N95 Mask Shortage Amid Coronavirus Crisis: A Government-Created Mess?
President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 to direct the multinational conglomerate 3M to cease the exportation of N95 respirator masks due to the coronavirus crisis.
The decision followed a segment of Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News highlighting the story of Jared Moskowitz, the director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management.
During his interview, Moskowitz said that 3M would not let him buy a large quantity of the respirator masks because they were being shipped abroad.
“What I asked 3M is that, are they aware that their authorized distributors — U.S. companies — are telling me that the reason our orders are being pushed down is because foreign companies are showing up with cash to purchase the orders?” Moskowitz told Carlson.
In light of this news, Trump decided to pressure 3M to boost its distribution of respirator masks to the American market, using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse.
“We hit 3M hard today after seeing what they were doing with their Masks,” Trump tweeted. “‘P Act’ all the way. Big surprise to many in government as to what they were doing—will have a big price to pay!”
For its part, 3M told media outlets that meeting the demand for masks prompted by how governments across the globe are responding to reported cases of coronavirus has not been easy. As a result, Trump managed to force 3M to redirect some of the shipments back to American soil — but not all.
While this action was praised by some, it didn’t come as a surprise to proponents of free markets. After all, there is a lot more to this story than what was on display during Carlson’s show.
Monopolies, Shortages, & High Costs
Considering that the N95 masks are treated as essential equipment for medical professionals dealing with potentially contagious patients, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear told news outlets that if 3M simply can’t meet the demand it should consider dropping its hold on the patent of the respirator device.
Despite defending the broadening of the N95 mask production, Beshear stopped short of defending an end to patent protection altogether, highlighting that freeing other companies from liability if they sought to produce the same masks should be limited to this particular crisis.
“The procurement is incredibly difficult, as is the manufacture because it’s under patent. I’d like to see the people with that patent, which is 3M, provide that to the nation under a license for this period of time,” he said.
“I believe it’s their patriotic duty, and they should put it out there so everybody else can manufacture it.”
What the Kentucky governor may have not realized is just how many more lives would be saved under different circumstances if companies like 3M didn’t hold a government-backed right to produce these items.
Unlike what proponents of intellectual property laws may suggest, Dr. Timothy Farrell explained in this Mises Institute article that patents aren’t necessary to help boost innovation in the healthcare field.
“Even where new drugs could be reverse-engineered and copied, innovation could still be rewarded in a world without patent laws.”
As a matter of fact, government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are in charge of securing patents such as the one owned by 3M, are the ones that should be under heightened scrutiny as people in America struggle to find N95 masks.
If it weren’t for the added costs imposed by the process of getting the FDA to approve drugs and medical devices, as well as the added taxes and regulations, manufacturers of both drugs and life-saving devices wouldn’t have an opportunity to artificially limit the supply by charging higher prices and keeping competitors from developing similar and more affordable products, as explained by patent law expert Stephan Kinsella.
If government agencies did not give companies like 3M highly lucrative incentives to monopolize the production of said masks, we might have never seen a real global shortage in light of COVID-19. Why not look at this problem and use it as a means to explore how much better prepared we would be for something similar in the future by just dropping the legal barriers keeping competitors from developing N95 masks?
The decision followed a segment of Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News highlighting the story of Jared Moskowitz, the director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management.
During his interview, Moskowitz said that 3M would not let him buy a large quantity of the respirator masks because they were being shipped abroad.
“What I asked 3M is that, are they aware that their authorized distributors — U.S. companies — are telling me that the reason our orders are being pushed down is because foreign companies are showing up with cash to purchase the orders?” Moskowitz told Carlson.
In light of this news, Trump decided to pressure 3M to boost its distribution of respirator masks to the American market, using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse.
“We hit 3M hard today after seeing what they were doing with their Masks,” Trump tweeted. “‘P Act’ all the way. Big surprise to many in government as to what they were doing—will have a big price to pay!”
For its part, 3M told media outlets that meeting the demand for masks prompted by how governments across the globe are responding to reported cases of coronavirus has not been easy. As a result, Trump managed to force 3M to redirect some of the shipments back to American soil — but not all.
While this action was praised by some, it didn’t come as a surprise to proponents of free markets. After all, there is a lot more to this story than what was on display during Carlson’s show.
Monopolies, Shortages, & High Costs
Considering that the N95 masks are treated as essential equipment for medical professionals dealing with potentially contagious patients, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear told news outlets that if 3M simply can’t meet the demand it should consider dropping its hold on the patent of the respirator device.
Despite defending the broadening of the N95 mask production, Beshear stopped short of defending an end to patent protection altogether, highlighting that freeing other companies from liability if they sought to produce the same masks should be limited to this particular crisis.
“The procurement is incredibly difficult, as is the manufacture because it’s under patent. I’d like to see the people with that patent, which is 3M, provide that to the nation under a license for this period of time,” he said.
“I believe it’s their patriotic duty, and they should put it out there so everybody else can manufacture it.”
