GM is in serious trouble. The company is burning through roughly $65 million every single day. It is asking the government for a ''bridge loan,'' and the merits are being debated in Washington.

With that burn rate, GM will spend $25 billion in roughly 11 months, and we will be back to square one.

GM claims that its main problem is having a costly work force. However, high labor costs are not necessarily fatal if you are at the top of your game and have innovative products that are flying off the shelves — or dealership lots, in this case.

Unfortunately GM mostly offers products that seriously lag behind those of its competitors.

While GM is busy trying to figure out ways to cut costs, it is less concerned about building products that people actually want to buy. There have been reports that GM is planning to suspend research and development on a number of future models, at a time when research is much needed to be competitive, especially in the area of hybrid and green technology.

''That’s like saying that due to a shortage of oxygen, you plan to suspend breathing until further notice,'' notes columnist Tony Paradiso of the Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph.

GM officials have conceded that they are cutting back research and development, apparently trying to save $1.5 billion over two years — which would allow them to stay operative for another month at best at their current burn rate.

Mercedes Benz, on the other hand, has announced that it will have its entire model line transitioned to alternative fuels by 2015. In other words, Mercedes Benz will not be producing any more gasoline-powered cars seven years from now.

Meanwhile, GM is lobbying hard to prevent California from passing a law that would require car manufacturers to reach an average fuel efficiency standard of 36 mpg for their model lineup by 2016.

This is why GM should be filing for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy does not necessarily mean that a company is getting shut down and liquidated; United Airlines went through this a couple of years ago and is still around today. This might allow those who recognize the fact that the automotive landscape has changed since the 1960s to have some influence on GM’s direction.

Otherwise, if the government gives bailout packages of say, $50 billion, to GM, we have a very good chance of being in the same mess again two years from now. Many who currently work for GM are facing layoffs, but even with a $50 billion bailout package, unfortunately, there will be many more layoffs.

Wouldn’t we be better off if we invested $50 billion in a sector that could create new jobs? Even within the automotive industry, there are innovative companies. Tesla Motors, for example, a tiny company in San Carlos, Calif., was founded by Elon Musk, the co-founder of PayPal. Tesla is building an all-electric roadster for the high-end market. It plans to expand into broader markets when the technology becomes cheaper.

Maybe we should look beyond the automotive sector to invest $50 billion of government funding.

The availability of cheap and abundant fuel sources cannot be taken for granted anymore. And even the most fuel-efficient car is not going to address traffic congestion issues. It is unrealistic to assume that we can solve this problem by building even more freeways without serious quality-of-life implications.

We may very well be seeing the beginning of the end of the age of the automobile. We need to invest in public transportation. We need to invest in green technology — in wind turbine, solar power and alternative energy. What we can’t afford to do is invest in a failing motor industry that offers no light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

NAM contributing writer Christian Czezatke is a computer scientist in Silicon Valley.