greed for lack of a better word is good

I cant really say which one of the two systems is more real. On one hand we have the presence of subsidies which are meant to smooth consumption and represent "positive" government intervention which could be considered fairly Keynesian, on the other we have the whole discussion of over production, high prices and other market failures such as monopolies which really come from a very Friedman standpoint as they are the result of not allowing the free market to find its equilibrium. I would take the more Latour friendly way out here and say that since we have named both systems they are both present. They are both our reality because really they are just ways of discussing our economy and provide terms and ideologies for those who would seek to impact the current status quo. For those who seek less government intervention and less subsidies they neoclassical school is their friend and has been ever since it was defined. For those that would preserve government intervention in our agricultural world such as price floors subsidies and other intervention, Keynsian ideas offer a school of thought and ideologies that offer support to their side. Since we do have government intervention and don't have perfectly competitive and free markets we could say that Keynsian ideas have in certain ways won, however we do have calls to decrease government intervention and have critiques of this government we could say that it is a neoclassical agenda  that is shaping our reality.