Sure, but now we’re playing a game of semantics.

We could just as easily say that no one 100% understands physics because of the complexity involved, the puzzle of quantum gravity, string theory, etc etc.

But an equally true statement can be made that we do understand physics quite well because we have computers and airplanes and satellites.

This is what I mean about being reductive: if we call all of economics a lovecraftian bolus of incomprehensibility then we’re voluntarily blinding ourselves to a lot of other things.