I agree that we can "quantity survey" the real economy if we stick to units measurable by hard science (physics, chemistry, biology). This means the seven SI base units and the 22 derived units for other common physical quantities. However, when it comes to money as capital, I now follow the lead of Bichler and Nitzan's "Capital as Power" analysis. I won't recap it here. One has to read their published books and papers.
This is the way I see it. The ontology of conventional economics is prescriptive rather than descriptive. Now, there is nothing wrong in principle with prescriptive ontologies for human actions. We require them to live in society. However, they do need to be labelled for what they are, namely moral philosophies. Neoliberal economics is a moral philosophy. Marxist economics is a moral philosophy. More precisely they are moral philosophies with praxis appendages. The dishonesty comes in where such theories pretend to objectivity when in fact what they prescribe is deontologically derived ethics. They pretend to have found some pure and abstract truths (about humans and economies) by axiomatic deductions from praxeological premises.
Praxeology, especially but not only of the type exemplified by Austrian economics and Neoliberalism, is bunkum (to use a plain term) but I can't waste space refuting it here. My post would get too long. Of course, the term "praxeology", meaning the study of human purposive action (from an economic-theorising point of view), is not to be confused with the term "praxis" which refers to putting ideas into practice.
"Deontological ethics" is a nicely accurate term in my view. Interpreting it very literally as I do, it is ethics without an empirical ontology, that is without a relation to real things. On the other hand, consequentialist ethics at least mandates an eye to real outcomes, to real consequences. So, while deontological ethics prescribes adherence to abstract pure principles (like the free market), derived via deduction from assumed first principles (a dogma in other words), consequentialist ethics sets up a requirement for empirical checks on what we are doing.
The free market in Neoliberal theory is an unimpeachable first principle. A consequentialist looks at climate change, increasing monopolisition, increasing inequality, human suffering and longer soup lines and says, "the real outcomes of attempting to follow the abstract principle are not good". At the moral philosophy level it is clear what needs to be done. The laws and rules of conventional economics and neoliberalism need to be wound back and rescinded. New laws and rules are required. That much is clear. The exact shape of the required new laws and rules as a set is not clear. However, as the subversion of democracy by capital had led to the current pass or rather impasse then the heuristic prescription would be to lessen the power and concentration of money (lessen the power of oligarchs and corporations) and increase the power of broad, indeed all-inclusive democracy.
None of the above reasoning can be mathematicized. It proceeds by philosophical language and indeed by plain language. It makes heavy reference to moral philosophy (ethics) and democracy (the right to an equitable say in social and economic organisation). Culture and economics are one melded complex entity which cannot be mathematicized or scientized. Anyway, that is my view.