The issue that you have is that there is a decently large capital cost to building new production, and once the pandemic is over, the budget hawks are going to swoop in and cut purchasing of masks down to below pre-pandemic levels because there's now a massive unused pile of the stuff, why do we need any more? So the guaranteed-purchase contracts are abrogated, and the manufacturers are saddled with a lot of debt and no prospective income.
(This isn't a theoretical thought exercise, it actually happened during the H1N1 flu crisis).
All modern production has bottlenecks. For items that governments consider important, they find ways to manage bottlenecks.
The issue with US N95 availability is that no one in authority considers the problem important enough to be worth fixing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/coronavirus-mayors-m...
Keeping prices low restricts availability now and in the foreseeable future.
They're not going to respond to a short-term increase in prices--in any market, not just pandemic-related PPE--by increasing long-term production capacity. They know that demand will eventually drop before they can pay off their capacity investments.
Indeed, in the absence of price controls, cutting production in the face of increased short-term demand can increase profits by raising prices.
There's a reason the oil industry routinely shuts down refineries, pipelines, and other infrastructure for 'scheduled maintenance' during long weekends, after all.
1) The central planning authority sees you and allocates you some
2) Anyone with some $ sees you and allocates you some
The study of economics tells us that #2 will tend to more successfully allocate the resources where they are needed. The confidence level is near that of how biologists talk about evolution.
#2 does suffer from "but rich people will protect themselves first." Of course, just as with #1 politically connected people will protect themselves first, and their wealthy benefactors.
The inner party, as it were.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opinion/covid-face-mask-s...
Faced with a similar shortage of masks early in the year, the Korean government bought up the overwhelming majority of it's domestic mask production, and directed pharmacies to distribute them to the public at a fixed price according to a rationing system. As a result, every Korean has access to two N95-equivalent masks a week and the vast majority of Koreans wear them in public.
In Libertopia^wAmerica, the free market solution has trickled down unrated fabric masks to the general public and trickled up N95 masks according to the whims of Trumpworld.
In part due to universal masking with high-quality PPE, the South Korean death toll is 7 per million. In Galt's Gulch^w^wAmerica, the death toll is 597 per million.[0]
Government can work for the majority of people. The American free market does not.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
https://www.ibtimes.com/us-accused-modern-piracy-redirecting...
EDIT: If you disagree, tell me why. "Capitalists" and "communists" both are getting downvoted in this thread for what I assume are ideological reasons and it's annoying me.
There simply isn't enough information to make good enough decisions centrally. There is waste associated with decentralisation, too (each of those middlemen gets his cut!), but it turns out that there is less waste and more wealth with a free market than with a centralised one.
Even if we did, there would be tons of complaints about speculators turning a profit on people's health.
Allowing mask manufacturers to charge the market price for their masks, though, might have made it worthwhile to build out the necessary capacity (I am pretty sure that it would have, but I could be wrong, so I will hedge my bets). But then, grandstanding politicians would have claimed it was 'price-gouging' (which simply cannot exist) and might even have tried to send the mask-makers to jail. Who would take that risk?