They Know No Bounds

 
This is great stuff. We've been writing about people like this for some time now. This is exactly what will bring these people down, their inherent arrogance, conceit and contempt for anybody who dare differ with their view. It's pure Ivy League endemic.

Now we've been onto this dude for awhile, but we want to thank you, Professor, for coming out of the closet at this time. Moreover, for scrolling the line of separation deeper and clearer in the sand. You're a good man, sir.

This is what these people as we've said before whether you're brown, yellow, black, white or rainbow-colored think of you. It does not matter your occupation or profession, this is how the elites see you. Not just you but your offspring or anyone even faintly like you. Thank you, sir. No more sub rosa. This gets it out in the open. A very, very healthy kind of party. Daylight. You're a tribute to your kind and breed, sir. Maybe some day they'll make the face of one of their noble coins in your likeness.

Shocked by the inexplicable realization that Americans are stubbornly unwilling to bow down and blindly accept the political and economic views of the educated elites in this country, Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw recently took to the New York Times to pen an op-ed where he concluded that the only possible reason for the lack of conformity to his point of view is the stupidity and racism of the electorate.  An article by Adam Button at forexlive, called our attention to the recent op-ed which he described as a "dazzling display of contempt for the public from a Harvard professor who can't believe that voters aren't listening to the gospel of the economic elites."

Questioning why American's object to increasing globalization, Professor Mankiw pointed to three main conclusions:

"The first is isolationism more broadly. Trade skeptics tend to think, for example, that the United States should stay out of world affairs and avoid getting involved in foreign conflicts. They are not eager for the United States to work with other nations to solve global problems like hunger and pollution."

"The second is nationalism. Trade skeptics tend to think that the United States is culturally superior to other nations. They say the world would be better if people elsewhere were more like Americans."

"The third is ethnocentrism. Trade skeptics tend to divide the world into racial and ethnic groups and think that the one they belong to is better than the others. They say their own group is harder working, less wasteful and more trustworthy."

The good professor seems to have missed a vital point. The only people trying to export American culture are the neocons, sticking their noses into places they hardly belong, propping up vile dictators for clandestine, hegemonic reasons, secretly signing trade pacts that benefit the few and harm the many.

 Assassinating people they differ with, using drones to kill innocent children they never knew. Those are high watermarks of a civilized tribe, sir. But his third point, ethnocentrism, is perhaps his most cute, claiming trade skeptics divide the globe into racial and ethnic groups, thinking their group is better than all the others. It's seems the good professor has his own kind of division, one he appears to be quite proficient at.

Hunger and pollution. If such came from the mouth of a rightist rather than a leftist, and we're neither, it would sound the tocsin of apple pie and motherhood. Elitists like zealots know no boundaries. Professor Mankiw appears to be a card carrying member of both. And we say: good for you, sir. Good for you.

zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-31/apparently-if-you-disagree-harvard-economist-then-youre-stupid-and-racist