Respond to Government intervention is warranted and necessary to help save firms from going out of business. While I understand the U.S. government's reasoning for issuing the bailout to GM and Chrysler through the bailout, I don't think it was the best decision. I feel it was too costly. I am curious to learn more about the government's decision-making process in providing aid to firms. How was the amount determined, and what assurances did GM and Chrysler provide to the government? I'm confident they weighed the benefits against the risks. However, if GM and Chrysler did not have a long-term plan, the bailout was almost destined to fail. It wasn't worth it because, in the end, GM and Chrysler were sold to other automakers. The U.S. government invested more money in them during a recession. I think those funds could have been better allocated or dispersed. I don't think the auto industry would have been better served if GM and Chrysler were allowed to fail. However, I'm not sure what the best solution would have been. GM and Chrysler had not been doing well for a while. It doesn't seem like they were quite as popular as they had been