Centuries ago, 'a market' was literally a place where trade occurred. The market. The place where buyer meets seller and value for value takes place.
Today, and long before the internet, 'markets' are more virtual, and we have various flexible forms of 'the marketplace.' Like everything, this has had both advantages and disadvantages. We'd like to think this dispersion of 'the marketplace' has in balance been beneficial, which explains why the trend persists.
I think of economies as a much higher level of abstraction than either markets, the marketplace, or simple aggregates of them in a time or place.
Economies are driven; either by humans with incentive to run up hills and create value, or by whips, or by cold circumstances, the entropic turbulence of the universe, natural disasters, and the collective failure that we call 'war.' If not driven, then economies run only downhill to stasis, death.
The sign of healthy economies is circulation of value for value, and the sign of ethical economies is that circulation based on free association, with no whips or guns or chains in evidence.
Economies circulate value as a result of two human actions, not just one. This is a law of the universe. Creation and consumption under the boundary condition of unavoidable risk in the universe. It is possible to expend more value in creating a new value than is realized by the new value; that is risk. It is also possible to realize a new, more valued value; that is reward/profit.
We attribute magic qualities to collective action. One of the latest, widespread, is the belief that if we massively subsidize spending by boundless credit/borrowing from our kids in the future, realized today by printing words and symbols on paper and throwing them into our economies without any more effort than that, and then let our economies run only downhill, that this will somehow provide incentive for us to run uphill and re-jumpstart circulation of value for value in our economies.
It clearly has done the opposite of its stated intent, and that isn't hard to fathom; its by necessity selective nature has broadly dampened the incentive to take on risk and run uphill, the required engine that drives circulation in our economies.
We take on risk and create first in this universe ... and then, if we profit from our risk and effort, we spend.
The enabling means of spending is intelligently managing risk and creation; not just in a universal cause and effect way, but in an ethical way.
Our financial engineers have a theory that they can short circuit the universe, and drive our economies using nothing more than gravity and the flow of effort yet to be expended in the future running only downhill. In believing this myth, we run our economies only downhill and dig ourselves into an ever deeper ... set of holes.
We have even short circuited Keynes, whose theory had two coherent halves; pay down debt during boom times so that it would be available to borrow from and spend during bust times. Pump up capital reserves during fat times, drain them during bust times.
Our tribal cluster fuck borrows and spends during boom times, and borrows and spends faster during bust times. That is totally insane. We never hear the word 'Keynes' during boom times.
We have profligate public credit fueled spent our way into a cul de sac, and fully half the nation is screaming for yet more during the current sinking lifeboat circling the drain panic.
Even a single man, living on an island alone, provides what every economy must have in order to thrive; effort to run uphill, to take on risk in the universe and realize reward and profit from his expenditure of effort. He may not be collaborating in any economies except for his own-- his personal management of risk/reward and the avoidance of failure in this universe, as it is. His is not a complex social economy, but neither is his one in which he can shed risk onto others as a strategy, or climb up the backs of others, or game the value-proxy market. It is just him and the universe, and the universe always deals the cards from the top.
We don't change that fundamental building block of economies when we take on the universes gradients as a collective. We mutually benefit from specialization and value-proxies and shared experience and knowledge, but as soon as we start gaming risk and shedding it onto others, we are a social cancer, and healthy, ethical economies can only tolerate a fringe of that, not an institutionalization of that.