LyrArc Article Gist
June unemployment numbers will jump say experts at IHS Insight as GM and Chrysler downsize even more to become smaller companies with even less market share. This will reflect closing Pontiac and sale or closing of the other GM brands Saturn, Saab, and Hummer. It will reflect closing of more dealerships of GM and Chrysler. THis might be offset by a pickup in sales if something like the European trading clunkers for new cars program takes off in the USA. But with the US customers more in debt and with rising job losses, the pattern may be different in the US. It may only offer a small boost in sales. Manufacturing still matters in a recovery. In 1980 manufacturing was 20% of America's output, now it is 11.5% says Mark Zandl of Moody's Economy.com. Manufacturing, he says, has a bigger impact than its size suggests, because it responds quickly. As sales resume workers are called back to their jobs. The sharp V shaped recoveries in the early 80's reflected the rapid response of manufacturing. After the 1980's both the declines and the recoveries were shallow in 1990-1991 and 2001. Now with GM and Chrysler shrinking further under the government plan to fix these companies, and taking the supplier impact, the rebound leg of the V is missing. The kick from the Big Three and their suppliers is missing, says Nigel Gault of IHS Insight. Of the 5.7 million jobs lost from Jan 2008 to June 2009, 1.6 million were in manufacturing and 289,000 were in motor vehicles, split almost evenly between assemblers and supplier networks....

LyrArc Article Gist
According to data from the American Mortgage Banker's Associationone in seven households are behind on their payments on mortgages or in foreclosure. This data shows that 14.4% of first lien mortgages on one to four family homes in the third quarter were 30 days or more overdue or in foreclosure process. This results in about 7.5 millin households at risk of losing homes. This percentage was 10% in 2008 and 7.3% in 2007.

LyrArc Article Gist
The resistance to serious government assistance to make a large impact on foreclosures stems from arguments like these. They only tell one side of the story, as the mortgage industry and politicians pushed high cost loans on minorities like Hispanics and Black people who did not understand the risks, and dispensed with even the basic requirements for ability to pay on a sustained basis. Instead pushing them into higher amount loans which raised the chances of aquick default on the loan. See the link to this, a detailed article on Hispanics experience in the WSJ, with a graph that shows that more subprime loans were made to minorities than whites in 2004 and 2005, and especially to Hispanics. The other thing about this is that its a very shortsighted approach and one that will end up costing more money. Its also ending up having effects on the global economy which comes back to affect US exports, and make this a severe prolonged downturn that could last anywhere upto ten years if its not tackled in its most serious dimensions, with this one being crucial. Its crucial because the bank bailouts which are approaching a trillion dollars as the bill mounts after each passing month, and the lack of lending thats crimping businesses and leading to huge job losses of 500,000 a month are directly a result of the inability to fix this problem. Its like trying to find out who started the fire when irresponsible borrowers, speculators, the mortgage industry, the credit rating agencies who signed off on irresponsible securtization, the regulators who fell asleep on the job, and central bankers and treasury secretaries who lauded the innovation and the depth and sophistication of the US financial system ignoring the risks of too much liquidity in markets, all lit the matches that got the fire going. The longer the fire burns and bigger it gets, the harder it becomes to put it out the and more fire fighting resources it will take....

