@flameshadowwolf Whether or not the rich "lead better lives" (whatever the hell that means - I'm going to assume you meant to say "have more money") than the poor is a foolish and worthless metric to determine whether or not an economic system is viable. A practical and worthwhile metric is: what are the living conditions of those in poverty, and what means are available to said people to earn wealth and social status for themselves?
You can complain about "capitalism" all you want; the hard truth is that being poor in capitalist America is exponentially better than being poor in almost any other country in the world. There is so much wealth flowing through this country that
every single state, plus the federal government and the vast majority of churches, have food programs and medical assistance that pretty much anyone can apply to and have a reasonable chance of using. On average, living in poverty in America means threadbare clothes, a sparse but solid roof over your head, and enough food that you'll get fat if you overdo it. There are a fair number of folks who have less, but even then there are charities out the ass offering temporary accommodation of all sorts, and when the government isn't fucking up the economy there's all kinds of fast food joints, day jobs, and other opportunities to earn money. Oh, and prolific Internet access.
And if it wasn't for a small selection of relevant government laws, things would be even better. Example: https://fee.org/articles/how-government-encourages-food-waste/
Almost everywhere else in the world, living in poverty means you have none of these things.
@Chrona Correct. "State-controlled capitalism" is just a semantics game to conceal either mercantilism (the top economic entities maintain a monopoly and act as a co-equal arm of the government (see: Google, Facebook, Twitter)) or one of the Bastard Marxist Trio: communism, facism, socialism.