First I agree with most of what you wrote. You gave lots of good examples that made a compelling argument against unrestrained capitalism. Thus we arrive at the mixed model where the state intervenes sparingly to forestall monopoly abuse, to promulgate product safety, to subsidize purchase of needed goods for the poor, to promote infrastructure development for the common good and to undertake other similar activities. You can always argue where the line goes.
Systems that are too slanted toward socialism often end up with supply problems, endemic poverty, flat GDP growth, widespread bribery, and totalitarian repression.
Yes bread is 25 cents a loaf by government decree and you can theoretically afford it, only the bakery has 10 loaves all reserved for the party faithful. You can slide the guard $20 and voila, you get one. With regulated capitalism, bread is $1.00 a loaf, the flour and the weight have been inspected, and the shelves are full. Some people might not be able to afford a loaf, but they get food stamps and end up with a loaf of bread too if that is what they want. This is the system that has worked to dramatically increase living standards and reduce poverty. Socialism has a dismal record: it really hasn’t worked anywhere.