LyrArc Article Gist
The language and tone of the leaders says something about what is likely to be the outcome of the G20 summit. Its a first for significant participation, as countries as diverse as Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the Netherlands are represented. The credible positions of both sides, the US, UK and Japan, and the European side of France, Germany and the Czech Republic, well presented, provide for some serious discussion and negotiations. France's Sarkozy and Germany's Merkel want to see a global regulator that would reach inside the borders of the US with stricter regulation. Sarkozy calls this "nonnegotiable." And he said that he would reject an agreement that puts off stringent new regulations on banks, tax havens, and hedge funds. He said "the compromise has to come from all countries around the world." US President Obama said that if there is going to be renewed growth it can't just be the US as the engine, everybody is going to have to pick up the pace," at the same time saying that the US had to be concerned about its own deficits. The fact is that the US stimulus will mostly help a severely impacted domestic economy recover with social safey net payments to local and state governments and unemployment insurance, as well as targeted investments in infrastructure, education, energy and health care. It will not mean anywhere near the kinds of imports the US made from other countries, especially China. And Obama made that clear when he said the US will never return to that situation, where the US had become a "voracious consumer market." For the Germans the major market for their middle companies is China, and China has its own stimulus spending on infrastructure spending, which should provide for continued imports of machinery from Germany at a much lower level. Thus Germany and France see a strong tendency to call the source of the crisis and repeat that call till the US listens, and refer to the failure of free market capitalism in its unregulated form. And to insist on fixing it through a global regulator with strict and systemwide rules. So you hear this in Merkel's words, "the foundation for this finacial architecture must be laid now, that is why we seem to be so tough." While the vivacious Sarkozy talks of compromise, and a US gesture in regulation in return for Franc's gesture of joining NATO, the mild mannered Merkel is clear and focussed about her concern. She rejects the idea of linking stimulus spending demands of the Anglo-Americans with the Franco-German demands for global systemwide regulation. "This is not a bargaining chip," she says. The media may mistakenly report lack of consensus as a failure of the summit. But in the long run in the presence of good positions on both sides, it could lead to some tough negotiations even if continued at another meeting. And result in something serious, credible and lasting in its impact, rather than something that was easy and did not in Andy Grove's useful words involve "constructive confrontation." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about how Mr Geithner has handled his job at the New York Fed and at Treasury during the bailouts of financial firms. Were there close relationships with bankers, hedge fund managers, and others that compromised the Fed's ability to regulate the financial industry? Why was Geithner advocating loosening standards for the reserves financial institutions have to hold to insure against potential future losses, as late as 2007? Inherent in the design of the job of New York Fed President was a conflict of interest, as the institution is supposed to be a watchdog over the financial industry, but the President of the NY Fed reports to a board that is comprised of the heads of banks and financial instituitons. These financial leaders also participate in the selection of the new President. Geithner was a quick learner and a listener, who asked questions, but he was an outsider coming from work at AID, the IMF and Treasury. He is described by one bank executive Sanford Weill as "a baby face," and lacked experience in dealing with the financial industry. He was brought in by Rubin and Summers, two mentors at Treasury. These two had close ties to the financial industry, and did not question practices of overleveraging and risk taking in the financial industry. Was it too much to ask of Geithner, under the circumstances, that he would rock the boat and ask the tough questions about risk and leveraging. On the other hand did he miss things completely when he was asking for even looser capital standards for banks in 2007, less than a year before the crisis hit, which were never adopted. And was he too close to the financial industry and aggressive in the wrong sort of way when advocating in a meeting as President of the New York Fed, that the government back up all the debt in the financial system. Did he too casually overlook the conditions that could easily be put in place for the government to be able to recover some of the money put into the bailouts. And was he too close to Goldman Sachs, that he brought Goldman in for advice in the AIG bailout, even though there were conflicts of interest and money that would never be recovered from the $182 billion bailout of AIG, some of which went to banks including Goldman. If Geithner had seen some of the problems in risk taking why had he not supported FDIC's Bair in her opposing view for capital reserves, and government conditions on bailouts that enabled some recovery of capital put into failing financial institutions. And did he get too close to Citi, that at one point Sanford Weill tried to bring him in as CEO even when he was already President of the New York Fed. Does it go to show that -the very idea that this was even possible- the design of the New York Fed with the President reporting to the Board of the very same bank presidents that he was supposed keep in check, makes for an incomprehensible position of regulation at odds with the structure of reporting and selection....

LyrArc Article Gist
AIG's bad bets on housing were made right under the supervision of a "college' of global bureaucrats and regulators in the Office of Thrift Supervision, according to its acting director Polakoff, says the WSJ editorial.

LyrArc Article Gist
The House bill just passed will only help 500,000 homeowners avoid foreclosure, when foreclosures this year are expected to be more than 2.4 million and much higher next year, as its estimated that 9 million homeowners have negative equity in their homes already. It doesn't do enough to prevent a downward spiral in house prices that will be difficult to control once it picks up speed. So while Congress is only doing too little, Bush administration is doing nothing. Here a NYT editorial points to Mr Bush's worthy efforts as having negligible impact. Hope Now after 5 months has barely dented the problem, Project Lifeline hasn't produced results, and FHA Secure has helped fewer than 2000 homeowners facing foreclosure. This is a shame because Mr Bush has praised FHA Secure. Doubts expressed that Mr Bush is sincere about his intentions or efforts, that the Republican's free market biases may be behind this, that bold action would not let the market offer a necessary correction in their view. Also possible is that like the Council of Economic Advisors chairman Lazear, Bush feels optimistic that the economic situation is not as bad as its made out to be and will respond to the stimulus package of government checks....

