From the bottom as I consider your higher points the more relevant ones. (excepting #1, which you echo later and so I answer only once, as my first point)

Regarding bias, and specifically mine. I'd rather keep deeper values out of this for the time being. But it's no secret that I believe in free will. That leads me to privilege human choice. Other stuff follows from that. I formed these beliefs fairly late, and originating in the hard sciences. How it applied or not to human sciences like economy and history was a much later process. How it applied to politics was a happy coincidence in that I had somehow instinctively shifted towards coherent positiions on the basis on valuing political freedom.

Regarding economic obscurity. First, not all hard, repeatable, demonstrable scientific truths are intuitive. Second, there is a large step from the fundamental laws to their application in dynamic circumstances. Thirdly, it relies on numerical literacy, itself a touchy topic. Lastly, there is a large element of willful ignorance - this is an area which if confronted rationally and objectively easily removes certain illusions we like to keep about human values. Or as you put it, there is a barrier to overcome regarding sel-awareness of one's biases and how important we are in the grand scheme of things. Of course none of that is about should. It merely explains why something is.

Regarding your German links, I must apologize for not even opening them. Maybe you can offer a summary of their subject matter? I don't think they will disprove my point though. Specialist media will of course be an exception, which broadly speaking might be split in half between macro and micro topics. But mass media, when concerned with economic matters, will either focus on the human angles, or the national angles. In the first ones, the typical media bias will be to present only the negative - like for example a big story about a factory close, hardly any story about a factory opening. More relevantly, at the national level economy is by definition macro - GDP, interest rates, central bank interventions, currency wars, unemployment rates, demographic change, etc... etc... it's all macro.

Now continuing the deepdive. One important thing about the graph is that it is nominal prices. Given inflation in the period even a nominal rise might not actually be a loss of purchasing power - in other words, the graphic is somewhat alarmist in regards to what is actually more expensive - its illustrative value is the spread depending on the type of "good" being priced. You understand this I trust? A 100$ food basket in 1996 might cost 164$ in 2016, but those 100$ might have been 1 daily wage back then, whereas the 164$ today are not as high as 1.64 days of wage.

Then, as I already mentioned, the quality and diversity of the food basket might also have changed significantly. I happen to recall 1996 and if you can as well I need say nothing about the increase in variety of food products available in comparison. Food quality I guess is much more subjective, but I think we would easily agree that food quality has not worsened. Junk food already existed. Healthy food like vegetables, or plain cereals was and is cheaper than processed foods. And we certainly did not go back to compromised standards of hygiene, almost daily food poisoning, etc...

Now to actually engage your point. Of course I wil agree with you that food and clothing are more basic and fundamental. In fact that is a reason why we find it hard to feel the state's finger on the economic scale: our basic needs are mostly being met. But no one has said - least of all me - that software, toys and electronics are more important than healthcare and education. To the contrary, and hence why I find the graphic quite tragic. I said so ealier already in fact.

Finally, on the crux of the matter. I would hope you find the second observation obvious (competitive markets leading to material welfare) and are only asking for examples regarding price controls? Because the correlations between technological innovation, capitalism, free markets, globalization and the reduction of poverty, the reduction of input labor - despite huge population increases - are not obscure historical realities. However if I am mistaken, I guess here you have a perfect example of truth being obscured by... well, you tell me by what? :)

Wait. Neoliberal propaganda right? :) I guess that might be a clue to what could be blinding you... again, the labels hardly matter - I don't identify as neoliberal, I'm much more classical liberal. But that you might be staring truth in the face, and dismiss it as almost a lie is more worrisome. So, if you are keen to dialogue in earnest and bridge the gaps between us, then please read this, and maybe the links about historical examples, and tell me what exactly you consider propaganda in the causal relations described. And please - don't shift the goalposts. I was careful from the start to speak of material welfare.

Finally, regarding price controls. I read a book specifically on that topic less than two years ago. It was quite dry but for this purpose ideal. I can pick it up and give you numerous examples. However, I suggest a micro economics lesson to get at the same truth. Can you kindly let me know when you last sold something? Or tell me something you are selling, or would like to sell in the near future. I find examples are much more effective if they are nearer to home - so to speak.

PS: Further reading

So is your thesis that only slaves commit suicide?

A bit far from the topic actually under discussion... stop shifting the goalposts with loaded nonsequiturs.

Your density of fallacious argumentation per wordcount is impressive, I'll give you that.

Edit for PS: Dude, I remember reading that article 5 years ago when it came out... and even speed reading now I already found facts that go against the slavery narrative you're trying to push. What are you trying to prove here?