$1.9 trillion in defense spending, and wars. so he's right. they did build it. they built the deficit. that's what is on paul ryan. all right we're out of time. "viewpoint" with eliot spitzer is excellent and it's next. heel. >> eliot: good evening, i'm eliot spitzer and this is jew. this may be the republican's last chance to redefine itself. but first, tod akin despite pleas from every corner of republican leadership refused to go away. and secondly they have been taken over the far right refusing to permit exceptions for abortion even in

cases of rape or insist. this morning representative akin released a video apologizing for what he said was a poor choice of words when he referred to legitimate rape and said women could prevent pregnancy. he said shutting down the whole thing. >> rape is an evil act. i used the wrong words and the wrong way and for that i apologize. the mistake i made was in the words i said. not in the heart i hold. i ask for your forgiveness. >> eliot: a speculation continues to swirl about akin's intention. he returns to mike huckabee's radio show to dispel any doubt. >> i want to make things absolutely clear, and that is we're going to continue with this race for the u.s. senate. i misspoke one word in one sentence in one day and all of a sudden overnight everybody decides, well, akin can't possibly win. well, i don't agree with that. the americans that i know, the people that i know in missouri,

when you make a mistake nobody expect us to get every word perfectly. >> eliot: once again leading from behind mitt romney, waiting until late in the day after akin's intentions were clear to put out a statement saying, i quote, today his fellow missourians urged him to step aside, and i think he should accept their counsel and leave the senate race. akin unable to get a republican platform committee that agrees with tod akin's views, not romneys. >> as far as our platform is concerned, this is the platform of the republican party. this is not the platform of mitt romney. >> eliot: it's fair to say that the republican party is in a state of kayous. joining me now is lynn woolsey democratic congresswoman from california. thank you for joining us. it's a pleasure to have you on the show. >> i'm glad to be here, eliot. >> eliot: i know you're in the other camp you're obviously not a republican but looking into

their world right now, as someone who has been at conventions, and seen a party get ready for a presidential race, does it seem that they're completely in chaos and without leadership at this point? >> they certainly are when their presidential nominee is condemning akin, and their platform committee is putting exactly what akin was saying in the rights of women and abortion they're going in two different directions. but you know what, they're doing exactly what the republicans do. they have a war on women. and since the republicans have been in charge of the congress for the last--since just since january 2010, they rolled back the violence against women act protection for domestic violence

against women. they have blocked paycheck fairness act. they denied breast and cervical cancer screening. they've let insurers claim that being a woman is a pre-existing condition, and they've splashed the funding for pregnant women and their children. this party does not care about women. >> eliot: you know, tod akin is trying to say that he merely misspoke a word, forgive him. i think we all believe in forgiveness. people make slips of the tongue all the time. but i think what you're saying right now congresswoman, is exactly right. this was not a slip of the tongue. this was a statement that actually represented what the republican party has said, felt, and done with respect to women's rights. that's why it resonated. this was an actual statement of belief from a big piece of the republican party as manifested by think platform committee. they can't runaway from this. i don't see how they think they can. >> well, i don't think they can. and i think the furor and the

fury of mitt romney is how dare this man say out loud what we believe and think and by example we are supporting. >> eliot: you have live in the house of representatives with john boehner as the speaker when time and time again to protect women has been roughshod over. every day we see women's rights not being protected. does this spell the end--make it impossible for mitt romney to succeed come november? >> i would hope so. what i would say is wake up, american voters. these could be your leaders. they are going to walk all over your rights, and what you believe in for their ideological beliefs. this is the united states of america, eliot.

this is the 21st century. why are we going backwards we need to address cervical cancer, breast cancer. we don't need to take the funding away from it because it's only women who have cervixes and breasts. what are they doing? people need to know that this is happening. thank you for bringing it up. >> eliot: well, we're trying to get the facts out. last i heard there was speaker boehner was going to repeal science. he said science is no longer something we want to believe in. we want to find a different way to determine what we believe in. the race in missouri, when you look at the other end of the capital from you control of the senate may hinge on the outcome of the senate race in missouri. with tod akin this as the republican nominee i guess claire mccaskill feels a whole

lot better that she'll be able to hold on to her seat. >> she should feel good about it any way because she does the right thing. she's a caring, thoughtful senator, and she is arunning up against somebody that is pretty ignorant, and obviously sexist. i hope that the missouri voters understand this. >> eliot: we'll certainly have to wait and see first, if tod akin continues to stay in the race. there are many other opportunities for him to withdraw his name from nomination. but should this be a mccaskill mccaskill-akin race, we would hate to see someone like tod akin and his views in the united states senate. and claire mccaskill with a lot of hard votes in support of the president's agenda. let's hope she survives. >> actually this incident underscores exactly what is at

