But the more you produce the less valuable money becomes.

Inflation.
Think about most currencies in the world. When the Nintendo 3DS came out it cost $250 in the U.S. In Japan, the thing cost ­¥25,000.
Listen to how that sounds. Two hundred and fifty dollars. Twenty five thousand yen.
At one time the yen was equivalent to a dollar. Then 1873 happened & more importantly World War II happened & the yen seriously lost its equivalence with the dollar to say the least. Reminds me of most currencies in the world where you have to have a ridiculous amount just to buy simple things. Always some unwieldy number that sounds like a lot until you check the exchange rate. "I'm a millionaire! I got 1,000,000 Mexican pesos!" That won't even buy a house in California.

Here's a quick Wikipedia history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_yen#Fixed_value_of_the_yen_to_the_US_dollar

"The yen was therefore basically a dollar unit, like all dollars, descended from the Spanish Pieces of eight, and up until the year 1873, all the dollars in the world had more or less the same value...
...Following the silver devaluation of 1873, the yen devalued against the US dollar and the Canadian dollar units since they adhered to a gold standard, and by the year 1897 the yen was worth only about US$0.50...
...The yen lost most of its value during and after World War II. After a period of instability, in 1949, the value of the yen was fixed at ¥360 per US$1 through a United States plan, which was part of the Bretton Woods System, to stabilize prices in the Japanese economy."

You gotta think ratios. Print all the money in the world but if the same people own the same ratio of that money, nothing has changed. Instead of a U.S. where rich folks get $99 out of every $100, with the new printing the rich get $990 out of every $1,000. More money is produced but the ratio remains the same.
That's why it's not as simple as just printing more money. It's the ownership proportions of the money.
If the non-rich who used to have $1 out of every $100, then $10 out of every $1,000, had ratios change to having $5 out of every $100 or $50 out of every $1,000, then the rich would become logically less rich. Pump that up to $10 out of every $100 or even $50 out of every $100 & the rich become even less richer.

That's why I insist that money is by design a ZERO-SUM GAME. Somebody has to be poor for somebody else to be rich or money loses its value. It is directly responsible for economic segregation which naturally leads into social segregation. This is why we have economic classes & different behaviors according to what class you belong to. And by setting access to power based on how many money pieces you control, this is why you have essentially different rules for the rich & the poor. The rich write the rules in the first place to control the poor ones. To control them to protect their greater ratio of money ownership, power ownership.

And speaking of land, there ARE a finite amount of houses that can be built. The Planet Earth has limits. It has a certain size, certain livable land masses. Rich buy up a lot of land to have the least dense amount of population living in that vast land. Mansions & estates where only a small handful of people live. While in poorer neighborhoods population density is greater because of more people living in that lesser sized land. You notice that the rich always find their way to the best land in the area? The poor live under polluting factories, noisy railways & airports.

I laugh at Al Gore & his ridiculous carbon footprint crap. This rich bastard probably uses more energy in a day then a whole neighborhood uses in a week! THAT'S an inconvenient truth. His mansion, his private jet, his cars, his yacht, all of that uses vast amounts of energy everyday. And uses this vast energy for less people at a time. It's only for him & his family. The same energy he uses can supply multiple families (plural!) of a neighborhood or even neighborhoods.

Oh & your analogy with Wii & the games. Don't you know that for used game value the rarer the game in demand the higher the price will be? Super Mario Galaxy is a masterpiece so it will be in demand but because it's plentiful that offsets the ability to charge a premium for it. Can't find one, you're sure to find another. How much did that rarely produced Nintendo World Championships 1990 cartridge cost? Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_World_Championships#Collectible_value

"The Nintendo World Championships 1990 game cartridge is considered to be the rarest and most valuable NES cartridge released.^[5] Because fewer gold cartridges were manufactured, they are rarer and command a higher price than the gray cartridges. The gold version is often described as the "holy grail" of console game collecting^[6], similar to items from other collectible hobbies, such as the T206 Honus Wagner baseball card, or the Action Comics #1 comic book.^[7][8][9]

