This doesn't make sense. You are arguing that a monopoly (1 hotel in an area) would be more efficient than a dozen in an area who compete strongly?

For customers the area that has many hotels that compete with each other will be better than the area that just has one. The area with one hotel would have a single hotel that would have no incentive to be efficient or effective.

I do realize this is getting into "is Gene Roddenberry's post-scarcity society even possible starting from capitalism?"

When deciding whether competition is the best governance should take into account system scope or level for that competition. Are you competing at the level of hotel rooms and restaurants within a hotel, at the level of hotels, at the neighborhoods clusters of hotels are in, at sectors of ecosystems like hotels versus transportation versus other people uses of land and resources.

> the best governance should take into account system scope or level for that competition. Are you competing at the level of hotel rooms and restaurants within a hotel, at the level of hotels, at the neighborhoods clusters of hotels are in, at sectors of ecosystems like hotels versus transportation versus other people uses of land and resources

I think there's competition at all of those levels, and that's a good thing.

Isn't this just true about everything? Having a bunch of shipping companies makes way less sense than having a single globally-integrated logistics solution that everyone uses that could therefore know about and plan around far larger scales.

What I'm trying to say is I don't understand your point.