The fact that that doesn't translate to actual benefits in metrics such as happiness or healthcare or income equality just goes to show how little raw money actually means.

A larger and more heterogeneous country is going to have less equality almost by definition. However, 150 years ago we decided that it was crucially important to keep states like Mississippi[1] in the union; if that went the other way, the metrics would look a lot better.

[1] There's a saying among states that rank 49th out of 50 in these kinds of metrics: "Thank God for Mississippi".

On the contrary, the 1% that has the bulk of the raw money are extremely happy and healthy.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Because the first thing I think of when I see your claim is this 2011 (i.e., pre-Occupy) article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...