stake in this election. >> eliot: congresswoman woolsey as always, thank you for joining us. for the man who will not go away i'm overred by jeffrey smith, former missouri state senator and professor of politics in the new school thank thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> eliot: now you know tod akin. >> i never served with him but i do know him. >> eliot: tell us about him. what do we make of this guy? >> he's a born again christian. and thinks christianity and very strong beliefs shape his world-view and his political ideology as well. >> eliot: you wrote an article posted before he made the former decision not to get out and the headline was 11 reasons why akin wouldn't quit and then you revised it and said didn't quit. number 11, i don't mean to make light of anyone's religious beliefs, but you say here, god

told him to run and it may take god to go out. does he really believe that's relevant to him. >> he's a true believer. when he was in the missouri house of representatives and subsequently in the u.s. house of representatives he had a few pet issues that he's focused on, strong anti-abortion activist. very much opposed to any kind of gaming and gambling and very supportive of homeschooling. three big conservative issues. he has not been active on fiscal issues. and he has a big earmark himself which is why the tea party shied away from him in this primary. >> eliot: his social agenda will frankly cause mitt romney a fair bit of harm, as mitt romney has been viewed as the etch can sketch, and eastand he tried to presenthimself

as more moderate. >> you ask if he's that much of a true believer. he didn't have support when he ran for house. he snuck in as this far right candidate on a very rainy day when his passionate zealots supported him came out and the established did not. he won the u.s. primary in a similar way. he has never shown that he could get the majority of the republican primary electorate because he has been involved in a five-way and then a three-way primary. >> eliot: what you're saying is critically important. in terms of his own perspective on politics, he's neither beholden to republican leadership or even going further than that, he's disdainful of them. >> that would not be inaccurate because he has never received their support in a primary. and then he had very tenuous

relationships with the establishment both in 2001 and 2011. he was not happy with the result. he was the one republican who harass left out, he was never really an insider. i think a lot of people in the washington/new york media access look at him and say how could someone thumb their nose at the whole world, the whole world is telling him to get out. but to him his world is homeschoolers, people who hate gambling, and those who supported him not the party establishment. >> eliot: i sympathize with him when he critiques the importance of the party leaders. i think he is speaking to the sort of sense that those who believe they are more important than they really are should not dictate the determines terms of democracy. >> and frankly he has got all

the leverage. he has got the nomination. no one else does. it would take an act to make that any different. and for right now karl rove of the crossroads group said they're getting out but if it hangs in the balance come november they'll hang in. >> eliot: you say the traditional fun, if tod akin hangs on to this nomination will decide to be with him give him the resources and give him the shot to win. >> even today as tod akin is very disdainful of gambling, he called karl rove's bluff. he knows that karl rove and the crossroads and the republican national committee they need him more than he needs them in his eyes because he's looking at claire mccaskill's approval rating which has been under 45% and he believes he could keep the race so close that they'll come back. >> eliot: based on hands-on,

having been elected in missouri, in your sense of the missouri electorate, does his far-right social views make him incapable of getting the votes-- >> no. it used to be seen as a bell weather state. in the 20th century we voted for the winning presidential candidate every time except one. but that began to diverge from 2000 when bush took the stage and gore took the popular vote. and then we even more in 2008 when obama won easily but was not able to win missouri. the state is getting redder. mccaskill has been an effective senator but her proximity to president obama has not helped her in this area. >> eliot: certainly not. just to drive home the point of how much of a deep true believer tod akin is, his website has a picture of a fetus on it. and sort of ugly stuff to drive

home that he is--his vies on abortion, and he's rallying what i thought was a smaller base than it may be. >> as if we didn't realize it by now. he is the pro-life candidate. >> eliot: i think every day that he gets called it--i'm told he is not even returning calls to the republican leadership. the more calls he gets and the more disdainful he gets, the more likely he may stay in. >> i think that may be the case. >> eliot: jeffrey smith. former missouri state senator thank you for coming in. >> thanks for having me. >> eliot: the lines are drawn over voter i.d. are coming right up. >>oh really? >>tax cuts don't create jobs. the golden years as the conservatives call them, we had the highest tax rates, and the highest amount of growth, and the highest amount of jobs. those are facts. >>"if you ever raise taxes on the rich, you're going to

destroy our economy." not true!

if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help.

