Connect with Fast Company

The perspective of this article is by far one of the best I have read from Fast Company to date and probably one of the most refreshing pieces in some time. While the social science construct of reality generally tends to view life on this planet based on an antiquated model, economics is one of those disciplines that has evolved beyond the softer sciences grasps. Interestingly, comparing the economy to the immune system is by far the more natural and organic view that demonstrates the writer understands the subtle and not so subtle nuances to "systems thinking."
In looking at the human immune system and the economy in the same way, as organic systems, each responds to the toxicity in the environment and adapts accordingly. For the longest time the immune system, like the economy, was characterized as the body's natural defense system against invading, foreign agents and the response of the immune system was to create antibodies to innoculate the body from harm. A more organic way to understnd the immune system is to see it as the ability of the system to adapt to changing and sometimes toxic influences. So it goes with the economy. Adam Smith may have had the notion of that "invisible hand" functioning to keep things going or he could have very well meant that the system adapts according to changes and toxicity in the environment. The more challenges there are to the economy and immune system, the more variations the body can produce. And a healthy body is a very good thing.
Conversely, the present recession may be no more than a common cold that has to run its course. There will be fever and sweats, lack of appetites and motivation, and a general sense of feeling tired. Ultimately, though, when the body politic rebounds, it returns to normal because the immune system is working its magic.
The Economic Stimulus, despite the heavy political folly, may be more like taking two aspirins, drinking plenty of fluids, and getting some rest rather than taking a shot in the arm! And I just hate shots.

It's nice to see systems theory applied to economics. We are still forgetting about the natural world - assuming that it will always be there and always be the same. Systems thinkg would indicate that economics needs to begin to act like the nested system it is - or none of us will be here.

Why do we demand top down solutions? Simple. They're easy. We all want someone to magically solve all our problems, and take the responsibility off our shoulders, just like mommy and daddy did when we were 5. That's much easier than trying to figure out how to get everyone to change their behavior.

BTW, it should be cheetahs, not leopards. Leopards are ambush predators, they don't chase diddly squat.

It all sounds nice and systematic wherein all the puzzle pieces fit; but here’s the key to economics it’s all a theory based on models. Believe this exemplar stuff if you want to but you still have to come outside and survive in the real world. People are floundering in this current mess that is the handiwork of our markets and government. There’s no invisible hand correcting this. This Professor wants to compare the budget deficits from the Iraqi war and the lives lost, our crumbling infrastructure, the housing crisis, financial speculation fueling higher oil prices, a government that is encroaching on our rights, etc. to a common cold! . The author touts his economic theory from the comforts of a college classroom which is the only place where economic models actually work and is second only to government bureaucracy in paying economists for their models.

This is one of the strangest bits of journalism I've read in a while. There's supposedly a "new science called evolutionary economics" but we hear nothing of its proponents, nothing of the seminal works in the literature. What happened to who-what-when-where-why? Worst of all, what's described doesn't sound at all new to me, as it's very similar to the work of the Austrian School, which has been going strong since 1870 and which has long-standing academic centers at NYU and elsewhere. I didn't see the differentiators in this article. Is the "new science" formalist or model-based? Is that it?