LyrArc Article Gist
Following the fifth North Korean nuclear test DW.com talks with Rudiger Frank about the test and what this means. Frank says the negotiations with North Korea and efforts to limit the program so far have been a colossal failure. Tests have continued and without a change in strategy more tests will be followed by the usual condemnations by world leaders and further sanctions. Frank says this change in strategy would include recognizing North Korea as a nuclear state, and getting North Korea to ensure the weapons are safe and secure in the country, getting a clear idea of what and where the weapons are. The International Atomic Agency would be asked to go in and make inspections. The next step would be to freeze the program at some level agreed to. This is a tough step to take but it only recognizes the reality of the situation, and continued development by North Korea of nuclear weapons if no steps for change are taken. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Underreporting of coronavirus cases in China poses risks for other nations in not giving them a sense of the magnitude and severity of coronavirus. This leads to a false sense of security- in Japan, Sweden and other countries, much delayed action and a sense of exceptionalism that we can ride this thing through like an ordinary virus, In the U.S. and Italy, Spain, UK and Germany, loss of crucial weeks before taking action. Looking to the future this poses new risks as it still leaves people without a sense of how long to continue lockdowns.  The pandemic poses huge risks for Asia and Latin America because of poverty, crowded conditions and sanitation levels. The early action by prime minister Modi was a huge step in the right direction before coronavirus spread could damage the economy and people- as Mr. Modi said if not done right such as with a 21 day lockdown this could set India back by 21 years. It had value in that it alerted other countries such as Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan to take strong action early. As the WSJ says here in this essay by what is important for China and all other countries reporting on coronavirus is that this reporting is vital only because it can save many other countries from making costly mistakes. Which is why the direct doctor to doctor contact between Chinese doctors and American doctors is an encouraging right step, says WSJ.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Wagoner became President at age 45, CEO at age 48. So you would think that young blood is coming in to GM, but that does not appear to be the case. At the Board level most of the Board members like George Fisher formerly of Motorola, have been around for a long time, and there does not appear to be new blood that would bring in fresh thinking. And serious decisions about investment in developing new technologies to develop fuel efficient cars, like hybrid technologies, electric and other alternative technologies, diesel technology, have been held up for years at General Motors. The way decisions are made on such issues with Board members voicing their opinions more than wrestling seriously with the issues, shows serious shortcomings of management and the Board. At key points of decision making the CEO and key members of his team had not prepared carefully, and Board members did not come up with serious thinking on the problems facing GM. It, appears that the investment in technologies to develop fuel efficient cars much earlier, long before they were finally being addressed in 2006, was a failure of Wagoner's management and of the Board. Management discussed this but continued to be mired in old ways of thinking that continuing with the status quo- cars with existing low fuel efficiency- would not expose GM to illwinds as preferences changed. Its clear from the description here of discussions within GM that the old thinking is quite entrenched at GM, and Wagoner just was not the kind of person who could vigorously articulate a new vision for GM. A couple of things are noteworthy in this account of management indecision at GM. When fuel prices began hurting sales of SUV's and large vehicles in 2005, efforts to get a decision on investments in new technologies for fuel efficiency for the whole product lineup failed at the Board level in an April 2005 meeting. One Board member saying at that meeting, that" do we want to lose another billion dollars in developing new technology for fuel efficient cars." And no one calling him to account that the remark still did not address the point that GM had to respond to the changing market and world oil dynamics, and not just hope for the best, as GM had aggressive competitors, and faced continually diminishing role in the market place for the entire decade of the 1990's. While April 2005 was already at the tail end of the previous era of gas guzzling cars and a decision then would still not have shown a forward looking vision of things, it was not until 10 months later that a decision was reached. And this almost from necessity, as oil prices jumped in 2006 after hurricane Katrina, and by this time President Bush was also calling for higher mandated fuel efficiency standards. The other noteworthy point here is that by making the changes so late in the game, GM had to compress the development cycle for new and some cases unknown technologies into short time frames. If the ingenuity of its engineers comes to its rescue it still faces another hurdle that of cost, because the technologies have to be perfected and improved, so that the costs are low enough for customers, and importantly comparable with what it is costing