Certainly. And all the intelligences regularly get together and agree on what to do to improve the world economy. Bill buys a car, June buys a mink, Ted sells his radio....
The intelligences that participate in the world economy individually have very little impact if any at all on the economy. Unless you are going to postulate that all the intelligences at work in the economy make up a single 'hive' intelligence, the pseudo-random operation of monetary interaction is not intelligently directed. There are no decisions made by an individual that can make or break an economy. If this were true then all economists would, to a lessor or greater extent, agree with each other on how to proceed to maximize the worlds wealth. This does not happen. In fact all that can be affected is the general trend of an economy. Even when an economic power such as the US makes a decision, that decision seldom has much impact. If anything can be said to impact the economy it would be the emotions of the people buying and selling. Unfortunately when the number of emotion 'particles' increases so does the uncertainty of the outcome.
"Now if you could show a free market arising spontaneously amongst the rocks in the middle of the Gobi desert you might have an argument.
The placement of the economy is irrelevant. It is a fact that the world economy is an artifact of humanity, however that humanity, the agent you are so concerned with becomes a simple cog in the machine with no 'intelligent' input. The direction, the wavelike undulations of the economy, is not directed by that agent but by a random collection of cogs making up a economic homunculus with no intelligence whatsoever. It is a complex system. Humans can not predict or direct any complex system let alone one that we are a part of.
Damn, we can't even envision all of the feedback systems yet.