On March 18, 2007 a listing appeared on Myebid.com in which a cartridge appeared to have been inadvertently included in a bereavement sale of 24 NES games. According to the auction, a father was selling the possessions of his deceased son. The auction ended at $21,400,^[10] though collectors have speculated that neither the listing nor the bids were legitimate.^[11][12]

^[13] In 2008, a cartridge went for $15,000,^[14] and the next copy to surface sold in June 2009 for $17,500.^[15] Most recently, in December 2009, JJGames presented a copy on eBay as part of a charity auction for World Vision; the auction ended with a winning bid of $13,600.^[16] The high bidder failed to pay and the cartridge sold privately for $18,000.^[17] "

Think you'll ever be able to fetch 5 digits for Super Mario Galaxy as long as it's so plentiful?
Our enjoyment of games like Super Mario Galaxy are not rooted in the money. We're enjoying what that game provides for us in entertainment, more importantly what that game provides for our inherent human needs.

And that underlines my previous declaration that money is only valuable by proxy, by association with the things of real value. It's only a middleman, a velvet rope, a club bouncer inbetween that which we truly value.

You can never figure out income inequality until you come to terms with what money REALLY means.
You won't get far until you recognize in your heart of hearts how FAKE it really is.
John Lucas

Wolf and Bruhn had to convince the medical establishment to think about health and heart attacks in an entirely new way: they had to get them to realize that you couldn't understand why someone was healthy if all you did was think about their individual choices or actions in isolation. You had to look beyond the individual. You had to understand what culture they were a part of, and who their friends and families were, and what town in Italy their family came from. You had to appreciate the idea that community-the values of the world we inhabit and the people we surround ourselves with-has a profound effect on who we are. The value of an outlier was that it forced you to look a little harder and dig little deeper than you normally would to make sense of the world. And if you did, you could learn something from the outlier than could use to help everyone else. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

Synopsis

Outliers has two parts: "Part One: Opportunity" contains five chapters, and "Part Two: Legacy" has four. The book also contains an Introduction and Epilogue.^[6] Focusing on outliers, defined by Gladwell as people who do not fit into our normal understanding of achievement,^[3] Outliers deals with exceptional people, especially those who are smart, rich, and successful, and those who operate at the extreme outer edge of what is statistically plausible.^[2] The book offers examples that include the musical ensemble The Beatles, Microsoft's co-founder Bill Gates, and the theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. In the introduction, Gladwell lays out the purpose of Outliers: "It's not enough to ask what successful people are like. [...] It is only by asking where they are from that we can unravel the logic behind who succeeds and who doesn't."^[2] Throughout the publication, he discusses how family, culture, and friendship each play a role in an individual's success, and he constantly asks whether successful people deserve the praise that we give them.^[2]

The book begins with Gladwell's research on why a disproportionate number of elite Canadian hockey players are born in the first few months of the calendar year. The answer, he points out, is that since youth hockey leagues determine eligibility by calendar year, children born on January 1 play in the same league as those born on December 31 in the same year. Because children born earlier in the year are bigger and maturer than their younger competitors, they are often identified as better athletes, leading to extra coaching and a higher likelihood of being selected for elite hockey leagues. This phenomenon in which "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is dubbed "accumulative advantage" by Gladwell, while sociologist Robert K. Merton calls it "the Matthew Effect", named after a biblical verse in the Gospel of Matthew: "For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."^[7] Outliers asserts that success depends on the idiosyncrasies of the selection process used to identify talent just as much as it does on the athletes' natural abilities.^[7]

A common theme that appears throughout Outliers is the "10,000-Hour Rule", based on a study by Anders Ericsson. Gladwell claims that greatness requires enormous time, using the source of The Beatles' musical talents and Gates' computer savvy as examples.^[3] The Beatles performed live in Hamburg, Germany over 1,200 times from 1960 to 1964, amassing more than 10,000 hours of playing time, therefore meeting the 10,000-Hour Rule. Gladwell asserts that all of the time The Beatles spent performing shaped their talent, "so by the time they returned to England from Hamburg, Germany, 'they sounded like no one else. It was the making of them.'"^[3] Gates met the 10,000-Hour Rule when he gained access to a high school computer in 1968 at the age of 13, and spent 10,000 hours programming on it.^[3]

The book Outliers is an interesting one, that lends to much debate on the subject.  I am not going to post the entire Wikipedia article at this point either.

