In "The Price of Inequality," by Joseph Stiglitz, the economist and professor argues that a large economy like the US cannot recover from recession through austerity. But the spike of inequality is holding the US back. He compared the situation with the Arab Spring for better understanding of the policies as believes. He does an excellent job by explaining how politics and economics are connected in a triangular manner. He explains that inequality is a cause and a consequence of a failed political system; this contributes to the instability of the economic system and consequently leads to income inequality. Income inequality is higher than it has ever been in the history of US. Furthermore, inequality comes in various dimensions in terms of income, wealth, health, and risk and exposure to environmental hazards. The gap between 1 percent and 99 percent is widening as well as intergenerational mobility becoming almost impossible .The standard of living of the top 1 percent continuous to rise while that of the bottom 99 percent falls. Furthermore in the US the opportunities for upward mobility are fewer compared to other countries which make the situation even worse. Stiglitz argues that the main reason why the income inequality exists is because the top 1 percent has had the power to design the economic, tax system, political and education systems to benefit themselves to the expense of everyone else. He argues that the top 1 percent has failed to realize that their welfare is completely tied to the welfare of the whole society. Lack of information is another factor that Stiglitz argues to contribute to inequality. With the economic theory that everyone has perfect access to information so as to make decisions and act on their decisions. However this is not the case in the US instead it’s an overstatement and a fairy tale. He argues that this is because if this was the case then the current system would not exist if access of true and real information was available to the public. The fact that media is mostly owned and controlled by the top 1 percent and corporations that make policies to benefit them, the system is even worst. His example of cigarettes companies that have interest with making money despite knowing the extent to which cigarettes are harmful, they lied to the public and this is because the companies are owned by big corporations with interests in making profits in the expense of others. Additionally, the housing bubble where many homeowners lost their jobs because they had been misled by the banks and later own they owed junks of money to the banks. If they had accessed the real information about the bubble, then this disaster would not have happened. It is clear that manipulation is the key to success in such selfish corporations. The citizens need to access information that is not inextricably influenced by the opinion of those with power. Rent seeking is practiced by many in the US and this has contributed to income inequality. According to Stiglitz rent seeking is practiced by financial sector appropriating income from the general public to themselves. The national policies are manipulated by the financial sectors so much that the citizens cannot tell if they are trapped in rent seeking also because of lack of access of information. Financial sectors have deregulated the policies which have led to harmful effects to the economy. The rent seekers buy influence which could be in the form of corruption or/ and lobbying. Strong monopolies, inequity, liquidation laws and taxation way out that favor the rich, are the factors that make rent seeking succeed. If the economic development is measure using rent seeking and the rents, then America is deeply in wrath. Rent seeking distorts the efficiency of the markets. He talked about the fact that predatory lending policies and mishandling of credit-cards are also forms of rent seeking. Consumption is a big problem in the US that has led to negative impacts mostly to the low income Americans. His argument is based on the economics of demand and supply. Stiglitz argued that the aggregate demand which led to most of the workers being laid off. He supports his argument by connecting