You're wrong on multiple accounts ...

Money is a physical representation of production within the economy. What we see as the value of the money is the exchange rate (for lack of a better word) between the physical money and a unit of production. When you print money at a faster rate than the productivity of the economy increases the exchange rate between physical money and a unit of production changes and we have what we call inflation.

By increasing the productivity of a nation, as we have experienced in the western world for the past several centuries, the amount of goods and services provided to all individuals can increase resulting in a higher standard of living and (therefore) greater wealth to everyone. You can observe this improved standard of living simply by noticing how many of the poorest members of our economy have obtained luxury goods and services beyond what the super rich could have been able to purchase a generation or two ago.

By punishing the successful, as is often argued by people who support wealth redistribution, you risk reducing the rate that productivity increases and therefore make everyone poorer over time.

Ah this just reminds me of an article I heard about today.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c02f081e-3ba8-11e1-bb39-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1jMb0F3Tr

Which also ironically explains why if anything the Crisis in Greece, Italy and Portugal are related to trying to create income equality.

It is my opinion that the economy has multiple very powerful negative feedbacks built into it, and many actions powerful actors take within the economy result in (often larger) counter-reactions that return the economy to a balanced state. This results in many actions taken by governments having counterintuitive results.

The classical example of what I'm talking about is how loosening credit for mortgages tends to result in higher house prices and less affordable homes. Regardless of whether people are putting a 5% down payment on a 40 year mortgage, or are forced to put 25% down on a 15 year mortgage, the competition for homes will ensure that (over time) the same house will be affordable to people of the same income level. This is unfortunate for those individuals who can not afford a home though because, while the money they save could have a substantial impact on the monthly payments for the lower priced home, the increase in house prices effectively prevents them from ever saving up enough money to buy a home.

To use an example ... In Calgary starter homes were priced at (roughly) $75,000 in the late 1990s and by the end of 2006 were $300,000 due to changes in mortgage qualification rules. While it was plausable for a low income earner to save up $25,000 to reduce the potential mortgage payment and qualify for a home in the late 1990s, those same people would never be able to save up the $100,000 to get similar savings today. As a result, action taken to make houses affordable has made houses less affordable.

Um...yes it is. If everybody's a millionaire, then no one is rich. All those economic degrees & those economists can't figure out simple math & logic.
Why do you think so many of the well-to-do are reluctant to talk about redistribution of wealth?

Inflation is the de-densification of monetary value. Molecules when densely packed together are solids. When more loosely packed together are liquids. And when spaced far enough apart are gases.
That's why they used the analogy of inflation like inflating a balloon with air. It may take up more physical space but it's lighter & able to float in the air unlike the un-inflated balloon.

Density is mass per unit volume. To break it down, it's a lot of stuff in a little area. That's how money works.
And who owns the lot of 'the lot in the little' is the rich one. Making more stuff thus expanding the area makes the rich one less rich.
By the way, how much is a million pesos?

When I talk about the imaginary value of gold & all that other crap, I'm talking reality. Gold is not more valuable than air, water, or food. Never has been, is not now, & never will be.
When YOU talk about the value of gold & the rest, you're talking about the shared human illusion we've built around "money". We're born in this Matrix created long ago & we're conditioned from birth to buy into the promoted illusions to the point that they seem real. But illusions, perceptions are not necessarily reality.

Even in this illusion money is useless by itself. It is only with the exchange, the trade of money for the REAL valuable things of life that it has use. It is only useful by proxy. It's a middleman. A velvet rope. A bouncer at your favorite nightclub. Your ball & chain. Your prison. Your enslaver.

I need to eat & I gotta trade so many money pieces to get that food I need for eating. It's not the money that's valuable, it's the food.
I need shelter & I gotta trade oh so many money portions to get that shelter from nature's harsh elements. It's not the money that's valuable, it's the shelter from the elements.

But in the cruel game of money everybody doesn't have enough money pieces or money portions to get that food, shelter, or any other essential human need.
Then there are others who have so many money pieces & portions that they're essential human needs will never be unsatisfied again.

They control the Lot in the Little. They control the Rare. They have command of the density. And thus it is their destiny to have their every need & desire fulfilled. Because of this, it is the destiny of the ones who control little to none of the Lot in the Little to have their needs & desires unfulfilled. They're too Common to control the Rare, those commoners. Then it becomes tradition. Then you have overclasses & underclasses to serve them.
There's just not enough money to go around & the rarified folks count on that fact to continue. How can they be over without any unders?

The only way to solve income inequality is to do away with the money game altogether.

It's ZERO-SUM by design. In this game, Some will always have Zero.
John Lucas

I understand the resentment on anything that deals with redistribution of wealth. However, our society needs to look at itself (talking mainly about USA here) and realize that we are far from perfect. There is no perfect system but when a CEO salary far outpaces the average worker then it is pretty obvious the people on the bottom are getting screwed. I enjoy a nice trickle down from the rich when it is hot outside since there is nothing like a nice warm stream of piss from a rich bastard to cool you off on a warm summer day. Let me just say that most CEOs and upper management do not deserve their salaries, benefits, and stock options.