>> eliot: which movement has caused more acts of terror. muslim extremist or right wing extremist. it's not even close. white wing is credited with 145 incidents the homeland security has held five hearings on muslim radicalism. as well it should, but how many have focused on the violent right wing fringe. the number of the day zero, zip, nada. after one man gunned down six people people at a sikh temple. and after forming networks in the military, still nothing. and for that we can blame

politics. three years ago, a department in homeland security warned that a newly elected black president could turn up up the volume of hate groups. they slammed the report and the unit was gutted. but the warning was dead on. the attacks have only gotten worse. instead of looking expansely at the problem the house committee has been looking everywhere except at the groups that committed 145 terrorist acts. note to congress. forget your party affiliation. you either take the threat of domestic terrorism seriously or you don't. >>it's the place where democracy is supposed to be the great equalizer, where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's. we must save the country. it starts with you.

>> eliot: with only three months until the election it's a race against the clock for opponents of restrictive voter i.d. laws and the multitude of voters effectedaffected by them. virginia's voters i.d. law cleared a significant hurdle yesterday. the state is among a handle of others with a history of voter discrimination. the justice department approving a state law that require virginia voters to show i.d. including student i.d. cards utility bills paychecks bank statements and concealed handgun permits as valid identification.

in pennsylvania republican governor tomorrow corbett's administration is refusing to cooperate with the justice department's review of its strict voter i.d. law. pennsylvania in an apparent irrelevancy urged the department to re? an 2008 voter intimidation case involving the new black panther party. here with me now is daybow adegbowlay, couple of the naacp legal defense and educational fund. thanks for your time. >> good to be with you. >> this issue is central to the integrity of the vote come november, laws designed to keep people from voting. virginia's law got a thumbs up from the justice department. pennsylvania is the most treacherous in terms of the outcome for november. still being litigated where do we go from here. >> it has been a tricky story eliot, but there has been a nationwide effort to suppress the vote.

there is a distinction. virginia's laws expanded the forms of i.d. available. it's not a photo i.d. law at all. as you mentioned many types of identification, including identification without photographs is permissible for voters to come through and cast their ballot. in contrast, pennsylvania's law is really going to jam voters up on election day, and it was intended to do so. so the fact that pennsylvania is not cooperating says something about that. >> eliot: now the judge in pennsylvania who upheld the statute, despite acknowledgment there has not been a single case of in-person voter fraud. voting on behalf of someone who you are not that person. dubai that? >> from my perspective i think that's magical thinking. there were plaintiffs in the case who obviously could not vote. they had tried many times to get the appropriate i.d. and the

state did not cooperate. the state did not cooperate until the case was filed and people learned of the stories. one of them is a woman who marched with martin luther king jr. and he's 93 years old. then when it was found out that she would not be allowed to vote, she was given the permission to vote and the story was taken out of the news. >> eliot: many who don't understand the technical nature, this is none existent problem why are they making it hard for people to show up and vote except for prejudicial reason they don't want certain people to show up and vote. does it have a dangerous motivation. >> in order for it to be struck down it has to be a discriminatory you can't

discriminate against a racial minority, for example, you can't discriminate against women but you can enact bad political. this is both bad policy and discriminatory. that's why you see a rash of civil rights cases. >> eliot: these laws are neutral on their face. everyone has to show the same i.d. if i were the state of pennsylvania arguing the laws of institution would say, wait a minute, many are obligated to show the same photo i.d. this does not discriminate against any one group of people. >> that's right. you could pass a neutral law on its face that is applied in a discriminatory way or have a certain basket on a impact on a particular group. >> eliot: those who are likely

to be lacking this i.d. will skew against the democratic party. should that not have been enough for a pennsylvania judge to say that they're not constitutional. >> there were "r" two pieces to your question. one is the partisan peace piece and the racial impact of the law. they've punted on these whole series of cases. they have not found a standard think like for partisan jerry mannedders and the like. they don't want to weigh in. on the racial discriminatory piece the courts have been clear. you, you can enact on discriminatory reasons. if they're neutral on their face people make believe that the law is doing something helpful. but even republican ledge fors are say it's not valved. the idea of fraud or integrity

was all an marketing campaign, it was not real. >> eliot: now you have the legislature who said now this has been done it will be no stop for romney. not an actual piece of voter fraud found in or prosecuted in the state of pennsylvania. as a judge where you have no evidence of impropriety the burden you're imposing on people with the right to vote, the balance should come out on the right to vote. but it did not do that. how do you see this coming out. >> it's on appeal. these cases are tough to win because they're neutral on their face but in this circumstances you pointed out repeatedly, there is no evidence in favor of the law and there are people who want possible to be hurd. the idea that we would block

voters from the polls undermines everything that we stand for as americans. >> eliot: quickly, the states' claim in pennsylvania that 99% of state of's voting public has the i.d. >> i think mays magical thinking and that been borne out. >> eliot: magical language. you're being very kind. daybow adegbowlay, i apologize. thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> eliot: young republicans sing, the viewfinder coming up next.

