Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has called himself a socialist; he’s not. His liberal use of the term shows he doesn’t know enough about economics to be trusted with his own household expenses — much less the checkbook of the United States.

A socialist, to be precise, advocates government control or ownership of the means of production — the farms and the factories and the oil wells and the shoe shops. Sanders, at least lately, sounds much more like a European-style democratic socialist, who advocates strong central control of the economy and math-defying social programs and benefits.

But he said something last week that shows his understanding of economics … stinks.

“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” Sanders said in an interview.

Where to start?

We could start with choice. Choice is a luxury of economies that work. Failing economies are marked by a lack of available products, a lack of diverse brands, and a lack of selection. Choice benefits consumers because they can decide for themselves, between those 23 choices, which product best suits their needs. Choice benefits consumers because competition is good — it forces manufacturers to produce the best products, at the lowest prices, possible. Choice benefits workers because 23 deodorant companies are going to employ far more people than a single brand would. Unique distribution pathways, advertising dollars and promotion efforts mean more jobs and more economic activity.

Next, Sanders’ statement implies that someone — presumably a government bureaucrat — could outsmart the market. The socialist position is, put simply, that markets are dumb. They waste resources in needless competition. A wise ruler could better direct those resources to better uses.

But history and common sense say otherwise. Economies are impossible to plan because they’re big — really big. There are innumerable components in the production and distribution of a single product. Central planners cannot possibly give adequate attention to each component, in order to put everything onto shelves that people need, at prices they can afford, and where it’s needed.

The third part of Sanders’ statement that defies all logic is his conflation of choice with child hunger. Is he really saying that if we had only one kind of deodorant to purchase, no child would go hungry? What history shows is that robust, free market economies have halved child poverty and child mortality in the developing world. Where markets are more free, fewer people are hungry.

If Sanders wants to see real child hunger, he should take a look at the famines in the socialist paradises of North Korea and Venezuela.

Finally, the most offensive part of his statement is the “in this country” part. Are there hungry children in the United States? Of course. But it’s not because of deodorants. And it’s not even because we don’t spend enough money on assistance programs. Usually, family dysfunction is the cause. Help is available, if it’s sought.

Bernie Sanders simply doesn’t understand how economies function.