Centralized/consolidated solutions can make things more efficient in some cases, when specifically dealing with really simple stuff; And there is a point in having one-buyer power against producers who are of the same order of magnitude in terms of power. However, this is not to say that 1) this ever means that accountability or ultimate traceability of ownership can ever be scrimped with, and; 2) that one can ever allow profit motivations to occupy these same "publicly" (really, should be some more advanced form of share ownership or w/e) owned means/properties.
It's about the nature of things and the incentives inevitably bound up, and how you have to tailor the rules to specifically match a chosen solution. Me for instance, I think it's basically unfathomably stupid to allow banks to ever own themselves/have some kind of own stake separate from specific contracts and transactions. They shouldn't be ownable with shares in the bank; It should be the rule that if they are even allowed a damn profit in the first place as entities and through the shares, it should have to be linked directly to and never ever ever ever "disjointed" from the individual investment success.
Banks are always in the business of "printing money" i.e. overextending credit, however marginal and convoluted the means. This plus specific profit motive, equals always a moral hazard. Always.
"Not if, but when."
And, naturally, banks are just an example. The moment that one identifies some kind of dynamic like this in a sector or function of the economy, then I'd say it's time to apply the "N-OR" ruling models instead of standard "everything is free and private and you can do whatever the sam hell you like" good and sensible rules. Then, you totally flip the script and go "No, everything that is not this or that or this third thing that we want as a specialized function, is outright illegal just as a default. No complication of the code, no common pot for those within the entity, you get nothing good day sir."