>> eliot: still to come, the doj's spaghetti spine. but first jay lenio gets testy and when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the view finder. >> mitt romney is worth half a billion dollars and he says he pace annually 13% in taxes.

[laughter] al capone paid more than 13% in taxes. al capone. >> with me as always is my anger translator, questions about his finances remain. >> i don't know nobody who has a swiss bank account except for gold finger and octopussy. >> our parent company has down sized tonight show. and the bad news, it has been taken over by bain capital. [ ♪ music ♪ ] >> check this out. new research shows that angelina jolie and hillary clinton are ninth cousins once removed.

or as one guy put it, i think it's time for a family reunion. >> good evening you're looking line at the empty chair that tod akin was supposed to be sitting in. he's the only man that everybody in america is talking about. congressman, you have the invitation to join me on that chair. and if you don't join me on the show you're a gutless little twirp. >> can i ask you a question. >> bombed pearl harbor. >> germans? >> so now the republicans are saying you couldn't be bragging about taking out osama bin laden. so they released campaign commercial earlier today. >> what barack obama wants you to believe. he coordinated a top-secret precision assault that took out america's most hated enemy. what really happened? osama choked on a pop tart.

>> eliot: hard to laugh about things like that. does attorney general eric holder have any guts? i think you know my answer. that's coming up next. >> we talk a lot about the influence of money in politics. it is the defining issue of this era. the candidate with the most money does win. this is a national crisis.

>> eliot: too big to fail. too big to prosecute. are these the rules for wall street and washington. a senate report found that goldmangoldman sachs profited from its clients enormous losses. senator carl levin recommended

the ceo lloyd blankfein be investigated for perjury based on his testimony before the sub committee. yet, eric holder announced last week that they would not prosecute. for this, rolling stone's matt taibbi will joining. they have no backbone. big fish swim away. roger clemens, prosecuted. wesley snipes, prosecuteed. goldman sachs not enough evidence. matt thank you as always for joining us. >> good evening. >> one more example of washington failing. >> yes absolutely. it wasn't like this decision wasn't expected. most people thought that they would eventually decide not to prosecute goldman sachs but it's an incredible disappoint because the levin sub committee did an enormous amount of working work that gift wrapped

for the justice department, and they chose not to do nothing at all. >> eliot: the senator levin report that you failed to, and they investigated the entirety of the mortgage fraud, and september over a wrath of cases to justice and they haven't done it. >> they haven't done a single thing. it would be one thing if they decided let's put our chips in one pile and go after one big fish and we'll make them our signature case, but they didn't do anything. >> eliot: especially as you point out in your article. you know that i love your articles, and the metaphors that you use are always poignant and essential in understanding what is going on here. they pointed out that goldman sachs clearly misled it's clients about its own position. and did not disclose a $2 billion short position on the mortgage back securities that they were selling pretending

that they were good investments. >> they said in writing that our interests are in line with the client. their client was morgan stanley the hudson deal because they owned a $6 million piece of the deal, but they had a $2 billion position against that deal. there were a number of different avenues they could have chosen to go after that particular transaction. among other things, apparently required to disclose material adverse facts and $2 billion short position you're the prosecutor does that qualify? it seems that it should. >> eliot: if a $2 billion short position doesn't qualify, i don't know what would. this is the conflict of interest that makes it impossible to believe anything they say. the counter parties from goldman sachs, you say, gee, they're sophisticated, but most of the time it's the general investing public. i don't know why anybody would trust any of these houses when they get away with lies like this. >> i talked to an australian

hedge fund, in the timber wolf deal. goldman was telling them they could get 60% returns on this deal. at the same time their internal e-mails, they're laughing what a crappy deal that is. if that's not fraud, i don't know what is. >> eliot: this is identical to the evidence we had back in 2002, we got them to agree how they did business. in a different area, with respect to analysts. it's inconceivable to me that a justice department would not look at all this evidence and do something. how can you just sit there and do nothing unless you don't understand your job as a prosecutor? that's what bothers me. >> right, i don't know how you feel about this, but i think the prosecutor's primary job is to be a fighter. he has to be pugnacious. he has to feel that he'll do whatever it takes. these guys are exactly the opposite from this. they're like tom cruise in the