competitors to make the same fuel efficient technology engine or other part. Which is why one Honda executive remarked, "GM like everyone else is serious about this, because they have to be, but how many of their hybrids and how many Volts will they sell? Their technology is very expensive." Even if GM develops the Volt electric car by 2010, GM will need a whole range of fuel efficient technolgies to power its large product lineup. Its just to hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to prove costly. All the dragging of feet and indecision, and failure to prepare GM for a different world in case something drastically different from what was expected happened, will prove very costly especially considering how aggressive and well financed some of the Japanese and German competitors are. It also hard to avoid the conclusion that there is too much bureaucracy at the large auto companies, and getting new blood and new ideas and fresh thinking is tough in a place where everybody agrees with everybody else, and there is uniformity of thinking. This makes it difficult for any original or wayward types to thrive. These bureaucracies look up to the top for direction. Initiative is discouraged on one hand, and at the same time even if a new direction is taken at the top. a lot of resistance can be expected to implementing it throughout the company without persistent persuasion and reminder of new facts and realities. This is true for both Wagoner and Mullaly as they face the skepticism of subordinates to new direction. Mullaly for instance has to remind his managers that large vehicles are only a small percentage of the entire global market, and if Toyota is making money in small cars so can Ford. See the link to this. Is Toyota immune from bureaucracy type behaviour throughout the company? Not really, Toyota's chairman emeritus came out of retirement in fact and went out of the way to caution its CEO and management about their complacency a year or so before. Shoichiro Toyoda personally intervened to caution against too much expansion in the US and climbing wage costs, and other risks they perceived such as the company managers in the USA appearing to be resting on their laurels. See the link to this. A lot of discussion is probably going on within these companies about the present state of affairs, and considerable anxiety for what the future will bring. It may be useful to ask the question is there something that makes it difficult for once successful organizations -now with entrenched bureaucracy and set ways -to put forward leaders with vision and foresight, till it becomes very late? The vision and foresight about where their markets and the world is heading, and the ability to move their organizations in that direction. Or to break out of old patterns of behaviour and thinking....

LyrArc Article Gist
Alan Mulally focussed attention on Ford brands such as the Taurus, and the Fusion, to improve quality and fuel efficiency. To do this he sold brands acquired earlier- Land Rover to Tata Motors and Volvo to Geely. Under his management Ford pushed ahead with globalized product development and building a presence in the small car market. Ford still has weakness in the European and Asian markets. In Europe a large number of manufacturers are competing for a slow growing market and price competition has cut into profits. In Asia, Ford was slow to enter the Chinese market. As a result its sales in China lag far behind VW and GM, with only 2.7% market share. Mullaly is investing $1.5 billion on new factories in China, including two assembly plants and an engine plant. One of the plants in the southern city of Chongquing will produce an SUV and a luxury car. Mulally wants to see 70% of Ford's growth in this decade from Asia. The other problem facing Mulally is reviving the Lincoln brand which has seen a sales decline of 63% since 1990. Ford has hired a designer who worked on the Cadillac to redo the Lincoln's design. Mulally plans to cut the 900 Lincoln dealers to 600, to reduce the price competition for smaller sales volume. He is asking the remaining dealers to invest $2 million for new showrooms that will compete with Lexus in their look and feel. Asessing what has been achieved at Ford so far one sees the progress in pushing up quality. Ford now ranks above Toyota in J.D. Power quality surveys with its cars getting higher resale prices than some Toyota models. Ford cars are also being well received by new car buyers with market share up for the second consecutive year. This would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Also significant is how Ford under Mulally's direction managed to make good use of the $23 billion loan secured in 2006, avoiding bankruptcy and turning the corner to profitable operations. Ford earned $6.6 billion in 2010, after losing $30 billion from 2006 to 2008. Ford's challenges going forward are how to sustain profitable growth, manage $19.1 billion in debt and a junk-bond credit rating, and maintain the momentum without reverting to a dependence solely on SUV's and larger vehicles for profits. Chairman Bill Ford is forthright about Ford's history of wasting opportunities during the good times- of "losing the plot in the good times." Mulally makes the same assessment at a November town hall meeting of 200 employees - Ford is good at crisis managment he says but then "forgets why we're here." For Mulally a bit of inspiration from Heny Ford himself counts, this being a poster from 1925 that hangs on the office walls, a Saturday Evening Post cover with the slogan: "Opening the highways to all mankind." Mullaly says looking at this makes him cry....

