Wikipedia defines the American Dream as the faith held by many in the United States of America that through hard work, courage and determination one can achieve a better life for oneself, usually through financial prosperity.

The American Dream is a beautiful concept: the tableau of many an inspiring story. Lyndon Johnson embodied the rags to riches mentality that beckons the dreamer and gives hope to the destitute. Born on a dirt farm in Stonewall, Texas, Johnson became the 36th president of the United States. Johnson is testament to the common faith that we Americans profess; this is the land of opportunity.

That common faith, to which we subscribe resolutely, is based on the tenets of capitalism.

In America, capitalism garners more reverence than most deities. Free enterprise is what enables the poorest Americans to attain glory and wealth. Capitalism makes possible the American Dream. Capitalism, however, isn't what it used to be.

Once, capitalism was the means by which an impoverished Missourian like Ken Lay could rise to the forefront of the leading company of the New Economy. Now, capitalism is the trump card of the guardians of the status quo.

Currently, millions of immigrants are trying to establish residences in the United States, the Supreme Court allowed law schools to consider race as an admissions factor, and the University of Wisconsin guaranteed admission to MATC students who meet certain requirements. These disparate events are similar in that they evoke a common, vehement criticism from those who have established themselves in our country: "It's not fair because they didn't earn it!"

As Americans, our capitalist instincts tend to imbue the disillusion that we earn everything the hard way. There are approximately 300 million American citizens and six billion world citizens — half of which, by the way, subsist on less than $2 each day. It follows that each American had a one-in-20 chance of being born in the United States. I would argue that Americans "earn" most of their largess by the time they are born. Capitalist arguments against social welfare imply that the beneficiaries of such programs are not deserving of gratuities because they did not earn them. Perhaps the three billion people on this planet, who get by on $2 a day or less, just aren't working hard enough.

Wealth-sharing between the haves and the have-nots is not tolerated in this country. It is admonished on the grounds of capitalism. Capitalism has become an impervious, one-worded argument against programs like welfare and affirmative action. We are in the midst of a new brand of Joseph McCarthys who denounce advocates of social welfare programs as socialists. Regrettably, capitalism has become the means by which we further repress the opportunities of the poor.

The principles of capitalism have undoubtedly contributed to the increasing disparity between the wealthy and the destitute in America. Apparently, wealth-sharing is only to be abhorred if it occurs between the rich and the poor. Wealth-sharing is a common phenomenon among the wealthy.

For example, Jill Barad resigned as CEO of Mattel in 2000 amid declining sales and profit. Generally, Barad was failing in her duties as CEO to the Mattel shareholders. When Barad resigned, the Mattel board of directors awarded gratuitous compensation, which was not stipulated in Barad's contract. Specifically, Mattel forgave Barad a $4.2 million loan and paid the former CEO $3.3 million to cover the taxes on a previous loan that Mattel had already forgiven. Furthermore, Mattel allowed Barad's stock options to vest automatically and arbitrarily.

Jill Barad's case represents the rule, not the exception. Corporate executives are often protected with contractual clauses that take effect if the executive is terminated or demoted. The business community affectionately refers to these clauses as golden parachutes, golden handshakes and soft-landing provisions. In essence, they are wealth-sharing mechanisms.

The New York Times recently reported that Lee Raymond, former CEO of Exxon, collected an average compensation of $144,573 each day for the last 13 years. Have you ever wondered why executive compensation is so high? Corporate executives and boards of directors establish cozy relationships in which they are influential in determining each other's compensation. These arrangements take quid pro quo to a whole new level.

Evidently, wealth-sharing is all right as long as it is confined to the old-boy network. The wealth-sharing that takes place in the executive suite is within the boundaries of capitalism. However, the principles of capitalism are violated when someone proposes a program that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. To this extent, the ideology of capitalism has become the guardian of the status quo.

The American Dream has a nuanced meaning to those who have already established themselves. To them, capitalism stands not only for the wonderful opportunities that enabled their prosperity, but also for the fact that no one else should enjoy the same opportunities.

Joe Rossmeissl ([email protected]) is a graduate student pursuing his Masters of Accountancy.