Each of the three authors inserts himself in the story line and concludes his work with his own interpretation. Ed Morrissey for instance argues that the massive usage of governmental funds forces GM to increase the transparency of its dealings, which is in fact a positive aspect. Gillespie on the other hand is more sarcastic and, for consumer safety, states his hope that the engineers and technicians are better trained in mathematics than the CEO. The editors at Consumerism Commentary state that the severity of the solution found by General Motors is not that dramatic as argued by others. "It does look bad if a company appears to use TARP funds to pay off a government loan, particularly when the CEO boasts about it publicly, but it's not a major issue. GM is in a better position now, and although this loan is only a small portion of the funds received from the government, this is at least a move in the right direction" (Consumerism Commentary, 2010).

Relative to the opinion of this writer, it is an ambivalent...

On the one hand, I understand the lack of necessity to dramatize over GM's decision, but on the other hand, I also understand the futility of their financial artifice. In each case, GM is still in need of support and this support should be offered not for GM alone, but for the role it plays within the overall American and international economy.