William Gibson quote-tweeted someone musing about supply chains in a context of "is this going to delay necessary change?" and it makes me want to scream into the void.
You can't control an economy in detail past a certain size.
What you can do is pick your tradeoffs; the long-supply-chain economy we've got is that way because it maximizes profits not through detailed control (which, remember, does not work) but by biasing the system to have small numbers of any particular community of practice, which tends to improve returns on investment in any particular community of practice. If there's one factory on earth making titanium cookware, investing in the factory is both more reliable (there's demand, this is the whole supply) and more profitable (there's no competition). This pattern extends to everything. It relies on cheap shipping, so that shipping resin from the US Gulf Coast to China makes sense as a way to manage your industrial inputs.
Cheap shipping relies on nothing going wrong; if stuff goes wrong, you have to build in margin for it, and margin costs. Competitive shipping prices -- one of the few areas where real competition remains -- rip out all the margin. ("Just-in-time scheduling" is a palatable term for "zero-resilience manufacturing"; it's a cost optimization that deliberately choses systemic fragility to raise profits. This was and is policy, just as much as not paying labour is policy.)
The other thing is that you're substituting a reliable schedule for having a system. Systems have feedback. Price signals are not sufficient feedback. (Prices can't reflect events people do not know about. "Where does the hurricane land?", and so on, aren't predictable. Resiliency has a cost, but it's a structural cost, you can't price it into a low-resiliency system.)
Necessary change is NOT "infrastructure resilience". Necessary change is stuff like performing the experiment to answer "how small an economy with zero fossil carbon inputs can provide critical services?" (the stuff like refrigeration and anesthetized dentistry and a comms infrastructure). It's a completely different world (at a somewhat higher elevation).
We can't get there from here; the only route involves coming down off this local maximum, and the sooner you do it, the less it costs. The more deliberately you do it, the more survivable it is. (With machine agriculture, failed supply chains can result in a failed food supply just as easily as general agricultural failure due to climate shifts.)
Society is a machine. The machine we've got is there to make sure the rich get richer. It is not capable of doing anything else. (As we can see from the comprehensive failure of a pandemic response, including the "I have no obligations to something that doesn't exist" responses about social duty.) It's absolutely not capable of resilience.
We need something resilient. We can have it as soon as we decide we're going to have it, instead of this. It's not an "and" question; it's an instead.