So... using this logic.  The richest people in Colombia are richer then the richest people in the United States.

Money represents wealth.  Wealth is something that rises and shrinks as things happen and products are created.

Even if you were to consider only essentials to have value, food shortages would cause the "price" of food to raise... and an abundance of food would cause it's "price" to shrink.. even in a world without money.

Why is gold worth more then food?  Illusion?  Hell no.  If there was a food shortage like you said, food would be more valuable.   Gold is worth more then food because there ISN'T a food shortage.

Like I said before, you wouldn't trade a bottle of air for money or gold... why is that?  

Because we have all the air we could ever need for free.  So who in their right mind would pay for it?

Why is food cheap?  Again because it's fairly abundent and easy to grow and there isn't a shortage of it in the western world.  Why is it more expensive in other areas.... rarity?

Why do Ipods cost so much in comparison to food?  Because they're more scarce and more labor intensive.

This existed long before money ever existed, even during the barter system value was based on rarity, not importance to basic life skills.

Afterall, if I can forage myself food, why am I going to give away something I like which there are only a few of for it?

Additionally, even if your definition of wealth is "Only things that keep you alive" isn't it impossible for you to deny that we are a "wealthier" society now then we were before the advent of modern medicine... as peoples lifespans are greatly extended.

Thereby proving wealth ISN'T a zerosum game. Since if wealth was a zerosum game that means there has been an equal amount of wealth through out the entire history of mankind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero%E2%80%93sum_game

The idiots that buy bottle water and help further destroy the planet.

Well to be fair, a lot of areas have pretty shitty water.

I know I bought a filter for my tap because of suggestions from actual people in the heatlhcare industry.

Still the actual point remains... scarcity is absolutely important because only so much of some things exist... while others, even if they are actual physical needed to keep you alive things... are abundent.

Hahahahahahaha! Only slavemasters talk about "productivity".

Money is the Universal Trading Piece. No two ears are exactly the same. No two sheep are exactly the same. Weights, heights, quality, you name it. So humankind found a bunch of mostly useless rarish metals & said this will be the stand-in for the trading exchange. Later we said some artistic papers would represent this middleman. Same difference. Worthless shit that is only valuable because WE SAY it is. Fiat. Not valuable because of its inherent function to the human design. Like air, water, food, shelter, sun, belonging & affection.
We made a middleman for the trading game, that's all.

We have more technology in the world than ever before. All of our invention is to make life easier so we would have to be LESS productive. Yet we work harder than ever before & for less return for those labors. Industrial revolution was supposed to make life easier. But all it did was add more work. And not even work that produces things of usable value. A farmer who labors on his field will have plenty of food of HIS OWN to eat like my great-grandparents did in the Great Depression days. Work in places nowadays & your labors only help your business owner eat better. And what you produce isn't even your own!

Money is a game. And Supply & Demand is a strategy. By merit the most important jobs are those who prepare the food & water, those who clean the filth that rots & causes disease. Yep your hunters, farmers, well-diggers, & janitors. However people called hedgefund managers get obscene wealth for money speculation. Kim Kardashian gets millions just for having a "reality" show. Teaching is another crucial profession by merit yet many teachers just get by on their incomes. Doctors/surgeons get paid pretty good but in reality they should be paid even better for alleviating & eradicating diseases & other possibly fatal malfunctions to the human body.

Kim Kardashian ain't productive like those doctors, surgeons, teachers, janitors, farmers, hunters, & well-diggers. Neither are those hedgefund managers. They don't produce nothing of substantial value. Yet they get lots of those "physical representations of production" within an economy. It's not based in reality & the essential needs of the human species. It's based on the human folly of "The Market" & how well those products are marketed.
They marketed a rock, put in a box, & people bought it. But the Pet Rock was virtually worthless & already common. You could find your own Pet Rock outside your house & get it for FREE.

The First World built its wealth off of the Third World. The "Third World" is poor because the "First World" exploited those people & their resources.
Europe built its New World wealth (that it enjoys to this very day) by plunder & pillage. In the lands now known as America (North & South) & the motherland, Africa among other places (like India). The plunderers & their descendants enjoy the fruits of other people's labors & they know it was ill-gotten which is why they are scared to talk about "wealth redistribution". We can't "punish the successful". The successful robber barons, that is.

Some societies had no concept of "money" & they were hard to enslave because of it. By cajoling or outright forcing everyone to deal with this money middleman to enjoy the TRUE VALUABLES of life, they then controlled these formerly no-money individuals. Now they had to trade their labors for the scraps of lucre to get the same things they used to get openly. All while making the one they traded their labors TO all the more lucrative at the laborers' expense.

I'm outnumbered. I'm stuck in this system. I'm stuck in this illusion & am forced to play the game. But I know reality & when i find my window, my escape, I will break this game. Income inequality doesn't die until money dies.
John Lucas