplicate files.
(13) Multiply the procedures and clearances
involved in issuing instructions, pay checks, and
so on. See that three people have to approve
everything where one would do..
(14) Apply all regulations to the last letter.
(c) Office Workers
(1) Make mistakes in quantities of material
when you’ are copying orders. Confuse similar
names. Use wrong addresses.
(2) Prolong correspondence with government bureaus.
(3) Misfile essential documents.
(4) In making carbon copies, make one too
few, so that an extra copying job will have to
be done.
(5) Tell important callers the boss is busy
or talking on another telephone.
(6) Hold up mail until the next collection.
(7)Spread disturbing rumors that sound
like inside dope.
(d) Employees
(1)Work slowly.Think out ways to increase the number of movements necessary on your job: use a light hammer instead of a heavy one, try to make a small wrench do when a big one is necessary, use little force where considerable force is needed, and so on.
(2) Contrive as many interruptions to your
work as you can: when changing the material
on which you are working, as you would on a
lathe or punch, take needless time to do it. If
you are cutting, shaping or doing other measured work, measure dimensions -twice as often
as you need to. When you go to the lavatory,
spend a longer time there than is necessary.
Forget tools so that you will have to go back after them.
(3) Even it you understand the language,
pretend not to understand instructions in a
foreign tongue.
(4) Pretend that instructions are hard to understand, and ask to have them repeated more than once. Or pretend that you are particularly anxious to do your work, and pester the foreman with unnecessary questions.
(5) Do your work poorly and blame it on
bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain
that these things are preventing you from doing
your job right.
(6) Never pass on your skill and experience
to a new or less skillful worker.
(7)  Snarl up administration in every possible way. Fill out forms illegibly so, that they will have to be done over; make mistakes or omit requested information in forms.
(8) If possible, join or help organize a group
for presenting employee problems to the management. See that the procedures adopted are
as inconvenient as possible for the management,
involving the presence of a large number of
employees at each presentation, entailing more
than one meeting for each grievance, bringing
up problems which are largely imaginary, and
so on.
(9) Misroute materials.
(10) Mix good parts with unusable scrap and
rejected parts.
General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating Confusion
(a) Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations when questioned.

(b). Report imaginary spies or danger to the Gestapo or police.

(c) Act stupid.

(d) Be as irritable and, quarrelsome as possible.
without getting yourself into trouble.
wally on productivity