The point is structural. It's about the implications of certain emphases. If your analysis of how economies work is steeped in mathematics, you're leaving the impression that economies are natural, self-regulating systems (like physical systems), and that economics is a science like physics, rather than a political discipline that calls for historical interpretation and philosophical evaluations.

So every economics article that treats economies as things that can be rigorously quantified--despite the lack of decisive experiments in economics--implies that capitalism is a natural process that works without intelligent design (central planning). What the math obscures is the nature of economies, and the roles of history, politics, sociology, and psychology in determining this aspect of society. The economist's focus on math follows from scientism and physics envy. It gives a false sense of authority and security. It's a pose to protect the economist's prestige.

Notice how this hypothesis applies to every single economics article that deals more with mathematical abstractions than with history, politics, sociology, psychology, or philosophy. Are you saying there's no such article in economics?