News Argus

President Barack Obama, according to a headline in The New York Times, is "Upbeat for G.M.'s Future."

That seems a bit, well, wacky. But then, this is the same guy who is "upbeat" about the Middle East peace process, according to AFP. So that puts the remark in perspective, I suppose. After all, as Justice-to-be Sonia Sotomayor now knows, context is everything.

Over at Out of Control, the Reason Foundation's Shikha Dalmia, with some entertaining snippiness followed by good economic analysis of G.M.'s situation: 

"I am confident that the steps I'm announcing will mark the end of the old G.M., and the beginning of a new G.M.," [Obama] said. Great! Then what do, we, the taxpayers, who have just been forced to fork over $50 billion to G.M.—in what is it? loans? stock?—have to worry about? The president is cool with it. And he, after all, has an Ivy League degree, a silver tongue, not to mention a glamorous wife with lovely arms who dotes on him. But even His Awesomeness can't command a drowning man to swim after tying lead weights around his ankles.

The president seems to think that there is nothing that G.M. has that a visit to bankruptcy court won't cure. Amputate its liabilities to bondholders, excise all its promises to unions (no, actually, scratch that one, that didn't quite happen) and, presto, it'll be ready, once again, to kick some foreign ass.

If only!

Read the whole thing, and stay tuned for an upcoming cover package on the GM fiasco in our next print edition.

What's the administration's specific aim in bailing out GM? I'll give you my theory later.

For now, though, some background. First and most broadly, it doesn't make sense for America to try to maintain or enlarge manufacturing as a portion of the economy. Even if the U.S. were to seal its borders and bar any manufactured goods from coming in from abroad -- something I don't recommend -- we'd still be losing manufacturing jobs. That's mainly because of technology.

When we think of manufacturing jobs, we tend to imagine old-time assembly lines populated by millions of blue-collar workers who had well-paying jobs with good benefits. But that picture no longer describes most manufacturing. I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years this factory won't have a single employee on site, except for an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades the robots.

Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they're also becoming far more efficient at it. They've shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don't need as many manufacturing workers as before.

Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in 20 large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002 -- before the asset bubble and subsequent bust -- 22 million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The U.S. wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11 percent of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16 percent of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20 percent decline, and China had a 15 percent drop.

What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity. As productivity rises, employment falls because fewer people are needed. In this, manufacturing is following the same trend as agriculture. A century ago, almost 30 percent of adult Americans worked on a farm. Nowadays, fewer than 5 percent do. That doesn't mean the U.S. failed at agriculture. Quite the opposite. American agriculture is a huge success story. America can generate far larger crops than a century ago with far fewer people. New technologies, more efficient machines, new methods of fertilizing, better systems of crop rotation, and efficiencies of large scale have all made farming much more productive.

Manufacturing is analogous. In America and elsewhere around the world, it's a success. Since 1995, even as manufacturing employment has dropped around the world, global industrial output has risen more than 30 percent.

More after the jump.

--Robert Reich

MORE...

Leader: The Bankruptcy of General Motors

- General Motors filed for bankruptcy this morning, beginning a process that will leave the US government with a 60% stake in the company, and an unprecedented role as a business owner. President Obama is effectively pushing GM into bankruptcy, in the hopes that, after a brief period of nationalization, a smaller, sturdier GM will emerge, capable of competing in the international car market. The US will invest an additional $30 billion in GM, on top of the $20 billion previously committed. 

- Today's news is awash with sentimentality, looking back at this behemoth of American industry in its 101 years of existence. "What's good for General Motors is good for the country" is a saying that entered the lexicon, and is not altogether false.  Employing as many as 1 million people at points, including suppliers and dealers,  GM was the world's biggest company just ten years ago.  GM's demise (or reeducation, if you'd prefer) will be felt deeply around the country.

- A New York Bankruptcy judge cleared the way for Chrysler to exit bankruptcy by selling most of its assets to Italian car maker Fiat.  Chrysler could come out of bankruptcy as early as this week.

Politics

- George Tiller, a high-profile Kansas doctor who performed late-term abortions was shot and killed on his way to church yesterday by an anti-abortion activist.  The assassin is in custody.

