The USA can’t afford to operate like the Scandinavian countries because the US depends on the wealth created by the rich to tax and employ, so the government incentivize these wealth creators by allowing them to keep a good portion of the wealth they create. The moment you attempt to equalize everything by taking too much from the rich and giving to the poor, you discourage wealth creation and the only thing you will accomplish is less rich, and you will still have the poor.If (nearly) everybody lives comfortably, I have little objections. Like in capitalist Scandinavian countries. But in the US not everybody lives comfortably. In fact, more than 10% of US population is seen as "poor" and many of them as "working poor".
I don’t know what capitalists you talk to, but the rich capitalists want more people to be rich because that equals more customers who can afford their products, and more people paying taxes which will lower their tax burdens.
I can only speak for the USA. In the US the rich and their kin are not the only ones who prosper, as a matter of fact, in the USA 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. The vast majority of todays rich did not inherit it from their parents, most built their wealth themselves.Can you only think in black and white? Color TV are a waste of money for your type.
The question isn't if a country can afford prosperity for everyone, the question is, if a country could afford prosperity for everyone, why do only the rich and their kin prosper while the rest live in less than ideal conditions?
Anyone who thinks all millionaires are just trust-fund babies or don't pay taxes will be surprised by the truth of how people become rich millionaires.