The American Faith in MoneyLewis Lapham, in his book Money and Class in America, states that Americans have been so feverishly blinded by “faith in money” that the pursuit of flashy wealth has established itself above the most sophisticated human virtues. Although his argument is intended to provide commentary on America's mad love of money, Lapham mistakenly assumes that Americans blindly worship millionaires as wise role models and that other first-world nations are more altruistic than their capitalist counterparts. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Since the year the robber barons arose during America's Gilded Age, millionaires and billionaires have been lavishly rewarded with celebrity treatment, their names ringing through the money-obsessed ears of America almost as clearly as freedom resonates in glorious American patriotism. This does not mean, however, that the fame resulting from the possession of large sums of money equates to being immediately "perceived as necessarily good and wise", as Lapham states. The previously mentioned term “robber barons” has also been coined as a derogatory and socially critical nickname that labels fat-pocketed millionaires as corrupt and voracious. The amount of middle- and lower-class anger at unscrupulous wealth demonstrates how early Americans had already come to hate the rich. Even modern celebrities like Kim Kardashian are characterized by the public as terribly ignorant as well as terribly voluptuous. While these celebrities are rich enough to cry over losing $175,000 earrings in the ocean and still have their fame intact, they are certainly less American models than A-list laughing stock in the eyes of the public. Thus, in contrast to Lapham's thesis, Americans are at least intellectually critical enough to identify corruption and incompetence in those who are, according to Lapham, supposedly lauded as models of prosperity. America has often been labeled the greedy, selfish businessman of the world; this sentiment is clearly evident in Lapham's argument. However, Lapham's logic is that while America is obsessed with money, the purer and more intellectual nations of the first world "aroused conflicting beliefs in family, honor, religion, intellect, and social class." From his argument one can deduce that America has always been the spoiled brat that more mature foreign nations constantly had to babysit. However this is not the case; America actually provided support to the Allies in their most dire situations, including both World War I and World War II. America was the nation that took it upon itself to lend money and war supplies to Europe when it most desperately needed assistance. While America may have done so as a method of ensuring friendly Euro-American relations, its actions were clearly not without honorary values ​​asserted by Lapham. Lapham also fails to realize that America's vices, no matter how many or how immoral, cannot magically invalidate the vices of other nations; its portrayal of Germany, Russia, and France as inherently socially superior nations is cynical and inaccurate. America's "faith in money" does not erase Germany's historically infamous fascism, Russia's oppressive homophobic jurisdiction, and France's "revolutionary" economic turmoil. If Lapham.