What the Kentucky governor may have not realized is just how many more lives would be saved under different circumstances if companies like 3M didn’t hold a government-backed right to produce these items.
Unlike what proponents of intellectual property laws may suggest, Dr. Timothy Farrell explained in this Mises Institute article that patents aren’t necessary to help boost innovation in the healthcare field.
“Even where new drugs could be reverse-engineered and copied, innovation could still be rewarded in a world without patent laws.”
As a matter of fact, government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are in charge of securing patents such as the one owned by 3M, are the ones that should be under heightened scrutiny as people in America struggle to find N95 masks.
If it weren’t for the added costs imposed by the process of getting the FDA to approve drugs and medical devices, as well as the added taxes and regulations, manufacturers of both drugs and life-saving devices wouldn’t have an opportunity to artificially limit the supply by charging higher prices and keeping competitors from developing similar and more affordable products, as explained by patent law expert Stephan Kinsella.
If government agencies did not give companies like 3M highly lucrative incentives to monopolize the production of said masks, we might have never seen a real global shortage in light of COVID-19. Why not look at this problem and use it as a means to explore how much better prepared we would be for something similar in the future by just dropping the legal barriers keeping competitors from developing N95 masks?
Fast forward to 2020, and there’s been tepid progress on scaling back conflicts like the Afghan war. One positive sign was the deal that the Taliban 
The Modern World: A Libertarian Paradise?
I’m sure Carlson had a reason to claim that libertarians run this world. I mean, it should be obvious considering that the establishment is anti-drug war. We know libertarians run the world because taxes are just so low! Tucker is a good anti-war voice.
He should know that libertarians have created a world without war! We have achieved a world in which there is no need for war because we respect non-interventionism.
Kids don’t need a permit to set up a lemonade stand. Eminent domain TOTALLY doesn’t exist. I can buy a machine gun out of a vending machine. The government doesn’t regulate us to death. We put the individual and the community above the state. The Non-Aggression Principle is the law of the land. Best of all, there is no Federal Reserve!
Oh, Wait… Tucker Carlson is So Wrong
While none of the hypotheticals I proposed are true, they all would be if libertarians were in charge. Tucker Carlson, however, believes that libertarians are owned by big banks. This should show automatically that Carlson has a fundamental lack of understanding of libertarianism. He does not know what Austrian Economics is. Ultimately, Tucker Carlson is clueless. If he actually understood what libertarianism was, he would never say something as stupid as the idea that libertarians are somehow the global elite.
Who is this Global Elite Tucker Fears so Deeply?
Don’t lie to yourself, however, there are elites in our world. These elites, however, are far from the libertarians Carlson claims them to be. Right now, we live in a world in which countries are trillions in debt. Taxes compose people’s biggest expense. Gun control is a pandemic. No matter how much Tucker thinks the big banks love libertarians, this is not true.
The Federal Reserve is destroying honest money every second it continues to exist, and libertarians vehemently oppose this. The warfare state goes on, and that is not because libertarians are warmongers. To some libertarians, in fact, war is the cement that holds it all together. If Tucker Carlson knew what he was talking about, he would know that libertarians avidly oppose the statist order in which we currently live.
Ultimately, we do not live in a libertarian capitalist world. When one looks at economic policy – the high taxes, regulations, subsidies, and the welfare state – and social policy – the warfare state, the war on drugs, the breaches of privacy, the forced morality – it all indicates that we actually live closer to Tucker Carlson’s ideal than any libertarian would ever desire.
Instead of blaming the world’s problems on the overwhelmingly powerless libertarians, perhaps Tucker Carlson should look in a mirror and see the suffering his disastrous economic “theory” has caused in this world and in America.
We Need to Do Better
The fact that Carlson actually believes that libertarians run this world teaches us a lesson: we need to be more clear in what we believe.
For libertarians, that means no compromise. We have to be precise in our language so that the world knows that what we seek is freedom. The people need to know that we live in an unfree world and libertarians want to change that.
These ideas come from Elizabeth Warren in a plan she calls “Economic Patriotism.” Carlson, of course, chose to attack libertarians, claiming that they run the economy. If libertarians ran the economy, this world would be a VERY different place.
Tucker Carlson: Ignorance Meets Arrogance
Carlson exposed his ignorance when he claimed that libertarians are “controlled by the banks.” I guess Carlson has never read Ron Paul’s End the Fed. Perhaps he should look into Murray Rothbard’s What Has the Government Done to Our Money? Carlson’s ignorance continues when he talks about how Republican policymakers care about Austrian Economics.
I’m assuming Carlson hasn’t read Human Action. I assume this charitably. The only other explanation would be that Carlson lacks the reading comprehension to read Human Action (or any economics book, for that matter).
While Carlson chooses to call for socialism as though that is freedom, perhaps he should consider educating himself. If he truly supported putting America First, he would oppose the tariffs he shilled for in this broadcast. What is a better way to ensure prosperity for the average American than to lower the cost of living? But instead of this, Carlson calls for an