LyrArc Article Gist
Fuel efficiency rules require average fuel efficiency in the U.S. of 35 mpg by 2016. The debate is now on what to do for 2017 to 2025. New technology such as the P2 systems for hybrids already used in VW, Nissan and Hyundai vehicles makes a 20% increase in fuel efficiency possible. Large investments are being made to bring new technology to bear on increasing fuel efficiency significantly. Government agencies are looking at different scenarios by which the new fuel economy standards beyond 2017-2025 could be set between 47 mpg and 62 mpg. An additional factor is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions- at 47 mpg the reduction would be 3%, at 62 mpg the reduction would be 6%. Another factor is how much the impact is on the cost of vehicles and reduced cost on gasoline. Here there is a wide range in the numbers for average mpg rules at 62 mpg- with EPA estimates at $2800-$3500 increase in vehicle cost and $5000 savings in fuel cost, Centre for Automotive Research estimates at $9790 increase in vehicle cost. The 62 mpg translates into "real world" actual efficiency of 45 mpg. In April 2011, 17 senators put out a letter of support for the 62 mpg proposal. There is a public value involved in this that is also significant- the reduced dependence on foreign oil means savings in defense expenditures in parts of the Middle East, and an economy that is less impacted by volatility in the price of oil. As this aspect of public value or benefits cannot be quantified easily even though they are significant, this may tend to be lost in the debate and the politics of fuel efficiency. For automakers there is significant marketing value in having a visible and strong presence in fuel efficient vehicles because of perception as forward looking- something that hurt Detroit carmakers in the last decade. During periods of gasoline prices at $5 a gallon this provides carmakers with an extra cushion of safety in securing car sales. Carmakers in one country such as the U.S. also have to worry about what carmakers in other countries such as Japan and Germany are doing- if the standards in the U.S. develop a gap compared to other countries developing advanced fuel efficiency technologies this poses significant risks because of the global nature of the automobile marketplace. See the group "Asleep at the Spigot" for more details on this. Many of these less quantifiable factors do not get the attention they deserve because they are significant from experience but not easily quantified. Throw into this the large unknown of what new technologies not yet developed lie ahead with a burst of effort by one country or another, which bring cost reductions at the same time - and the debate requires as much a good sense of what is the path offering the greatest advantages in years ahead than a pure exercize in numbers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Zhou Xiaochuan, is head of the People's Bank of China since 2002. For a long time Zhou has tried to convince party leaders in China to make financial sector changes. The new leadership of Jinping-Li Keqiang has now adopted most of the road map and priorities drawn up by Xiaochuan. The first is bank deposit insurance, which would especially protect small depositors and provide a basis for new private banks to compete with large state owned banks, creating competition in the financial sector. By supporting creation of privately owned banks impetus could be given to loans to the private sector to rebalance the economy away from state owned banks and state owned enterprises. This is a key goal in the road map drawn up by the think tank Development Research Center (DRC) which has the backing of premier Li Keqiang. Competition from new private banks would let banks compete to offer higher rates to depositors, another goal. In a September article for the Communist Party Seeking Truth magazine, Zhou pointed out the pressing need for " supporting private capital to set up private banks and guide them to position themselves in serving small and micro companies." These new companies especially in tech and information technology fields can be the new drivers for growth in the future as the burst of infrastructure building generated growth slows down. The one area Zhou faces resistance is his idea of opening up China to foreign capital inflows and outflows. Here critics,including younger economists, say this protected China in the Asian financial markets crisis of 1997, and would protect China in the event it faces outflows of the type that are happening in India in 2013 after the U.S. Fed's plan to withdraw from its quantitative easing. Xiaochuan sees the flow of foreign capital as another way for capital to flow to new private companies and balance away from the state owned enterprises, and for China's savers to be able to obtain more attractive returns. Zhou says his plan would include the option for China to reintroduce capial controls in a crisis. As China's debt to GDP ratio is set on a trajectory to approach the levels reached in Japan before its banking crisis there is greater awareness from party leaders about the need for prudence. Xiaochuan has worked with party leader Jinping's key economic advisor Liu He for years, and has the support of He and Jinping for introducing deposit insurance as a top priority. President Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang see the need for Xiaochuan's experience and foresight "as a talent who can be counted on," as the sense of importance of changing the economic structure has deepened in 2013. Mandatory retirement for Xiaochuan at 65 was set aside to give him a third five year term, and his road map long ignored by former premier Wen Biao, is now at the top of China's agenda. