Here is how ego-driven intervention (or interpretation) fits in: Having partial or finite knowledge is part of the natural law of human beings. They are and never were and never will be omnipresent about that which surrounds them and of course the future is uncertain to them and so in terms of the effects over time they have never had, nor have they, nor will they ever have, knowledge that is omniscient. To take action with finite knowledge - which interferes with the dynamics of a system that is of an infinite nature - and which would ultimately affect other humans unjustly (because the arbitrary decision is error-based), in disregard for others, is certainly egotistic. In other words, only someone who is ego-driven (for whatever reason: out of ignorance or out of the lust for power, etc.) can have the audacity to try to impose their limited and narrow understanding of "how things should work' on others.
This is in contrast to the non-ego-driven behavior which comes from the recognition that there is no moral authority to alter that which is divine (infinitely complex and operating by invisible forces that can be described as having qualities such as grace, unity, justice, bounty, mercy, peace, etc.). The forces of economic equilibrium are operable and powerful and symmetric and reciprocating in ways that are incomprehensible, and are completely and truly independent of human interference. Only someone who is ego-driven would substitute their narrow arbitrary view for a magnificent, all-encompassing potency.