I think the repeated failure of centrally planned economies proves it generally does more harm than good, and IMO complexity makes central planning less workable not more.

The problem the EU has are when decisions are centralised (its an EU decision rather than a member state decision) but require agreement by multiple member states with different interests. In the US, AFAIK, the federal government makes decisions about things that apply to the whole of the US without requiring the agreement of states. The EU's problem is not lack of centralisation, its a mismatch between who makes decisions and where they apply. You could also solve the problem by delegating more powers back to member states (or by letting the Commission and Parliament make all EU wide decisions without requiring the agreement of member states).

I agree history shows that decentralization is generally superior to centralization, in a way thats a core tenet our free and open societies are built on.

But yeah it's much more nuanced than just a black and white dichotomy or even a continuum, a body needs a head with one brain, the brain has many parts, each part has many nerve cells which are autonomous, ...

In the light of the current landscape, it seems important to me to funnel resources to capturing of the some new value which will be created. Indecisiveness, misinformation and regulation instead of opening up opportunities are some issues I see today that could be and are solved by centralization. Maybe I am just FOMOing as Europoor, though, and will be happy in 20 years to live in stability and not anarcho-capitalism. Who knows.

The huge problem with centralization is that it allows you to make huge mistakes, up to literally continent-scaled ones. This is what ends empires, sometimes.

The US was able to bomb Iran and Russia was able to attack Ukraine because basically a single important person said so. Personally, I consider the War Powers Act to be one of the worst laws that your Congress ever voted in.

The EU cannot do such things before obtaining consensus of multiple nations and I am happy for that, as we have had a lot of disastrous decisions in our past already.

My favorite tidbit is the First World War. The Germans in Austria were gung-ho about attacking Serbia, but the Hungarians were not, and they had the power of veto. If István Tisza held firm, the war might have been avoided, maybe just for a few years, maybe indefinitely, or maybe at least Central Europe could have stayed out of it, leaving it to the German Empire and the British to duke it out between themselves.

But in a more federal Austria-Hungary, where the Czechs and the Poles would have their own vetos, that particular war of 1914 would definitely have been off the table. Neither of those nations was interested in a pseudo-colonial war of conquest in the Balkans against another Slavic nation.