Johnlucas, no one is having a problem understanding what you're saying about inflation but you're completely missing the point of what others are saying.

An individual today who is a member of the poorest 20% in the economy has a dramatically higher standard of living than an individual who was in the wealthiest 20% 100 years ago. Over time due to dramatic increases in the productivity of individuals within the economy, the standard of living of everyone in the economy increases and, while people may be relatively less wealthy compared to people at the same point in time, they become wealthier in real terms.

Printing money faster than the rate of economic growth within the economy will certainly cause inflation, but this does not mean that wealth isn't growing or that real wealth is a zero sum game.

As for "land" or more generally real-estate being finite, if I knock down a small condo complex that has 100 units that have an average square footage of 500 square feet and replace it with a new condo complex that has 1000 units with an average square footage of 1000 square feet I have increased efficient use of the land to the extent that 10 times as many people can use it each having a higher standard of living and in a very real sense have created land.

Consciousness of inequality is the root of all nondemocratic systems (even nondemocratic systems installed and supported by a foreign power have to have a certain class or division of the population as their nucleus, like the Communist intellegentsia installed as rulers of the Soviet satellite states) and the loss of democracy. If one group in society feels alienated enough from other groups, they will feel the urge to seize power completely for themselves to protect their interests. That is why a high degree of class consciousness is bad for any society (unless a society, like for instance India, is so heterogeneous that there's no way any one group can pose a threat or be deemed to pose a threat, but these are the outliers to the system). In the Communist countries, it was some figment of the lower classes, while you saw middle-class Sunni Arabs take over Iraq, and the Taliban represented the Pashto.

Class is an easy way to create divisions in an otherwise homogeneous society, and therefore clear class distinctions from sustained interclass economic inequality should be avoided if at all possible.

In other words, bury your head into the sand.

You cannot help but to see class distinctions when so many of one group's life is so financially constricted & so many of another group's life is so financially liberated.
It's divided by its very existence. If one group lives in mansions & another group lives in tent towns, it is going to be noticed. Not saying it outright doesn't change anything. In fact, that makes it worse. It's a sign of indifference. The Invisible Man.

It's an ecology, OK. To me it's this simple. Why should I have allegiance to a system that has no allegiance to me? Why contribute my efforts to a system that won't contribute to me? Without reciprocation you have no society. The social contract is sacred. No member of the tribe should be left to rot if we really cared about all members of that tribe.

When the ones uncared for know that "They Don't Really Care About Us" (thank you Michael), they reciprocate that lack of care back into the society. Garbage in, garbage out.
If these folks don't care about my well-being, if I'm not part of their group, then why not rob them, why not assault them, why not murder them?
My life ain't important to them so their life ain't important to me. That's how crime rises & soon becomes tradition in a community.

The elite know that it's only a matter of time before balance is restored. When things get crucial they concede some of that monetary wealth, to placate the poor. They run propoganda through media sources they own telling of mythologies like The American Dream. And if all else fails they got a willing set of enforcers (security, police, military) ready to protect them against any possible uprisings. When things got really bad in France they killed King Lou 14 & his main squeeze Antoinette. When things got really bad in Russia they wiped out Caesar Nick 2's entire family including himself.

The elite by definition means few. A few people can't beat millions. Never could. That's why they live in gated communities. It's the quiet fear that one day the rabble will storm the castle. To offset this inevitability, they have big weapons to break bodies & big propoganda to break minds.

Class consciousness is the BEST thing a society can do...at the start. After this, the best thing a society can do is to CORRECT those class divisions. To make a fairer, better society for ALL not just a FEW.

The only reason the elite are still breathing is because the poor fight amongst themselves & won't unite. They're trying to gain rank in this immoral hierarchy & step on each other to rise amongst that rank. Once they stop falling for all the mind games & see the picture clearly then the inevitable conclusion will begin.

It's an ecology. If your body has an diseased part, this illness spreads throughout the body until it destroys it. There's no US & THEM. There's only US.
One body, one ecology.

