That sounds like you are complaining about the amount of investment in experimental physics in general, rather than the LHC in particular. It is true that fundamental physics could use a major breakthrough from the theorists. However, the theorists we do have are desperate for more experimental evidence to help them.

Add to that that experimental physics is simply far more expensive then theoretical physics, and it should come as no surprise that we spend more money on experiments then pure theory.

The complaint about LHC is more about questioning weather spending $5 billion to smash protons together is the most effective way of getting more empirical evidence to the physicists.