Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I think the "comparitively small pool" is larger than the pool of people who want full plate armor, which costs about as much. So, is there insufficient demand to make up a market for purchasing the armor? Before you answer, remember that the enchantment process takes on the order of days, when armor construction takes weeks or months.
I think that there's probably far more people who are capable of making non-magical armor than there are of enchanting magic items (certainly based on the population tables in the 3.5 DMG), so add that on top of the prohibitive cost, and the answer is a pretty clear yes.
That's even overlooking the fact that full plate armor will add a very large amount to your AC, whereas a +1 longsword is only giving you an +1 to damage over its non-magical counterpart.
If the economics of D&D are also to model something vaguely like historical Europe, then it is, economically speaking, lunacy (unless you've got some simply fantastic productivity). The arms, armor, food, other supply, and livestock required by an army cannot generally be produced on that basis. It is equivalent to having all the arms, armor, food, and so on for each solider to be produced by a single person, on top of that person making enough excess for their own wages and the soldier's. That's just not going to happen.
They aren't meant to model something "vaguely like" historical Europe, unless Europe had magic item shops. They're meant to model a game world, nothing more. Likewise, there's nothing to suggest that the civilian population isn't devoting most of their effort to crafting the supplies for the military - not to mention the idea that some items can be bought via foreign importation to shore up the difference.
Which is yet another example of the fact that you can pretty easily make any economic scenario you want be plausible, something that you keep trying to disprove in what's apparently a bout of One True Way-ism. That's the real lunacy.