Blame it on technology... it's made it so that over the past several decades the haves were able to increase their wealth several times over, while the have-nots, er, were not.

Basically it's the old "money begets money" proverb... if you had some, now you have more. If you had nothing, then you still have nothing.

Good ol' Austrian school of economics is the only approach that any country should take. After the debt load becomes too great, hopefuly some of the Western countries will start applying the "Mises" approach to their respective economies and get rid of the "Keynesian" economics that has caused Trillions in debt.

Wow... just wow. Spoken like a privileged american. You have no idea what poverty is, or what its like to live in a country where you get paid 10% of what you do for the same work.

You have no idea what the real world is like. Capitalism is what is making these inequalities worse. Social systems are the only thing preventing it from going into anarchy. Capitalism is irresponsible. With it old people and many others would be dieing in the streets of hunger or without shelters just because theres no more jobs for them.

I am impressed by the mind-washing system that makes you think a just world is built with capitalism. It surely isnt the world i want to live in and you only dare to think that way cause you lucked out in your country of birth.

If Canada was an european country without easy acess to the great one language mass market that is the US, you would be singing an oh-so different tune.

I never said that everyone started on a level playing field, however that doesn't mean that the game of economics ISN'T fair ... 

You need to know that the game of economics does not make the distinction between rich and poor. Inequalities are a part of that game as it is mostly blind to our backgrounds ... 

We're all NEVER given the same amount of chances when it comes to making money but it doesn't go against the game's rules ... 

Whether or not you find that just depends from individuals to individuals ...

Exceptions don't disprove the rule ...

We're going around in circles here. The definition of fair, as I am using here, is one that applies to the backgrounds people come from. Fair simply indicates that two contestants are on a level playing field; all that matters is at what point you ceases to be a concern. If you want to use a definition, fine, but that's not contributing to the discussion in any way.

As an economics major, I am well aware of inequalities being a part of the game.

There will always be a people who do well and the ones who don't. It's completely fair. It's no different in how people lived from ancient times to now. I don't believe in punishing people for doing well for themselves and it's not their burden to take care of everything else. If you want a better quality of life, go to school to get a better job or open up a business or learn a trade.

It takes as much effort to keep wealth and is it does to get it in the first place. 

Comparing backgrounds gets you nowhere when it comes to the definition of "fair" ... 

The idea of being "fair" originated from adhering to rules when it comes to competing, the definition DOES NOT concern itself with some background equality ... 

Since when did not offering the same chances all around the world violates the rules of economics ?