first half of "a few good men." they're making deals and playing softball. they don't want to go to trial. they're exactly what we don't want in that job. >> eliot: i took your advice to heart in terms of being willing to stand up. here's the thing, the contrast that you make in your article the way they're so weak when it comes to these big institutions and then these cases to prove that they're stuff. roger clemens. >> 93 agents. they take these low-level people insignificant cases and put the full weight of the government behind it. but they can't win those cases half the time because they're not good cases. they should take on the people who do the really bad things, and they don't do it. >> eliot: i cannot not think of a major struck struck actual case,

the way that they do business. they have not addressed the structural corruption on wall street. that's where they failed. >> the insider cases, a case of a rogue guy who goes after individual profit and screws up and makes an obvious criminal transgression. but they didn't go after any systemic cases like the mortgage fraud case where the whole industry is involved in this fraud. that's the one thing they didn't do. they go after these guys who make mistakes, madeoff, but they don't go after the industry. >> eliot: you were telling me a story about lanny brewer, i hate to pick on one guy but he's in charge of the criminal division, but he seemed not to care about what his jurisdiction was. >> there is a new book out about by a former aide where he talks about lanny brewer, where they expect brewer to start up this big

fraud task force. all he's telling them about is he has been making a speech-making tour. it's not important to him at all, apparently. this is indicative of what it was like in the justice department. >> eliot: didn't they announce a big task force back in january? >> right. >> eliot: have we heard about it since then? >> all we heard was that they were drained of resources. they had fewer agents assigned to that task force than roger clemens. >> eliot: come on, which is more important. >> apparently they now have 200 people on that task force and they may have a case coming eventually down the pipe. but they've been starved for resources. >> eliot: to the getting late in terms of statute of limitations evidence is drying up. these are things that happened years ago and the justice department has not been there for the public so far. matt taibbi, thank you for your insights and you're a great writer.

>> thank you. >> eliot: the robots are taking your job. that's coming up.

>> eliot: wall street is back, so where are the jobs? that's coming up on my view. but first let's check in with jennifer granholm in "the war room." good evening governor, what have you got for us? >> well, you and cenk have been covering the akin thing. this is akin and this is ryan. they're totally bound together. and so we're going to talk a bit about how close tod akin's views on abortion are to paul ryan's views. and we're going to pars it out with michelle bernard at the bernardbernard center, and we'll put it in historical context. >> eliot: if you look at the republican platform that they just passed, it's tod akin's flat form. it's not mitt romney. there is nothing liberal understanding or revolutionary about that. >> i'm waiting to see all those republicans be shocked and outraged about what the platform

says hum. >> eliot: it's a far-right platform. and one last thing, i think mitt romney is completely in the midst of chaos. he does not control his own party. he's just the etch etch-a-sketch guy. he has no power. >> he looks again rudderless. >> eliot: mitt romney in particular. we'll be watching your show. >> i'm glad we agree. >> eliot: case closed, more "viewpoint" coming up next. with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the >> eliot: some things really do confuse me. the dow has been on a tear, today hitting it's highest point since the number crisis before falling back slightly at the close. corporate profits as a percentage of gdp are at an

all-time high. ceo compensation is the highest it's been since 2006. corporations are sitting on almost 2 trillion-dollar in retained earnings, and not a single major prosecution of a corporation or ceo has yet to occur for the enormous defalcations that led to the crisis of 2008. yet the corporate leadership expresses nothing but venom for president obama and nothing but admiration for the policies of former president george w. bush that led us to the crisis of of 2008. let's ask a different question. one that follows from the following equally if not more important data. the number of americans living in poverty is expected to reach an all-time high of 66 million this year. wages for most have been stagnant since the mid 1970s. the unemployment rate is stuck at 8.3% and our gdp is 1 trillion-dollar higher than it

was before the crash but about 5 million fewer americans are working. the question that needs resolution is easily stated. how do we get some of the cash corporationscorporation are sitting on to be used to hire workers. i want to confront this issue not as a matter of ideology but as a pure matter to solving the problem. i'm genuinely curious to hear from ceos with specificity what about what would get them to hire. so here is my offer. any ceo or owner of a company with revenues over $500,000 and more than five employees send me the specific shift in policy. i want to see a direct cause and effect. for instance, if your payroll taxes are cut to zero, you will be able to hire five more people. i will admit i have yet to see or hear answers that are specific enough to amount to a policy. the most common answer i hear,

