people will purchase goods at the same rate if there are fewer choices of products.
I agree, we don't need so many choices of sneakers, deodorants, etc. But, the economy might well need those choices. Doesn't matter to me, I pretty much have two pairs of shoes, one for when I can't get away with the same brand/look of sneakers, and that's not very often. I have hiking shoes and my dress hiking shoes that aren't quite as big/aggressive. But, how many folks are going to pare down.
Similarly, I've used the same deodorant for decades. Not sure it works that well by people's reaction, but I like it.
I've said before that I would love to see our country more like Denmark -- economically and socially -- but a lot of yahoo voters aren't going to like the idea of limiting choices, and perhaps paying more in taxes to help the poor.
If Sanders is saying, you and I don't need so many shoes, and other things, and should pay more in taxes to help the poor -- he's probably right. But, I can hear the squealing among Republicans and Democrats who believe only people making more than them should pay higher taxes. And, if we are buying less stuff, that will cost jobs, which will create more poor. There's got to be a balance, and Sanders needs to make sure he projects that when he makes such statements.
Again, I agree that this country is screwed up in that we don't do enough to help the poor, and should raise taxes on everyone (more on the well to do, but it will take everyone). But, people cutting back on sneakers is not the solution.
Sanders might have been taken out of context, or he might just have made a poor choice in describing his concern for the poor.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out.