A good point, based on a misunderstanding

Sometimes the Left hits the spot, but normally it happens for the wrong reasons. Logic and reason don't bring out the logical and reasonable from the Left. Slogans and misunderstanding does - sometimes.

An Icelandic Leftist-site, Murinn.is, is the star of the Icelandic Leftist-weblogs. Today, an attempt is made to disregard the whole free market-philosophy because some supporters of the free market talk about investments as something that the nation or country does, rather than an individual or certain groups of them.

If economists really believed in the invisible hand, they would never advise any man on the issue of economics, let alone practice economy-management. It hardly suits the idea about the laws of the jungle to practice while being subject to constant interference and social healing in order to maintain economic growth [..] instead of letting the laws work [uninterrupted] and watch their course.

The point is valid - there is of course no such thing as the "nation" investing, buying and selling. Individuals buy and sell, and pointing that out is only good.

But of course the valid point is not sprung from a solid ground of logic and reason. The author claims the "laws of the jungle" are what identifies the free market, and that just like David Attenborough watches lions eat zebras, free market economists should simply sit by and watch the rich eat the poor (or I assume that's to be read between the lines).

The free market is not the laws of the jungle. On thee contrary,

The truth is that economic competition is the very opposite of competition in the animal kingdom. First of all, it is not a competition in the grabbing off of scarce nature-given supplies, as it is in the animal kingdom. Rather, it is a competition in the positive creation of new and additional wealth. Unlike the lions in the jungle, who must compete for a limited supply of nature-given necessities, such as zebras and other game animals, which they have no power to enlarge, competition among business firms is competition in the creation of new and improved products and more efficient methods of production. ...

As the result of its basic nature, so far from being a process of survival of the fittest, economic competition is the foundation of the survival of practically everyone, including those who from a purely biological point of view are not at all very "fit."...

Furthermore, as Ricardo and von Mises have shown, because of the law of comparative advantage there is room for all in the competition of a capitalist society, including those whose productive abilities are modest in every respect.

It would seem strange to believe otherwise. Those who oppose the free market and follow the doctrine of wealth-distribution act very much in accordance with the laws of the jungle. Wealth that is created by one and, with State-coercion, is distributed to another tends to shrink with time. This is no mystery or hidden secret. But the Left will continue to distribute until all wealth runs out, just like a fox (giving the opportunity) will continue to kill chicken until there is no more (although the fox will have the good sense to bury his gain for harder times).

So yes, economists should renew their knowledge in the Austrian-style economics and discuss the different acts of different parties on the free market from an individual perspective. Nations don't buy or sell. Individuals do, although they usually carry passports that state some nationality or another of its holder.