resolving uncertainty sounds good but isn't a policy. a couple of things that i don't think have worked, lowering marginal tax rates was george w. bush's answer. it didn't work. accelerateing depreciation or permitting immediate write off of capital expenses has been tried. that has only had very modest results. i want to hear from anybody who pledge that their policy idea will lead to an immediate hire. let's see what the specific alternativeses are to the demand stimulus that paul krugman and others including me believe is needed. let's begin a nonpartisan low decibel conversation and see if there are any ideas that can work. what's the solution? that's my view. that brings people together. hershey's makes it a s'more... you make it special. pure hershey's.

>> eliot: robots are taking over. we're not talking science fiction. we're talking about the factory floor. even the cheapest worker in asia needs a break now and again.

but not robots. what does it mean for the global economy and closer to home, american jobs. joining me now correspondent for "the new york times" who won a fascinating and maybe troubling article about this for the times. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> eliot: this is an amazing story. i want to begin by quoting a marge at the largest manufacturer in china that makes many of the amy apple products that we buy. now they're putting in robots. is this driving getting rid of human animals? >> you know, there is the problem, and then there is simply cost. i think the cost may be a more important market, the cost of labor. the cost of this technology is accelerating. that's what restarted this debate about automation.

>> eliot: look, you write a story that gives us a window into car manufacturing facilities warehouses, across the spectrum of manufacturing and menial services, robotses are capable of doing virtually everything that the human labor used to do. who is being displaced in the workforce? >> it's a little bit like the frog in the pot. there are things i can point to, for example activities that require dexterity where the robots are making inroads simply because the cost of robotic arms are falling dramatically. that means people who did things that were previously beyond the capability of machines are now at risk. >> cenk: and of course there is an enormous efficiency gain. productivity is up, and the 1 million workers who build the ipads and ipods could be

displayed by a few thousand robots. >> perhaps, or perhaps even fewer. i didn't go to the china but i went to the netherlands and i saw a factor that makes electric shavers, which is arguably a more complex device than cell phones. the factory that i saw is largely what they refer to is a lights-out factory. you can operate the factory without any lights because there aren't any humans. there were 128 robot arms. at the end of the line there were eight women. the women did a final q and a step. they lived to the shavers and they were put on the shelves as well. but everything else was done by these extremely nimble arms that moved at two-second intervals. >> cenk: this is somewhat akin to an earlier stage when

agriculture went through this mechanickization. is manufacturing and our economy relateing to manufacturing going through a similar revolution where the number of workers required will simply be dramatically reduced? >> you know, i think we're starting to see that evidence. it's very difficult to make hard predictions that all jobs in manufacturing will go away tomorrow because there are so many factors that go into making decisions about deploying workforce. but i was looking from the technology side, and i can see dramatic drops in the cost of computation and more importantly perhaps we're seeing the cost of sensors fall dramatically. machine vision and touch they made really remarkable advances. i think that will--you talk about artificial intelligence, and we have many examples of artificial intelligence. but we also have what i think have heard called artificial

deck dexterity. when we speak about manufacturing, that's just as important, and it's coming very quickly. >> eliot: that was the case in terms of outsourcing of u.s. jobs that the cost of labor was a determinant factor. that's why so many of our jobs moves to asia and elsewhere in the world. as the input of labor drops and you have to buy robots, could it be that manufacturing could return to the united states because robots cost the same here as opposeed to asia or anywhere else that may be. >> when i look at corporations like general electric, and small start-ups that are moving back to the united states right now. there is no one single factor. there is a convergence of factors, falling cost of labor transportation costs energy costs in china, and the protection of intellectual property and finally basically time to market. when you have to keep your

engineers on jets for 16 hours each direction every time you make a change or do a design--new design, that adds to the time it takes to get to market, and getting to market quickly is one of the most important things in the competitive economy. >> eliot: real quickly, is there a new domain of jobs being created of people who design the robots or do robots design themselves. >> do robots design themselves? that's probably a subject for the screen fiction part of your show. i think there is--there are elements of design that are automated not completely. are there robot jobs? yes, that's one of the really kind of exciting things, both in silicon valley and around the boston area there are literally thousands of start-ups making next generation robots now. >> eliot: finally, real quick what sector of the job market is