Friedman is the man

Economics has never been something I am in to. It's confusing, highly political, and is entirely based on people's biased opinions- three things I don't like. But since I have to choose a "side", I would say that neoclassical economics best describes the reality (?) that we live in. The way that that the ag business has evolved and changed over many, many years definitely does not go unnoticed, but I think a key thing that some don't realize is that corn has been changing since the first plant was in the ground, it is just recently that it has changed at a much faster rate, and that is what gets so scrutinized. Corn how it existed in that first plant simply does not exist any more. Additionally, the ag industry is driven by money, but what industry isn't? People want to do whatever they can to maximize profits in any job, and as a farmer, if that means planting more corn, so be it. With a free market directly dealing with supply and demand, today we rely on just that. Corn is being demanded at a very high rate, not just by the ag industry, but many other industries as well, largely including manufacturing. To me, its a question of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the supply of corn lead to corn in more of our products, or did the demand for corn-based products lead to an increase in supply? Prices (and markets in general) are constantly fluctuating based on supply and demand. Once farmers decide how to "play the game" or sell their grain, that leads to other price changes. The industry revolves around money and prices, which, in turn revolves around supply and demand, shaping our economic paradigm today. Government intervention in the past helped the ag industry during a stinch, but the money that farmers receive today as a subsidy from the government is minuscule and does not affect farmers nearly as much as it did when the farm bills were first presented. Not only would more government intervention and control be ineffective,  but with such a large industry, it would be unrealistic. Keynesian economics worked when he was alive but with such advancements in the industry and sharp decrease in the number of farmers around the country, his policies simply do not describe the economy today.

When Friedman discusses competition in the beginning of the article, I think it sums up his views vs. Keynes views. Social responsibility plays a large role in this. On page 135 he says, "Governments ask for the self-restraint of business and labor because of their inability to manage their own affairs- which includes the control of money- and the natural human tendency to pass the buck". This to me shows that more government intervention would put one more issue on the governments' already full plate.