You could restart it, but it would not be as profitable as whatever they're doing now and it would eat into the market share of the rest of jeep's lineup. Even if you made a competitor, you're competing with a product that has better margins than you and more access to capital. It's competitive in terms of consumer demand, not in aggregate profit.
Company A netting $1 from 50 happy customers is nowhere near as profitiable as Company B netting $10 from 10 miserable customers. Consider that Company A and B also compete for capital and manufacturing capability and such, not just customers. The market has chosen Company B as the most efficient vehicle to extract wealth from customers.
In fact the more Company B (and companies like it) succeed, the more capital they collectively soak up and the fewer competitors they'll have. The less leverage these miserable customers will have.
It's like the market-driven spread of some technology, like shipping containers. Except instead of a cost-cutting technology it's a price-inflating technology. Like movie theaters choosing to add massive markups to their snack bar. If you're a movie theater and you don't extort your customers for snacks, you have to raise ticket prices or lower profitability and you can't make ends meet or be as capital efficient as competitors.
I think there is some solution to this that isn't just heavy-handed regulation that companies will shoot loopholes in and run laps around. Maybe some type of stakeholder capitalism where consumers have more power than shareholders. Crowdsupply is one such example.
> Even if you made a competitor, you're competing with a product that has better margins than you and more access to capital.
Clearly you'd be charging a premium and targeting a niche market.