Everything is a marketplace. In all situations, the human being follows incentices.
* Items are capable of being traded.
* The items being traded are unchanged by the process of assigning a numeric value.
* Abstract concepts such as “risk” and “investment” are best measured in the same numeric values as are used for concrete items.
Adding to that, even if I were to accept the reasoning that following incentives is equivalent to being in a marketplace, your statement that “In all situations, the human being follows incentives .” is simply untrue. It ignores the existence of self-sacrifice (e.g. a soldier sacrificing themself to save comrades), the existence of self-harm (e.g. Jonestown), and the distinction between incentives and perceived incentives (e.g. also Jonestown).
Humans spent far longer in kill others mode than in don't kill others mode. Incentives to not kill others is fairly new in history.
Evidence of deadly human-on-human violence mostly starts showing up with the Neolithic period, before that humans didn't go out of their way to kill each other as much. It looks a lot like you need to be settled and amass possessions to give people a good enough reason to kill each other. That's recent behavior as far as our species is concerned.
Death by homicide seems much worse the further back you go, on balance.
Just because we have a ton of evidence of humans collaborating as far as historical artifacts go back. But then of course with the appropriate perspective almost everything is fairly new. Would you call Göbekli Tepe fairly new for example?
After all 9000 BCE was just yesterday compared to the invention of multicellular life for example. Which is also massively about cooperation.
Can you name a modern monetary theory that does not model supply and demand (production and consumption , if you prefer) and does not devolve quickly into black markets in practice?