Is a "Level Playing Field" a Good Thing?

Is a "Level Playing Field" a Good Thing? asks Jim Heskett in response to suggestions by Thomas L. Friedman that the 21st century will produce a more level playing field among the haves and have nots in his book The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century.
Before answering that question, which could be yes, I think the world needs to strive to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots first. We humans seem to care more of what others can take away from us rather than what we can give. I believe the haves of the world have a similar attitude and take the developments of some of the have nots, like China and India, as a big threat. Of course there is no denying that they could be threats but is it the most important concern for the haves? Maybe the most important concern of the haves should be maintaining their living standards and not just expecting and aiming for the linear increase in worldly comforts as has been the case till now. There will be no level field if the obsession of the haves is to maintain the distance they have with the have nots.