Lets imagine the government restricted the number of shoe makers to one. Only Nike could make shoes. All other things being equal, what would we expect to happen? Nike would raise prices and reduce output. This is called monopoly pricing.

Thats a really stupid example that would never happen. Sorry, its just is. Besides how irrelevant and improbably that example is, Sanders has come out as being agaisnt monopolies. He feels the government RIGHT NOW works towards stifling competition (because of corruption and questionable laws that favor huge corporations), he would work to increase competition and thus, by your logic, reducing prices and ending world hunger.

We should ignore economic principles when debating matters of economic policy? That is a sad argument in support of Sanders; but, at least very honest.

Just because there is an economic principle that might apply to a situation it doesnt mean it reflects reality in any practical sense. Your argument is wrong and shortsighted. You deserve an F in economics for what you have said here man. Just look at reality, what happens is that our thirst for shoes lead to factories being outsourced and more jobs somewhere else (shitty jobs that provide no security or long term growth and stability, and handicaps peoples career development. Thats the reality I have seen with my own eyes, ive worked in third world outsourced jobs).

So we are blinded and because we want more shoes the government works with big corporations to TAKE AWAY American jobs, work AGAISNT the interest of the American people, and ignores the real problems of our society because big corporations making money and increasing our GPD is more important.