i would agree that if direct trade were the ultimate panacea we’d be seeing more “results.” by now.

Keep up the good work. I really appreciate you creating this dialogue.

groups like yours are obviously doing yeoman’s work and thinking of farmers. your arguments are the same, logical ones that many in specialty coffee make. and it makes sense.

what i’ve never heard before is a broader argument that there may be better ways to raise the plight of farmers, and that the direct-trade model may actually calcify existing poverty for those who can’t get into such a relationship, instead of creating a tide that lifts all boats.

i’m not taking sides, but i didn’t hear anyone in specialty come up with an answer for these economists. that’s surprising.

so, i’ve got several thousand words soon to be posted here about the issue, and about what i see as some new and startling arguments made by people who know the markets.

The way I’ve been saying it is to “Spoil yourself by drinking better coffee and in turn honor everyone who made that cup possible” Shit coffee, while your right to drink, helps no one but the fat cats sitting in U.S.-based and European offices.

in essence, several economists made the case that while direct-trade relationships are helpful to individual farmers as far as they go, the overall trend toward higher retail prices has two unintended effects on a macro scale: (a) it limits demand, whereas lower prices expand demand, positively affecting farmers more widely. and (b) when tough economic times hit, then a decrease in consumption (such as we’re seeing) at a higher retail price point can create more volatility, which also hurts the farmer.

it wasn’t an indictment of higher coffee prices per se, but rather a useful lesson on what’s most effective if you want to help the plight of the farmer on a wide scale (not just the 2% or whatever who can meet specialty standards).

a real interesting proposal came up. more later.