I am admittedly woefully uninformed about the topic, but why is it discussions of economics seem so much more verbose than those of math and science? Perhaps it's just this article, but all this flowery language and backstory should be optional.
Though admittedly economic articles are do seem verbose when compared with math or physics articles. But there's a lot of variance in their verbosity, too: theoretical articles are pretty much just math. Empirical guys on the other hand are always somewhat verbose, as they like having some plausible stories behind the mechanisms they're testing or to explain why their instrumental variable is exogenous. The literature of subfields are/were almost entirely verbose, such as in the case of the old institutional economics.
I'd say that it all boils down to: how wide the intended audience is; how established is a field or subfield is; how do new articles fit in with the older literature. When all you've got in your head is some hazy philosophical point, trying to formalize it from the outset will probably just alienate you from the discipline. So older literature will be, on average, more verbose than current literature. On the other hand, if all people do is point out more and more new issues, and if every new article is "orthogonal" to each other, they might never produce a succint framework (in which case it all turns into philosophy). And this goes for other fields too: mathematics was a verbose field too until some of it's ideas became common sense, and so was physics. Economics is still undergoing a lot of changes, and will probably undergo a lot more as economists focus themselves on narrower issues and as more data is collected.
Other parts of economics are more like philosophy. Which models and metaphors describe economies and economic decisions best? Is cash like blood? Are there invisible hands? Are interest rates levers or throttles? To what degree do groups think the way individuals do?
These sorts of things don't lend themselves to Greek letters, operators, functions, and so on.
Physics can (often) perform the same experiment over and over in different circumstances to resolve a question quickly.
Economics can perform an experiment once every decade, or even once every half century. For example, what would be the effect of the US government sending cash to every US citizen? We've done that three times, once under Carter, once under Bush, and once under Obama. The data needs to be analyzed thoroughly to see as much as possible the effects of the stimulus, and what was coincidence.
You can't produce a "great depression" on demand; you have to wait for the next one to come along. In the mean time, you talk about it.
Well, I think you could (eg remove all banking regulations), but you probably don't want to do that.