consider the Honda / Toyota economic models. no one forced them to make cars more reliable, safer for passengers and pedestrains, more fuel efficient and cleaner. they are proactive in every area of automotive development. the US economic model is reactive - with reactions that are too slow and insufficient.
I generally agree with your major point. But here you are comparing apples and oranges. Honda and Toyota do not have economic models, they have business models which take the macroeconomy as a given. Compare them with GM, if you will, or Ford. But not with the US govt/economy.
You could say that Honda and Toyota have guessed right about the direction of fuel costs, and the resulting change in consumer preferences. Or that GM and Ford have ignored a tremendous amount of evidence that the consumers' enthusiasm for gas-guzzlers was waning. Perhaps they figured that, if they were making $6k-$10k in profit on each SUV, if demand softened they could get it back with $1k-$2k in rebates. But every company cannot do this at the same time. So the discounts get bigger. And the bigger the discounts, the bigger the hit on resale value, making used vehicles more attractive.
Regarding US govt policy, it seems to be going in the right direction: increase production of all kinds of energy, wherever possible. Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, ethanol, biodiesel. The laws that actually implement this policy are going to be ugly, no question about that, but that's how laws are made. There are contradictions, too, like the bans on off-shore drilling in some of the richest oilfields, because we don't want to watch the sun setting behind the offshore rigs and terminals. And I don't see a sufficient sense of urgency regarding the shortage of refining capacity. NIMBY?