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Daniel Howes of the Detroit News thinks there are cultural clashes inherent in a threeway Fiat-Opel-Chrysler combination. His view is that Fiat may be biting into more than it can handle, considering the failure of the GM-Fiat alliance, and the Daimler- Chrysler combination. And the Germans at Opel are not happy with the way they see GM has treated them, so how would it help for Fiat to come into the picture? The Germans love the Italians, says one German Howe talked to, but don't respect them. And the Italians he says, respect the Germans but don't love them. Howe refers to the Renault-Nissan combination as successful, but one that took years to build to deliver commonly engineered cars. But the car industry has been poorly run, without vision and with complacent management, unwilling to try new things and recreate and renew. In other industries efforts are made to build transnational combinations with differing degrees of success. Take the work of the French, Germans and the Spanish in Airbus, in overcoming different cultural factors and pulling together to learn from each other, when given good leaders, on the Airbus 380 project. See the link to this. On Fiat's Marchionne's behalf it could be said that this is a new Fiat, run by a younger generation of Italians, who have a lot of youthful energies and freedom to innovate and improvise. Marchionne himself is more Canadian and European, places where he has spent most of his life, than Italian. And he has take a decidedly different view of things from what the old view holds as being Italian, in building the new Fiat he has done things very differently. In fact there may be less of a country view here, than a management culture view. All nationalities aspire to a good management culture of innovation, and freedom to improvise and respect for one's ideas and thinking, good places to work in. People of all nationalities, Italian, German and American, for the first time, especially the younger people, may see that the one thing they value most and share is the desire to start fresh and take initiative, improvise and work together to do the impossible. The common enemy of Germans, Italians, Americans,French, and other nationalities, may be simply the artheroschelorisis of complacent management, that freezes initiative, does not delegate more responsibility to the young and give the freedom to try new things, bureacratizes the corporation into rigid hierarchies that lack speed, and take no risks to achieve the impossible. See the link to Marchionne and Fiat's transformation. Which is why old prejudices like the one Howe states from one German he talks to, that the Italians "will steal the milk out of the coffee," may be just that - prejudice from another period, that is best left behind to build something new that has no nationality to it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reporter Monica Langley provides a glimpse behind the scenes of how Donald Trump comes up with his attacks on rivals, and statements on immigration, terrorism, refugees. Trump pays close attention to what is riling voters on any particular week, but other rival politicians are not willing to say. He looks for what resonates with the public, and in today's environment where politicians are cautious, careful and plodding, this strategy works. Donald usually puts down a few points on his private plane, looks at reports from campaign staff, yet makes all the decisions himself on what and how to say it. His memory helps, he says. And he has a flair for words, sounding uncouth at times, but yet choosing words carefully enough to sound reasoanble to his audience. In Jan 2016 this approach has worked for Trump in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, stalling progress by rival Ted Cruz, and holding back other rivals. Yet this approach has its risks as the primary season progresses. One of the changes in the Republican party politics in 2016 is the emergence of two candidates Donald Trump representing the white working class, and Ted Cruz representing evangelicals, who are both strident and willing to take strong positions on issues in striking contrast to leading Democrats. Trump on China, immigration, refugees, and Cruz on taxes, cultural issues for evangelicals, IRS, Affordable Health Care Act, and both candidates on terrorism. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Finley describes the alienated white working class voters, at a Trump rally in Orlando, Florida, at the University of Central Florida CFE Arena, March 8, 2016. It includes a laidoff Disney employee who says she was told to train foreign workers on H1-B visas who would take her job, a money manager who bellieves it is time to be tough on immigrants, including ban on Muslims entering the country. She describes them as agitated and angry at what they see as the decline into mediocrity of the country.