I am going to preface this by stating that I have little background knowledge in economics. So, that being said, please help me out and correct me if I am misunderstanding something from our (mini-crash-course) readings.
Based on what we’ve read from The Omnivore’s Dilemma (TOD), the economics of this industry more closely resembles the issues explored by Milton Friedman in “Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and Labor” than the Keynesian view of economics. Much of what we read in TOD focuses on the over-production of corn and the government’s role in fixed prices. There were many instances in the Friedman reading that touched on this topic. For example, the “arbitrary limitations on the ability of individuals to enter into voluntary exchanges with one another …. simultaneously restrict freedom and promote the waste of resources” (127), is exactly what TOD demonstrates when stating that fixing the price of corn causes farmers to produce more and more in order to feed their families. With this excess of corn, another of Friedman’s arguments come in to play: social responsibility. “One responsibility of business [is] to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (133): enter HFCS and the ubiquitous corn byproducts. These results are almost exactly as described in Friedman’s article.
One could argue that the use of corn in just about everything allows for the circulation of profits as described in Keynes’ article, that the use of corn in just about everything creates more opportunities for consumerism. I mean, who hasn’t bought several different cereals just because your usual would get boring morning after morning? According to Keynes, this is supposed to stimulate the economic growth of everyone in the chain of events. However, this is clearly not happening if the farmers whose products are being used in everything from Twinkies to fuel are unable to thrive.
I like your reading and answer to the blog question because you looked at whose theories are represented in terms of the results in our system instead of looking at how what the two groups said is being implemented. Looking at how the reality matches matches what the economists said does seem like the better approach in defining what system is more "real"
ReplyDelete