It's not entirely the automakers' "advertising to convince the public to want big vehicles." A part of the US population has had a preference for larger vehicles that is based on logical(?) assessments of their different needs - which are different than in other places.

If it's 70 miles (or more) to the nearest grocery store, you want to pick up a couple of weeks worth of groceries, perhaps some new hardware, a little food for the pets/livestock, and have room in the back for the several kids to amuse themselves during the trip. Daily, or even weekly, shopping is not an option for many of us here.

Even in "suburbia" where the distance may be less, many people have the occasional "need" for fertilizer and other "necessities" that may mean quarter-ton loads (or more) at least occasionally.

It's not necessary to have many kids of your own. If you have one or two you may be urged to provide transportation for "field trips" and/or "sports practice" that may mean a need for space for a half-dozen kids, if you can manage it.

There is no useful public transportation in most parts of the US. In my community, buses are provided generally for kids who live more than a mile from school, and several thousand kids ride them daily; but any activities outside scheduled school hours mean the parents provide transportation, frequently for whole teams, and mostly to places remote from the schools and from homes.

After WWII, Japanese and European industry had the "opportunity" to rebuild their industries. Especially for the Japanese, the high population densities and cramped roads made it natural for them to build small cars. They thus had them at hand when it became feasible to export them to the US. (In Tokyo, a few years ago, you had to own or lease a parking place before you could order a car for delivery "in a couple of years.") Their offerings were good enough, that a large segment of the population perceived (and continues to) that small riceburners were "better" than small cars that US makers attempted to introduce, and the US builders found no significant US market for their offerings (until recently).

The US makers thus concentrated at least to some extent on building the kinds of cars that didn't directly compete with the smallest imports.

Recent comments by one Senator claims the US makers have ignored safety, but he forgets that in 1950 when Chevrolet made simple seat belts "standard equipment" they lost about 8% in "market share" compared to the prior year because people refused to buy them. Less obvious examples, but just as crippling to industry attempts to "improve" their products, have continued to appear since then, because US buyers in the market segment left to the US makers are "mostly assholes" in the perspective of those who are looking for something to criticize.

Complaints about fuel economy often fail to recognize the differences in use here; and it must be admitted that lots of people do drive vehicles that are "too big" for their needs; but it may be noted that GM has 16 or 18 current models rated at 30 mpg or better, at least a couple of hybrids for sale now (with a dozen planned) and expects an all-electric in the immediate future. Unfortunately many buyers of that kind of vehicle are still stuck on the "imports are better" thing, although sales have been decent for the ones currently out.

While even better "miles per gallon" vehicles are common in Europe, most of them are diesels which do not meet (esp. particulate) emissions regulations and cannot be imported here (except, sometimes, as one-at-a-time "personal imports"). If "super mileage" vehicles in use elsewhere could be built to meet our environmental restrictions, I'd guess that we'd be importing them - or building them here.

The Dem resistance to using the $25 billion loan approved for "fuel economy improvements" ignores that without the $25 billion loan requested to get through the collapse of credit there won't be anyone to take the other loan. (The auto industry is so interrelated that collapse of one maker will bankrupt many of the suppliers all the others rely on to continue in business. NOBODY will build or assemble cars in the US.) A valid problem with diverting those funds (and possibly replacing them for the original purpose later) is that as written the law requires "regulators" to write the rules for disbursement, and that will take longer than passing a new bill.

Republican (esp Senate) intransigence appears(?) to be based on the hope that an economic disaster will let them bring their Gestapo back in the next election.

Ain't nobody (in Congress on either side of the aisle, or in the current Administration) thinking about the best interests of the people in the US.

John