Why smart people continue to say this is beyond me. There were so many problems with the USSR - central planning, corruption, bureaucracy, secrecy, misaligned incentives - and it's just not true that everyone was equal. Very few rational people would agree that the USSR is something that we should aspire to.
As far as I can tell, "look how well it worked for the USSR" is just a trope that's trotted out by people who don't want to accept that alternatives to the status quo might be possible.
Are you asking why an arbitrary group of American companies, popularized in an American TV show about the American stock market, has only American companies? I don't know. That's a good question. Why didn't they include others like Tencent, Alibaba, TSMC, Samsung, or BYD?
It's like asking why are the Fortune 500 companies all American companies. In contrast, Fortune Global 500, using the same criteria but in a wider pool, has companies from other counties.
The US has the worst health outcomes in the OECD - in particular for life expectancy, infant mortality, healthcare access, and chronic disease. So if you care about health, “another example” is literally any other OECD country.
And every one of those FAANGs would not exist without ASML, a European company.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m checking out of this thread.
I don't understand how you can see videos like https://youtu.be/925wmb-4Yr4 of skid row and conclude, y'know what? American Capitalism is the best thing ever and there's no possible way theres anything wrong with it so anybody trying to say that, hey, it's not perfect, is automatically a Stalinism Communist because that's the only way there could remotely be any sort of problems with American Capitalism.
There's a housing problem everywhere and your vaunted free market hasn't been able to solve the problem, but that's okay because we can just blame the victims for wanting life, liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness in a place of their choosing, in a manner of their choosing. As if anyone in their right mind would choose to live like they do in the video linked above.
I don't think any of the wealth inequality experts are arguing for identical wealth. They want to make sure that all tiers of society maintain social mobility and can participate in the American dream. This generally means preventing various stratas from taking unfair advantage of the system, making it more of a level playing field where we can. It benefits society when a genius born in the slums can make something of themselves, that the opportunities are there to escape the slum.
Extreme inequality leads to crime, social instability and eventually major civil unrest. As with everything, it's about moderation. Unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as unrestrained communism, the ideal balance is somewhere in between.
As for sources, here are a few (just a web search away):
I am no expert on the FR, but that article as a long list of causes, only one of which is "Increasing inequality led to more social conflict." and that's all it says about that.
Besides, it was a feudal society with nobles and peasants, with different laws attached to each. That's bound to cause resentment.
I'll give an example where everyone was equal. The USSR. That worked out great, right?