Address the disease of income inequality before the human ecology succumbs.
John Lucas

I think everybody does have a hard time understanding what I'm saying. The poor is still the poor. I don't care if the overall society is richer than it was 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. That picture of São Paolo, Brazil I put up shows my argument. What I'm saying is there shouldn't BE any poor.

A society so rich should not have those who are without. Ratios like I told you. Increase the total of money available but maintain the same ownership ratios of that money & NOTHING CHANGES. It's very simple. rich people don't exist without poor people in a money-based society. There is no real solution to that other than artificial equalization of money ownership (which makes money useless) or the abolishing of the entire money system.

You're talking about how today's poor have it so much better than yesterday's poor. It's bullshit. The question you need to ask yourself is why IS there a 'poor'? They tell you to work hard & you will one day become rich. THAT IS BULL! No riches were ever obtained without some criminal element somewhere in the mix. Directly or indirectly. Something immoral had to be done by someone or someones in the chain to be able to obtain that proportion of total money. Some kind of cheating or theft or pillaging somewhere by someone directly or indirectly. Who built up Las Vegas, Nevada? Who backs did the United States of America built its wealth upon? Who was murdered & killed to facilitate this wealth building? How did Spain obtain its empire 500 years ago? How come Idi Amin of Uganda gain his wealth & power? What did Genghis Khan do to spread his influence & gain his riches?

You get a small business loan & start a business. But where did that bank get its money? How is that bank able to keep its money to give out? Who owns that bank & what other dealings do they undertake? Are those dealings moral or immoral? Was there deceit involved? Was there violence involved?
See YOU yourself may not be doing immoral things but your money probably came from somebody who DID somewhere along the line.

You wanna prove that there's no such thing as money being a ZERO-SUM Game? Then let's see a world where poverty doesn't exist. Not just a country but a world. It is no accident that the "Third World" is in the shape that it's in. Those are the people being exploited by the "Free World". The Free World's wealth is built off of the resources of the Third World. Prove your point by having the Free World maintain its level of wealth with the Third World having the same. I betcha you'll never see that happen.

There's a REASON why things produced outside of America cost LESS than things produced right in your own homeland. Exploitation. Manipulation. It actually takes more resources to deliver those products from overseas than from right in your own land. Fuel costs, transit costs, storage costs, staff costs. But because the workers of those foreign lands are basically one step above chattel slavery, it's easy to take advantage of their poverty & have them slave out all the products we use. Ask the suicidal Chinese workers from Foxconn how things really go down. The money systems between nations are also manipulated to save the slavedrivers even more money. Who mines those blood diamonds & do they get to wear the bling they bring?

As for your condo analogy, you did not "create land". You densified population. The definition of the word is right in your face. We didn't create this land. We manipulate the land, we shape the land, but we didn't create the continents. And no, it's not the same to have a condo than to have your own house with your own front & back yard. Rich folks you notice don't usually like to live around other people. They tend to live in some secluded, hard to reach area where they have some space from people. They tend to build a gate to keep people out. They usually have a massive land mass surrounding their massive house. For a rich person to live in a condo would be unthinkable. That's for the poorer folk. The poorest folk who are not homeless tend to live in apartment complexes. Housing projects. In more spacious rural areas, a trailer park.

Tearing down a building to put up another bigger building is in no way, shape, or form creating land. You're just densifying your population into one place. Earth is finite. It has space limits. It's only so big. But people who lived packed in like sardines can get irritated with each other. The upstairs neighbor who every footstep he makes you hear to your annoyance. The adjacent neighbors, the young couple, whose every late night argument you hear interferes with your sleep. The other adjacent neighbors whose baby seemingly cries all day long driving you up the wall. The neighbor who plays her music too loud. The neighbor whose loud snores penetrate those paper thin walls every night. The neighbor whose tone of voice aggravates you as he simply has a conversation with his friend in the stairwell or hallway.

Rich folks REFUSE to live like this. They want the privileges that their greater proportions of money provide & realistically they know that every one can't live the way they do based on how the money system is designed. In Animal Crossing world Tom Nook buys anything & sells anything. In the videogame world money is no object. You cut a blade of grass with your Master Sword & you get Rupees. Beat a monster in a cave & you get GP. In the real world money is the immovable object for most people in a given society. And that will never change because of the inherent way money works.