Yes, there is the question of putting our research money where it could do the most good, but that doesn't mean that it also isn't thoughtful commentary of the difference between better and worse science. One would think that good science would not bother coming up with misleading excuses to spend money on an experiment where there is no strong reason to believe it could result in the discovery of anything important.
Theoretically, yes it is falsifiable. If you had sufficient data about a system you could perfectly forecast micro- and macroeconomic results.
Now, is it testable? Only in a very limited sense. You can suss out trends in a decently empirical way, but because you're working with independent agents you can't really get sufficient data to obtain rigorous results.
Economics is not unlike high energy physics in these respects. You can move the needle in legitimate ways, but there are very hard restrictions that make it more difficult to make rigorous observations.
There are too little theory support of such collider can find anything new under the standard model.
IMO, it is not the matter of "science". This is economics.