Oh, but let's not pretend we can't see the point just because we don't like the way it was stated (or because we delude ourselves about pharmaceuticals, most of which are used to pretend to treat old age, something we don't really have a reciprocal stake in.)

The bottom line is that most OPEC countries have nothing - zero, zilch, zip, nada - in the way of an economy except oil. That's why they've been twitchy about actually killing the golden goose in the past.

In the last few years they've gotten away with something and seem tempted to push until the world economy breaks. Very well, they may succeed. But let's not forget that it's a co-dependency, a two-way street. No oil out, nothing in trade back in, collapse, as they produce nothing themselves. Consuming countries are not the only ones in for a shock.

How does this preclude responsibility for the oil-exporting countries to manage their oil wealth the way we, the consumers want?

And I don't even want to enter in the argument that much of the reasons oil producing countries are ranking high in the misery rank-list are lying in the policy of the rich ones towards them. If they had any choices other than exporting oil, would they be wasting it for 10c a cup?

Oh, on that part of the point, you're right - as with most business transactions, the trade will go forward, or not, insofar as both parties see it as being in their interest, or not. The gross negligence by most OPEC countries of their own economic development simply disconnects 'responsibility' from the discussion by rendering it irrelevant.

Edit: on second thought, maybe the OPEC governments do have some responsibility to their own people. Most have done utterly poorly at that. And those responsibilities will involve trade, because (1) autarky doesn't work well anyway, and (2) their past negligence has foreclosed other alternatives for the short to medium term.