It is very strange that there is no trace of economic pathology in economics which regards the economy as an organism. As even a human body, an excellent organism, occasionally gets sick, the economy, an organism, also gets occasionally an economic disease. Rather the economy gets sick more often in the life cycle of the economy than that of a human body since the organic function of the former is inferior to that of the latter, needless to say the immune system. The economic pathology should have been established and advanced already as the pathology has been done for human body. Indeed, the pathology for human body is developed more than its physiology and divided several parts which also have advanced in depth and diversity. So, there is no reason that the economic pathology is neglected in economics of which theoretical system is alike that of physiology. Indeed, economics has got its birth and development affected directly by the natural science. In the late 18th century when the modern economics was established as an academic discipline, the natural science was in the limelight and its organic approach was naturally introduced into economics, which is proved by the fact that the theoretical systems of all the economic schools have been established organically, and the development of economics is closely related to that of natural science. So, this organic approach is common for all the schools such as neoclassical economics, Marxian economics, Keynesian economics, institutional economics, historical economics, behavioral economics, complex economics, and so on.