>But I am in favor of the State running things that all humans require to live, and providing for the basic needs of our citizens.

More oversight sure, but government runs Farms sound like a disaster waiting to happen. And it still doesn't protect from the main issues of supply side shortages. The reason private industry does a ton fo this stuff is because they are quicker to react because of the monetary consequences if they don't.

>I never said the US was a member. I said we participate in the system.

You said:

>>As I said, I would nationlize our industry. That doesn't mean we pull out of OPEC. We could still participate.

The United States cannot "pull out of OPEC" if they were never a part of it.

>I said we participate in the system.

We are not part of the cartel, we trade internationally but that is a tenuous "part of the system". Whatever, you probably just didn't type it how you meant to.

>I see it likely being a combination of all three, with a gravitation toward the first two over time.

Energy demand isn't going down, it's build baby build to prevent power outages. Pil is a National Security risk beyond environmental stuff

>It's funny you mention this, because Aramco is owned by the Saudi royal family, is it not? They own 100% stock I believe

It's owned by the Sovereign Wealth fund, not the family directly, but close enough. Profits fund Welfare for the citizens and infrastructure projects.

>And they have created a Saudi-centric energy policy. Why wouldn't we try and do the same for the US?

Because what benefits revenue for them doesn't meet your goals of cheaper energy.

>I'm confused. Austerity as in 'removal of subsidies'?

I meant Austerity for social services which rely on the revenues from Oil and Gas sales. My bad for not making that clear.

>Many alternatives are being found to replace most of these uses, as we continue to develop new technologies.

Not when it comes to phosphates, which is a critical fertilizer so that people don't starve from poor crop yields.