system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why are economists against price controls out of principle?

Economists' consensus is that price floors and ceilings lead to surpluses and shortages, respectively.  However, this is only true if the price control is placed above or below market equilibrium, respectively.  So, why do economists seem to be opposed to price controls (other than the minimum wage and some agricultural price floors) out of principle, rather than being opposed to them *on the condition* that they are incorrectly set in relation to market equilibrium?
gpt
>this is only true if the price control is placed above or below market equilibrium

Equilibrium will change as market conditions change.  New technology makes things cheaper: a previously set price floor is no longer below equilibrium.  Breakdown in supply chain: a previously set ceiling is no longer above equilibrium.

Also, there's enforcement costs. Why have market actors check against a floor / ceiling that's below / above the market price?  It adds some compliance costs (admittedly small) for no benefit.