Assuming that distributed control is invariably going to turn into a fight (spending every available resource in the process), yes, centralized control seems to be the answer.

That is downright megalomanical in assumptions that the central power will know better than everyone else AND have their best interests at heart. We tried that for power and it was called "absolute monarchy" and worked worse than the alternatives.

> centralized control seems to be the answer

Yep, worked perfectly for East Germany, USSR and works great for North Korea.

An omniscient committee of a dozen party members will know better than hundreds of millions what is better for the hundreds of millions because humans are alike and predictable. /s

Try to drive a bus by having the dozen passengers fight with each other. That probably isn't going to work.

I think that governance by having everybody fight with each other only serves the strongest fighters. And of course these strong fighters will tell everybody that this system is the best of all possible systems.

Surely it makes you think.

> Try to drive a bus by having the dozen passengers fight with each other

A bus is a different from a country. Also, in a bus, imagine the bus driver dictating where the passengers should get down and what they should listen to, what they should think, if their windows should be rolled up, etc.

I get your point. You need a bus driver (I agree that we need regulated markets), but the bus driver shouldn't be overbearing.