> Would you want to live in that world?

Depends... if that amounts to a central agency micromanaging every aspect of economy, then certainly not. We all know how that ends.

But if it means there is a central intelligence (democraticly controlled, like by a parliament and not a dictatorship!) that can override individual business decisions in important corporations, then sure.

It is well known in economics that decisions that make sense for individuals (corporations, persons) can be detrimental to society as a whole. A pareto-optimum by no means has to be the "best" or "most desirable" optimum.

It would be nice if someone could say, after appropriate research and debate, "Hello Amazon, it is great that you are running so well and expanding so much. But we as a society have decided that we can live without further delivery speed improvements in this year. OTOH, we think your workers deserve a bit more money. Please reallocate $N to their salaries."

Or, "Dear energy companies, after reviewing all the facts, we have decided that technology X (nuclear, fracking, ...) is not worth the risk to us. We'd rather accept a loss of 3% or stagnation for N years in wealth. Please reallocate resources to build more Y (solar, wind power, ...)"