I think there is a problem in this statement that is basically related to the relationship between induction and deduction.
Certain relationships or essential characteristics of a thing are logically necessary. So we can make logical arguments about economics because they rely upon the fact of economic actors, if someone changes in such a way as he is not an economizing actor (he gets shot and killed) then obviously he is no longer operating in that logical context. But all this means is that our application of deductive reasoning has the possibility of being invalid for a specific material case because we have failed to account for some change. But this, again, is simply true because we don't understand the actual 'rules' of material substances. If we did we could deduct through time with perfect clarity.
So the problem is not really with 'time', but the fact that we have imperfect knowledge of future times as we have imperfect knowledge with all material circumstances. We may be liable to error, but this is really because we have chosen a faulty illustration of certain deductively true principles. As an example, I might characterize a certain economic collapse as caused by error-cycles in the market, when in fact it was brought about by uncontrolled for destruction by an Earthquake. This example is rather obvious, I just wanted to make the role of empirical error as the ultimate problem clear. Deductive reasoning is perfect (insofar as it is correct that is), and can be universally valid to things that are real but we are not perfectly informed about the state of affairs which we are dealing with, and thus may misapply it.