My point exactly. A theory is useful inasmuch as it allows to predict specific outcomes under specific circumstances. If a theory can predict, say, what business execs are likely to do under a particular sets of circumstances, it is useful and it is empirical science. If, otoh, a theory merely describes the behavior of business execs in terms that evoke favorable or pejorative connotations - first it is not science but literature, and its usefulness is bascially that of any other kind of invective - it may score a few debating points here an there and make some people feel good about themselves, but that is about it.
Methinks much of the so-called social sciences, including economics, - not just LTV, fall into the second category. They are mere descriptions or metaphors cum praise or invective whose main strength is their emotive appeal. I realize that concocting this stuff is what many people, including myself, do for a living - and it does pay the bills - but let's just face, it is high brow journalism or social commentary, not emprical science. The value of such texts for understand human behavior is the same as any other literary genre, novel, essay, even poetry rather than that of natural sciences.
Wojtek