It seems like a really pleasant book and I'll send you comments when you are done with it if you like. One thing about the book (I am a little sensitive to this point because I am trained as an applied mathematican) is your point about the use of mathematics in economics.
My own opinion is that the professions in general use Jargon, obscure terminology, mathematics, most of science, the law, medicine... whatever they can get there hands on to restrict the supply of people who understand what's being discussed. In this way, they mystify what their profession does create pseudo respect .... . Also it tends to increase the publics willingness to spend money on the profession if it appears to be scientific. It also restricts the supply of people who can understand the text in a discipline lowering the supply of adequately trained economists and thus increasing their price. I agree with you that formalization often does and can obscure what is being studied. My own personal opinion is that mathematics and statistics is however is useful as a tool to help study economic and econometric data. Its a tool like any other which is subject to abuse. One would have no problem constructing socialist as well as neoclassical mathematical economics. That it is often used in pseudo-scientific ways is no surprise. This happens in all the "soft" sciences including psychology, some biology, economics, neurophysiology. Pascal a long time ago even had a mathematics of theology. Nonsense, obfuscation is an invariant, independent of mathematics. Its extremely dubious whether all economic theories can be adequately expressed in the absense of economics and its probabily not desirable.
--mike
-- Michael Cohen mike at cns.bu.edu Work: 677 Beacon, Street, Rm313 Boston, Mass 02115 Home: 25 Stearns Rd, #3 Brookline, Mass 02146 Tel-Work: 617-353-9484 Tel-Home:617-734-8828 Tel-FAX:617-353-7755