What you are describing is inequality, not wealth. A nation can be unequal and still be rich. To be less pedantic, I agree with what I think is your implicit a

What you are describing is inequality, not wealth. A nation can be unequal and still be rich. To be less pedantic, I agree with what I think is your implicit argument that wealth alone is not worth much if it doesn't reach everyone in the nation. I just think it's intellectually imprecise when I see folks on HN take potshots and zingers at the USA for things like having an overwhelmingly nonsocialist culture, when in real terms it is both a fairly wealthy nation and also a fairly equal one. Not to mention that many states in the United States actually do offer healthcare programs and other benefits that level the playing field for citizens. I feel it's good to say something on HN because otherwise you just get a bunch of folks thinking they're right without having to consider the opposing view. Some of the folks around here should go spend a few months in South America. Even the socialist nations in South America are often highly unequal and very corrupt. Some can't afford medicine. Others have decent state-funded healthcare but the programs are so large and expensive that they leave lots of room for corruption. In either case, it would be healthier to receive healthcare in the expensive and price-inflated system of the USA, where doctors are first-rate, hospitals take cleanliness seriously, and there is better access to modern pharmaceuticals. Lastly, many of the shining stars among the socialist nations are far smaller than the USA. Norway has some wonderful government programs, and a low Gini income inequality coefficient. It's also a nation of around 5 million people, whereas the USA is a nation of 326 million. Those 326 million live in places with vastly different prices for rent, food, healthcare, and transportation. So some inequality in income is healthy -- lest you think people in Manhattan can live on the same wage as people in Kansas.