The end result is generally a less efficient market, but that is often acceptable because it is perceived as more fair. The purpose of the market is to serve the needs of society, not the other way around.
No, the end result of this is that by severing the supply and demand mechanism, every single person suffers.
I mean, I guess you can say that it’s “more fair” in that everyone is fucked… Although, in practice, those with connections to the government never suffer. They always have plenty of shit.
All of which has nothing to do with socialism.
Except that it does, in that it is a socialist practice, with government attempting to control the means of production.
Avoiding socialism was the life mission of John Maynard Keynes.
And as a direct result, Keynes was a strong opponent of price controls. Even in extreme cases, like WWII, Keynes was an outspoken opponent of implementing price controls:
For these reasons, even liberal economists like John Maynard Keynes have opposed wage and price controls. As he wrote in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, “The preservation of a spurious value for the currency, by the force of law expressed in the regulation of prices, contains in itself … the seeds of final economic decay, and soon dries up the sources of ultimate supply.”
[U]Even during World War II Keynes opposed price controls, believing that a freely fluctuating price system is critical to the operation of a capitalist system. [/U]He favored using forced saving to soak up excess purchasing power and keep prices in check. In effect, a sort of tax would be imposed on everyone, but the money would go into a private account and earn interest. The money could not immediately be spent, but after the war these accounts would be gradually unblocked, thus helping to boost the economy as war spending fell. Even F.A. Hayek, Keynes’ greatest intellectual opponent, thought the plan was brilliant. But the British government imposed controls anyway.