Image Source
"Is it possible for complete governmental control of an industry to increase the quality of goods produced?" @llyran-noble
Imagining a landscape where the economy is not driven by competition or consumerism, but rather the hand of the central government is a task I find rather difficult, as I have not been outside of the US ever... much less to a country where such economic policy is practiced. I found this question intriguing as it is questioning whether there is a substitute for market forces in a governmental fashion. If the government were to become the dominant force in an economy, I believe that it would be exactly that: a force. Production of goods would be mandated, standardized, and individual innovation would be stifled as would competition. The benefits of such a structure to this industry hierarchy include efficiency and production quantity. In American history, the closest thing to such a situation is wartime production of military items... the nation was able to produce unseen economic growth during World War II as the government and industry partnered to manufacture clothing, vehicles, weapons, and supplies for the troops overseas. During World War II, the United States saw tremendous economic growth because of such production overseen by the government... but there was still a cost to it all, as other sectors of the economy began to collapse. So, there is evidence to support government control cascading production and enhancing the quantity of certain goods produced.
Would an economy run by the government lead to better quality goods though? I would argue likely not, as it would reduce competition between industries anticipating the consumers wants and needs. Complete government control would imply control of the options for the consumer, thus they are only able to take what is given, deprived of a choice -- deprived of innovation. Furthermore, prices and wages would also be standardized under such a system decreasing some of the other marketforces that we see at work in our society.
When you take away the reason for someone to work harder, produce more, or make something better, it doesn't happen. Some people will be an exception to that, but for the (proven) most part, production actually goes down, quality goes down, and people are worse off. production increased during WWII, not because of government intervention, per se, but because manufacturing of some products were changed out to help the war effort. People had a purpose to work together. They were not forced. If a government takes over and tells you that you must do something for the common good, many will start to slack. It is human nature. As soon as you allow someone to be compensated for the work they do, that's when people will work harder and come up with better stuff to bring more home than their neighbor...just our nature. Socialism leads to Communism. Communism is evil.