Mutations are assumed to be random, and those are the supposed analog to individual economic decisions. Because the latter are obviously not random, the analogy fails.
This is a basic, basic, difference. You're looking at the problem from way out in statisticsland, saying that because they look the same from way out there, the underlying mechanisms must be the same as well. But of course they're not the same mechanisms.
Evolution and economics are not the same. One is a statistical result of random mutations. The other is a statistical result of intelligent decisions.
Why, because you say so? The pressures that cause companies (or stocks) to succeed or fail aren't random, and the pressures that cause species to succeed or fail aren't random. Within its limits, the analogy is pretty good.
Evolution and economics are not the same.
Of course they're not - the argument is merely that they are analogous in some respects. Which they clearly are.