Hacker and Pierson on Economic InequalityVarious scholarly examinations have attempted to explain the widening of the inequality gap over the last generation, and one such study resulted in the book, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – And Turned its Back on the Middle Class (2010), by political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. Please read this book, consult the resources posted on our course site for context, answer ONE of the questions listed below, and reply to at least one classmate. Together we should be able to get a better handle on the topic of economic inequality. Be sure to completely answer the question you choose and provide citations when you paraphrase or quote Hacker and Pierson. You may also wish to supplement this source with other course materials (optional). Have fun!Questions (choose ONE):What is Hacker and Pierson’s argument, and how does it differ from the dominant explanation for economic inequality trends in the United States?According to Chapter 2, how was the winner-take-all economy made?What is the history of “drift” and “mastery” in democratic capitalism during the first half of the twentieth century?Why do the authors argue that the real shift in recent U.S. political history occurred in 1978, not 1968?How did powerful corporations advance their agenda against workers during the Carter and Reagan years?What happened to the influence of mass membership organizations that once brought ordinary voters into politics?How did the Republican and Democratic parties recast themselves during the 1980s and set the stage for the unleashing of the winner-take-all economy?After 1990, how did Republicans contribute to the new winner-take-all economic and political order, and how did Republican Phil Gramm typify winner-take-all politics?Over the course of the 1990s, why did Democrats first accommodate and eventually embrace the winner-take-all economy, and how does Democrat Charles Schumer typify winner-take-all politics?Hacker and Pierson write that in 2008, President Obama “raised huge amounts from wealthy donors and relied on ‘bundlers’ who could assemble networks of big-money contributors” (304), but in Chapter 10, the authors cast him as a committed reformer stymied by an obstructionist Congress engaged in winner-take-all politics. Are the authors having it both ways or not? In other words, is it possible for a true reformer to make it to the top of either major political party today given the necessity of big-money backing?Do the authors offer viable suggestions for moving from drift to renewal and reversing the winner-take-all economy and politics?