I think that the term libertarian is kind of skewed, depending on the entirety of your political beliefs.

Libertarian, by definition:

1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

So the question comes down to: What kinds of liberty do you believe in? For example, highwaystar believes in the liberty of social rights - that all men are free to make their choices without fear of reprisal - homosexual, abortion, divorce, suicide, drugs, vices, ect.

Others believe in the liberty of the market - free markets, lower economic obstruction(s) by government, ect.

Are both right, or wrong? I'm unsure. I'd consider a true libertarian to be one that agrees to liberty on both terms - social rights and markets. Otherwise, you may be in the quadrant of liberal (free social justices, constrained market practices) or conservative (constrained social justices free market practices). Pick your poison

At least for me, I attempt to define myself the best I can: Paleoconservative (free markets, and very moderate on social justices).

Both are pro and anti-government. You cannot argue for the government to intervene morally or socially and believe it's liberty, or likewise demand the government to restrict the markets and assume it's not an entrenchment on liberty either.

Wahoo you don't understand the Gini Cooefficent.

Note I actually mentioned the Gini Coeefficent was going up before you even posted in this thread and gave further analysis beyond that.

But yes going to something i originally quoted is about as far as you'll go admitting your wrong.

Yeah, that's kinda my point.

I don't believe we are going to win Afghanistan.

To do so we'd need the support of Inida and Pakistan at least... and that isn't going to happen.

You said:

The recent economic indicators seem to suggest the richest people are actually going to take an even harder hit... as can be seen by the Gini Coeefcient rocketing down for the first time ever....

Regarding your post, the parts that didn't make any sense were littered in the parts that were wrong.  It was obvious that you weren't sure what you were talking about, so I didnt even reply to you but instead made a broad comment to everyone that would clear up any confusion or misunderstanding from reading your post.  Again, everything in that post was correct, so your reply "makes even more no sense."

And I have no problem admitting I am wrong.  I'll even admit I was wrong when I dont have to, like the Darwin movie thread when I said that 'I initially thought that Christian opposition had something to do with ithe movie not being picked up, but after reading YOUR post I changed my mind because I realized that my thinking was wrong and that your argument made much more sense.'  I actually went out of my way to admit I was wrong.  So no, my friend, it is you who cannot admit that they are wrong.  That or you are unable to see it, and with much of the gibberish you post I can see how things can get cloudy.

For fun:

ManusJustus,

Let me ask you this. If this was the state of the world today vs 50 years ago:

50 years ago, a poor man could afford 5 sets of clothes, but today can afford 7.
50 years ago, a poor man could afford 2 meals a day, and today he can afford 3.

would you then say a poor man today is richer then a poor man 5 years ago?

The poor are getting richer... just not at as fast a rate as the rich. But like Kaz pointed out, while the rich are getting richer, it's not the same people. So the rich are not getting richer. people who never were rich, are getting richer.

Actually if you'll note... as i mentioned earlier in this thread... the Gini Coeefcient last year had an unprecedented drop.

Our Gini Coeefcient dropped to about 40.8.

Which would be roughly the level it was in 1980.

Except for the fact that we've changed how we record our Gini coeefficent.  Infact, it inflates our numbers by 2 points compared to previous numbers.

Giving us a Gini coefficent of 38.8.  Lowest Gini Coeefficent ever recorded in the US?  38.6.

So then... willing to admit your wrong since your so good at it?

http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/147.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini_indices_over_time

My other points were actually factually correct too... but considering this it's rather irrelevent.

Perhaps one of the reasons why the concepts of the "poor getting poorer" is misunderstood is the fact that America is usually the only country studied. In reality, globalization has made sure that the actions of one in New York affect another in Cape Town.

Thus, if you study the world as one economy, the percentage of people living in complete and abject poverty has sky rocketed.

However, focusing on the U.S. alone, one could say that the vast majority of the poor are not poor with perhaps one of the most obvious reasons being the fact that the vast majority of poor Americans are fat which signifies excess as opposed to want.

This is partly due to welfare programs that overburden the middle class while the upper class pays less tax (a concept I've never understood). Perhaps the whole idea is to make sure people are "hazed" in the process of getting the "American Dream" so when they finally have that dream, they can appreciate it both figuratively and realistically.

I've seen real poverty. Truly poor people are not fat, that's for sure.

Uh... actually reports show the opposite.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009529

I always have trouble with such opinion pieces because people cherry pick data to prove the point they are trying to drive home. Like the guy pointed out, it would seem like the "poor" are catching up due to investment in places like India and China but the fact is that thanks to such investment, America's welfare "burden" would probably increase.

Also, if you notice, relative wealth or poverty depends on what country you live in while globalization affects us all so some countries definitely get left in the dark in all this. America too is slowly leaving itself behind by shipping away all its jobs. It would seem like the chart is improving due to the vast populations of India and china but even in those countries, many would get "left behind" and probaly become much poorer than they were before.

Perhaps it's easier to think of it this way: resources are finite, one of the reasons the U.S. needs to fight wars to control certain regions is because of that. The U.S uses 40% of the world resources. If China were to expand towards the level of the U.S, we'd have to give a lot up for that to happen. There just isn't room for two. In the same way, if someone make hundreds of millions of dollars, a lot of people are a lot poorer than they were before.

The free market is good for the "winners" but what is to become of the losers? Crime and unrest are options and probably sure to come in the worst case scenario.

^ But even if that's true it still wouldn't support your allegation of a bigger percentage of people being in "complete abject poverty", since most people in the US can be dragged down and still be higher than that extremely low bar.