Using a universal model for all commodities has proven detrimental in the past. For instance likening necessities to commodities does not and should not work; a communist food support system (where everyone gets the opportunity to be fed) is more sensible than a capitalist one (Where only those who can afford to eat, eat regardless of their contributions) and vice versa, commodities under communistic or socialist regimes aren't as sensible as they are under capitalist ones.
The entire world is a series of interconnected economic systems. If a nation chose not to have a specific economic agenda or policy plan, they would likely suffer from some significant issues which would ultimately lead to economic instability.
Case and point, agriculture. If every farmer was allowed to grow whatever crop they chose, the nation and likely the world would experience significant surpluses in various goods, and shortages in more difficult to produce goods, thereby making both commodities (or however many we are discussing) untenable economically.
When small potato farmers go out of business because the big agra businesses start mass producing taters, and when those same groups stop mass producing corn, we will see prices fluctuate violently.
The market cannot respond based on supply side economic theory, because the people will not be able to "demand" specific increases in production of specific crops, as the producers of those crops are not small businesses which are susceptible to pressures from the purchasing populace.
If they were going to cave to our demands, we would already have mass produced alternative fuel cars.