I wouldn't say that.
Economics is no different than any other kinds of scientific disciplines. Economics follows the exact same steps as in all science fields: you collect data, develop hypothesis, test your hypothesis, develop a theory (model), make predictions.
As in any field, when you deal with a highly complex system, you need to simplify these models by making assumptions. And in almost all cases, these assumptions "fall out of touch with reality". Physicists make assumptions of multiple dimensions and multiverses even though there is no physical evidence for any of them. Hence the joke of a spherical chicken in the vacuum (this is a joke in the Big Bang Theory, where a farmer asks a physicist to help him figure out why his chickens won't lay any eggs. And the physicist goes back to the farmer and tells him that he solved the problem, but it only works with a spherical chicken in the vacuum)...
Biology/medicine is the same way. A mammalian cell is such a complex environment. It would be impossible to make sense of anything if we consider every bit of it. So we make assumptions to ignore all other components and only focus on one signaling cascade. And what do we get in the end? A theory that can explain phenomena that only appear in our frame of view and can predict events when we ignore all parts of cells. Then we get a whole bunch of drugs that work in single cells and some animals but not in human (90% of the new drugs developed by us do not work in human)...
Do you call physics and biology pseudo-science as well? I call it progress. We make hypotheses and models based on our existing capabilities. Then we keep modifying the models to get closer to the truth. This is exactly what science is. It's messy and confusing, but that's how we progress.
I don't think so. Economics attempts to predict the reactivity of markets and financial pictures and the results are based mostly upon policies, counter-policies, human will, learning, mental chess games, etc... These are anchored in the human psyche, which is highly fluid and not governed by solid rules, especially as they are shaped more and more by experience. Biology is a study anchored in the laws of nature, which are solid and unchanging from the beginning of time; if we get something wrong, it is not because the laws of nature have shifted to counter us, rather it is because we have failed to grasp one or more influencing factor(s).
In economics, even when using age-old principles, many economists can manipulate a scenario to look many different ways and they can all give reasons to back up their claims. Using the same data, some can say it will signal quick growth or recovery in China while Gordon Chang and the likes will doubtlessly find a way to point to some part of it as a harbinger of imminent collapse. But that's complicated; even the most basic economic concepts are wrong too often. If you increase your prices, you can lose costumers. Yet, sometimes, you increase your prices and somehow now your brand is seen as a luxury brand and you end up gaining customers! Or you cut prices to make more sales and somehow end up driving your company image into the ground as a cheap crap brand and losing your customer base. Most or all of the economists making predictions could be wrong when they try to foresee impact and it happens very often.
On the other hand, when using age-old biological principles to make predictions, scientists are right the vast majority of times. When you cut a man's heart out, he cannot survive. If a child is born with xxx syndrome, s/he cannot achieve normal intellectual thinking, etc... You can never get even 1 doctor to try to argue that a fetus diagnosed with trisomy 21 can be born a genius. The only times when the prediction is wrong is when an individual has a rare modifying mutation and the effects of that mutation on disease course were not understood. In my opinion, this is a much more solid science than economics, which due to its flimsy track record in making predictions based on whims of the situation (more artistic than scientific, really), can only qualify as a pseudo-science.
