I am comfortable reading both math and programming textbooks, but every finance book I've picked up so far seems to quickly not make any sense to me at all.
And that was one of the points, apparently physicists switching to economists say math is simplistic and superflous.
Math is math, but it can be used as a window dressing for you opinions.
On the other hand if your field pretends to be science. Also creates and awards itself a Nobel prize and pretends its an actual thing. Well maybe its a sign of a con.
> [The author, in third person] is not an economist, which is probably why he's been able to develop a working model of the global monetary system. His research is unique and informative in ways an economist would never consider.
There is a distinction between an MBA or finance degree and the field of economics. You might not have gotten quite to the bottom of it.
Of course financial activity has a lot of resemblance to gambling. Mathematicians have been analyzing gambling for a long time, but does that make them the same as anyone playing slots in Vegas?
but seriously, from a quick skim, this article seems to be mostly macroeconomics, with a little finance sprinkled in. for a cursory understanding, no (additional) math is needed, just micro, macro, and basic finance. you could take online courses for those and use investopedia as a quick reference.