- Cuba continues to express interested in closer relations with the United States, and in a trip to Latin America, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is encouraging the thaw. Speaking at the inauguration for the new president of El Salvador, Clinton said:

Greater connections can lead to a better, freer future for the Cuban people. These talks are in the interest of the United States, and they are also in the interest of the Cuban people.

- The Las Vegas Sun reports that Nevada could be at the center of the battle over immigration reform.  Andres is quoted:

Immigration, Ramirez said, is a litmus test for Hispanic voters — if they think a candidate, or party, is hostile on the issue, they will show less interest in the candidate’s or party’s overall platform. This occurred in the 2008 election, analysts say. So the party could “risk alienating Hispanic voters more” by opposing a comprehensive bill, Ramirez said.

- Howard Fineman looks forward to President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt this Thursday.

Economy

- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is in China, and exchange rates are on the top of his agenda for discussion with his counterparts.

- Oil is at $67 per barrel, the highest it's been since November.

International

- An Air France jet bound from Brazil to Paris has disappeared over the Atlantic.  A search is underway off the coast of Brazil, in the hopes of finding the aircraft, which had 228 people aboard.

- The WaPo writes that US military and intelligence officials see a possibility for continued offensives by the Pakistani military in the Swat valley, combined with continued drone strikes near the Pakistani-Afghan border to seriously disrupt al-Qaeda in the region.

New From NDN

- Jake put together a backgrounder on Friday addressing the bankrupt Republican Party and bankruptcy policy. 

- Melissa posted on the President's weekly address, in which he promoted Sonia Sotomayor, his nominee for the Supreme Court.

One More Thing

- President Obama will speak in Egypt on Thursday, and he's already being compared to King Tut.

- On a recent trip to Five Guys burger joint, Obama learned about an intelligence agency he'd never heard of before.  Thanks, Five Guys!

- Last, Jeff Sessions seems to like Sonia Sotomayor, so perhaps there won't be much of a fight over her nomination after all.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Walter Shapiro: "Dodd, who is one of the last of the old-style Ted Kennedy liberals in the Senate, still has the potential to eke out another term. Connecticut is such a Democratic state that its last orthodox Republican senator was (it is worth waiting for) Prescott Bush, the father of one president and the grandfather of another. (To be technical, erratic liberal Lowell Weicker was also a GOP senator, but certainly not an orthodox one.) Attorney General Richard Blumenthal -- the one powerhouse Democratic statewide official who could theoretically challenge Dodd in a primary -- is apparently prepared to wait and hope that Joe Lieberman (remember him?) does not run for re-election in 2012."

What's the administration's specific aim in bailing out GM? I'll give you my theory later.

For now, though, some background. First and most broadly, it doesn't make sense for America to try to maintain or enlarge manufacturing as a portion of the economy. Even if the U.S. were to seal its borders and bar any manufactured goods from coming in from abroad -- something I don't recommend -- we'd still be losing manufacturing jobs. That's mainly because of technology.

When we think of manufacturing jobs, we tend to imagine old-time assembly lines populated by millions of blue-collar workers who had well-paying jobs with good benefits. But that picture no longer describes most manufacturing. I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years this factory won't have a single employee on site, except for an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades the robots.

Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they're also becoming far more efficient at it. They've shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don't need as many manufacturing workers as before.

Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in 20 large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002 -- before the asset bubble and subsequent bust -- 22 million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The U.S. wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11 percent of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16 percent of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20 percent decline, and China had a 15 percent drop.

What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity. As productivity rises, employment falls because fewer people are needed. In this, manufacturing is following the same trend as agriculture. A century ago, almost 30 percent of adult Americans worked on a farm. Nowadays, fewer than 5 percent do. That doesn't mean the U.S. failed at agriculture. Quite the opposite. American agriculture is a huge success story. America can generate far larger crops than a century ago with far fewer people. New technologies, more efficient machines, new methods of fertilizing, better systems of crop rotation, and efficiencies of large scale have all made farming much more productive.

Manufacturing is analogous. In America and elsewhere around the world, it's a success. Since 1995, even as manufacturing employment has dropped around the world, global industrial output has risen more than 30 percent.

More after the jump.

--Robert Reich

MORE...