I think you've made a bunch of good points, but I'm a little wary about conflating political X with X, for any X.

If you look at the distinction between how climate change is handled by politicians and how it's handled by climate change researchers, you can span the gamut from barely-even-pseudoscience to as-scientific-as-it-gets.

So it seems entirely plausible to me that political economics, like political climate change, political nuclear power, political nutrition, political psychoactive drug physiology, political epidemiology, and so on, is just...not...really...the same thing.

This doesn't mean that the consequences for us all are any better or any different. But it might mean that drawing distinctions is very important; there might be a baby or two somewhere in that bathwater.

For instance,in the United States, you are still in many places required to show proof of vaccination (but not proof of date of vaccination, or proof of having had Covid and having recovered) to enter a public venue as if vaccination were meaningfully effective at reducing transmission and risk to others (it is shortly after vaccination, but after 3-4 months it doesn't really make much difference, and having had Covid is usually more effective and lasts longer), but aren't required to wear an N95 mask instead of a cloth mask (despite there being a roughly 3x difference in how much you expose people). We don't conclude that epidemiology is not a science. Indeed, it is because epidemiology is a science that we recognize that these regulations are rather self-contradictory and a poor balance between burden and effectiveness. And you can always cherry-pick parts where the complexity of the situation eluded understanding by even the best scientists (e.g. when Texas first dropped its mask mandate, epidemiologists pretty much agreed it was a bad idea, and approximately nothing happened to case rates, because...well...we're actually not totally sure why, but the Texas legislature just staring at case rates going down and deciding "yeah, looks good now" ended up closer to reality than the supposedly sophisticated disease transmission models--probably because there were a lot of factors that weren't measured and either weren't included or were estimated badly wrong).

Anyway--I agree to an extent about the unfalsifiability of libertarian-leaning economics. But I also am keenly aware of the danger of blaming X for the problems of politics+X.