My views on the matter are as follows

Any system of government combined with human nature is incompatible with economic equality.

And without a system of government it is impossible to achieve economic equality.

If by some miracle we did achieve economic equality I suspect it would simply make everyone equally poor and cripple technological development.

I disagree.

This issue is no country has a true democracy. To rule for office, you need millions. To be a senator, you need hundreds of thousands, to have any kind of power, you need money......Then when you get elected, you only pass laws that benefit you.

True Democracy is impossible because of Corruption. That is unless you're like Sweden and spend tons of money so that every major law has pass a public vote, but that has drawbacks too.

---

I believe the whole reason why we have economic inequality in the developed world is because of Capitalism. Simply put, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

awesome post.
but... Democracy by definition is simply a form of government which allows the populace to elect it's leaders. this definition gives no weight or importance to those that have money or those that don't.
a better way to word the question, since it actually involves the social status of those considered, would be:
'Are capitalism and economic equality fundamentally incompatible?'

You just described....communism.

I kinda agree with you, I feel our society now is no different then society hundreds of years ago. We may have gotten a bit more humane with how we punish people, but overall, our lives would be the same if it weren't for advances in technology.

Then again, nowadays technology and advertizing are being used to exploit people more....I mean XBO/360 have ads when you turn the system on! I Don't want any more Doritos!

What poor people have gotten poorer? Can you show me a time when the living standards of the poor ever being better than they are now?

Economic equality was increasing rapidly throughout the last few hundered years until recently when the American government started rapidly expanding and corrupt politicians started taking "donations" from losers to keep the potential winners out of the marketplace. 

I was loathed to use the term communism as communism in practice has never achieved total equality as not only the rulers received special treatment but they themselves realized they needed a middle class to support themselves against the lower classes.

The second line is complete and utter non sense and you can believe it if you want.

On the last line I completely agree with you and recommend that all people buy PS3/4

Democracy or any political system is not the problem. Empathy (lack of), materialistic desire and the central bank is the problem.

Once we realize we are the same entity something like democracy actually becomes obsolete, then we can head for the stars instead of staring at our iphone screens.

I am an economics Professor, and I only have this to say :

Democracy has nothing to do with economic equality. Democracy is not an economic system, so the question is flawed to begin with. However, if you would change the question to ;

"Is capitalism incompatible with economic equality?"

Then the theoretical answer would be yes, they are incompatible. However, an economic system creating a perfect income equality is neither possible nor desirable. So this "incompatibility" does not automatically render capitalism wrong. But what kind of economic system do people want? This is where capitalism conflicts a social democracy (with more of a humanitarian view) :

Social Democracy wants :
a) Equal fundamental access & opportunities to broadly defined rights, regardless of income or status
b) Equally distributed or proportional public responsibilities and rights
c) Active State reflecting the social conscious
d) Heavily regulated market system
e) Earnings based on "worth", and "social value" etc...
etc...

Capitalistic Economy wants
a) Equal capability for entrepreneurship, market and funding access,
b) Self correcting and operating efficient market system
c) Non-disturbing and low level of taxation
d) Near complete private ownership, with state serving only as a regulatory body
e) Free floating and deregulated market system
f) Earnings based on "demand & supply"
etc...

Both of those systems are inherently utopia. Neither of them produces perfect equality or inequality. Social democracy is not socialism because there are well functioning markets with a large but minority share of state operating. The equality will also be much smaller in a social democracy.

The question is, "Is pure capitalism really possible?"... Current experiences disagree. Kuznets famous inverse U shape inequality patterns are not observed and inequality in US (one of the last bastions of pure capitalism) has been increasing tremendously; especially the wealth inequality (Gini > 80%). This is basically unsustainable.

So there you have it. Capitalism in its pure form is incompatible with democracy, just like socialism was an unnatural unsustainable regime. However, democracy with "domesticated" social capitalistic policies seem to be not only very much possible but also lucrative and sustainable.

Here, take a quick look at the increasing income inequality in US. The Median Income (Adjusted for Inflation) increase only 30% between 1967 and 2003 (in 36 years, less than 1% a year). It actually stagnated after 1997. The poorest 20% saw an increase of around 28% in 36 years, while their income has also practically stagnated since 1997. 

The Rich, on the other hand, saw large increase in their incomes. 80th percentile increased by 57% while 95th percentile increased by 74%. So the rich go richer for sure. What's ironic is that most of the so called economic growth directly came from the increase of the income of the Rich, especially the top 5%.

All this trend does not exist in social democracies in Europe.

Absolutely not.

But when you put a love of money and unregulated capitalism above the good of ALL people (not just the rich), you are always going to have a problem. Always.