why not produce more so people can buy it?...If I had a company I would make sure I'd keep that product available for sale.
The same limited edition argument/conundrum comes up in many phases of art. I'm a big fan of certain eras of Grateful Dead, and over the past few years, all or most of the official releases have been limited to fewer than 10,000 copies. The logic is, you pay for the mixing, mastering, and package production once, and you try to nail the market interest. If you sell out in a day, you've underestimated; if you sell out in three months to a year, you've slightly over-estimated. If you don't sell out in a year or finally sell out in five years, you've over-estimated. If you have to reissue a limited run, it's bloody expensive, and you risk missing your market demand if you originally missed about by 300 and you produce 2,000 more (likely not a cost-effective number; try 5,000).
Not to appear as combative (and sorry, I'm not being so), but you apparently don't own a company, but you're convinced that you'd stock said item because you like it. These are the businesses that fail. Sure, re-issuing Beatles, Dylan, etc. is viable long-term (thanks to idiots like myself), but niche items such as Bukowski, not so much.
All that aside, welcome to the forums. There's a boatload of good stuff here; all much better than the Bukowski tapes, in my opinion, of course.