Analysis on The price of inequality

The failure of the market stems from lack of institution to protect the property right.

I don't agree with Professor Stiglitz's argument that "unemployment is the worst failure of the market, the greatest source of inefficiency, and a major course of inequality." Just think about the cost and benefit of looking for jobs. People spend time and effort looking for jobs that match them better, and this is the cost them would like to bear for expectation of future well-being. (This is the so called frictional unemployment)  Besides, the technology is ever-changing and thus relative sectoral significance changes as society moves on. Structural unemployment as a result is inevitable because it is the implication of a ever evolving society. So a normal rate of unemployment is not only acceptable but also healthy. A mere focus on elimination of unemployment rate can lead to stagflation. (Short run and long run Philip curve)'

I have doubts on Professor Stiglitz's opinion that protests delivers the message that market once again need to be tamed and tempered. Stiglitz argued that minimum wage law, competition law passed in Progressive Era were good for people because they guided market toward better equilibrium, but I argue the contrast. Now people have a reverence of government policy and whenever there is problem in the market, they call for another law to eliminate the problem and protect their interest. The market fails because it is bound by rules and red tapes rather because it is free and amoral.

Professor Stiglitz said that markets, even when they are stable, often lead to high level of inequality. I have a question here on the definition of "inequality" Does that mean every person should get the same amount of money? Or does it mean that cronyism is eroding the justice system? For me, equality implies equal access to chance and fair process of gaining success, not equal ending. 

A good point Stiglitz made is that part of the reason for big magnitude of inequality in America is the market distortion, with incentive directed not at creating new wealth but at taking it from others. (patent war can be an example)

In the mid-2000s, before the onset of the Great Recession, people in the bottom 80 percent were spending around 110 percent of their income. (This resulted from government's stimulation in housing and a loosen rule of loan. Ricardian equivalence failed because many people are on credit constraint. Tax distortion exists.)

I don't deny that government can ameliorate poverty among a certain group of people, like the old, what I doubt is that government can ameliorate poverty among all groups. (Broken window fallacy)