I see it as a contrived system as compared to a natural system. Natural systems adjust themselves to maintain
balance, whereas a contrived system is established to maintain some form a stability in an unbalanced state. While pure economics is a system that is natural to human behavior, the economic system we work with on a daily basis has been built on the premise that; it must grow to be healthy we can control its growth(or lack thereof) To me, both of those assumptions are short sighted. Natural system tend to grow AND shrink over time, and getting in the way of those cycles generally makes for exaggerated repercussions over time when the inevitable natural balance is achieved, usually painfully. Natural systems are systems we adjust/react to and work within, whereas a contrived system is one which we change so that we don't have to adjust/react. Sort of like 'if you don't like cold weather, move south'(assuming the northern hemisphere of course) as compared to 'if you don't like being cold, find a way to change the weather'. Unfortunately, our economy is one of those systems where we simply 'change the weather' if it does not suit our needs. Because I see economics as a natural system, I see our treatment of our economy as contrived because we attempt to change it as compared to working with it. ..........Somehow, I am not making this more clear even to myself as I write this: Let me state it as simply as I know how: I see economics as a natural, self balancing system. I see our economy as a contrivance of that natural system, the balance of which we feel (wrongly) that we can control by changing the rules of the system when we don't like the perceived results of that system balancing itself. ....there, not eloquent, but I think it might express what I am trying to say.... :-)
