One of the psychological effects of stimulant drugs is that they

are disinhibiting. That is, they erode our reluctances and our

inertia, they lull the pinch-nosed censor that lives in each of

us and stir up the grinning satyr. (Certain stimulants, like

the amphetamines, are so radically disinhibiting that their use

is associated with violent and self-destructive behaviour ).

There is probably no inhibition that we lay down as joyfully

as shyness and in the customary doses, that’s just what

caffeine does. You might say that it turns up the pressure

on the expression of stray thoughts and feelings while it

loosens the valve that holds them in.

It’s no surprise then that coffee was introduced

to Europe along with a social setting that harmonized

exquisitely with its use. The setting was the coffee

house, a place where coffee was served and conversation

was encouraged. The first coffeee house in England was

founded (in Oxford) by a man named Jacobs who brought

both the beverage and the idea with him from the Middle East.

The brew and the place proved to be very popular with

the students . It was so popular as a focus for meeting

and discussion that the Royal Society was founded there

in 1650. Lloyd’s Coffee House in London eventually became

the famous insurance institution.

It’s likely that the stimulant effects of coffee

would have been less appreciated had there not also been

an environment where those effects could be seen as a

virtue. It’s hard to imagine that the taste would have

been appreciated at all if it had been presented by itself.

The popular reaction to coffee was nothing like

a response to a new food and everything like a response

to a medicine. Authorities in Prussia and England tried

to ban coffee and coffeehouses. Voltaire drank an

astonishing 50 cups a day and claimed that he could

not have written philosophy without it. Immanuel Kant

was reported to have whimpered when his coffee was

delayed. Perhaps most instructive is the testimony of

Balzac whose 100 novels suggest a certain frenzied

hyperactivity. Speaking of the effects of coffee, he said

.”..Ideas begin to move like the Grand Army

of the Republic on the battlefield. Things remembered

arrive at full gallop. The light cavalry of comparisons

delivers charges, the artillery of logic hurries up with

trains of ammunition, the shafts of wit start up like

sharpshooters. Similies arise, the paper is covered

with ink; for the struggle begins and is concluded with

torrents of black water, just like a battle with powder.”

This feverish testimony isn’t an endorsement of flavor,

aroma and body., it’s a love song to a psychoactive drug.

In the same way, Wild’s useful book concentrates its energy

on the social and economic aspects of

the coffee trade. This discussion is not well-documented and

has a bit of a testy anti-american bias. The (to me) central

question of how this bitter concoction came to be the subject

of a grand connoisseurship is left untouched.

None the less, a useful book to introduce the subject.

–Lynn Hoffman, author of THE NEW SHORT COURSE IN WINE and

the forthcoming novel bang BANG from Kunati Books.ISBN 9781601640005
Rating: 3 / 5

This is my first introduction to anything about coffee’s history and how coffee affects the global market and economy. I am simply a person who likes my morning joe and an occasional coffee house treat! I found the history part of this book fascinating. However, was taken a-back by Wild’s strong anti-US feelings about the USA’s treatment of Central and South American countries. His treatment seems biased–still, the reader needs to remember that he’s a Brit living in France. Overall, a good read.
Rating: 4 / 5

There are some excellent books about coffee and its history. Some books about its politics and some about the business it engenders. Most of non technical coffee books tend to be a little biased against the rich world. This one is no exception.

Poor world producers and rich world consumers are the two sides of the same coin and as a matter of fact, unregulated, this market tends to behave like any other market: supply and demand drives it.

The fact is that Vietnam entered the Market «en force» in the nineties and suddenly the coffee world changed. Supply shot up overnight and demand, although it increased did not set up the supply surge. Thus, prices went down.

For those who know the coffee market, boom and bust is the rule. A surge in price would trigger a surge in production as new land would be put to use for coffee growing thus generating a supply bubble. Therefore, prices would fall, land would be set aside for other uses and people would go out of business. With or without ICO that has been the rule throughout the XXth century.

The thing is that coffee works in five years cycle, that is the normal time for a coffee tree to grow to mature production, and therefore to yield new coffee on the market until there is too much. These cycles are extremely difficult to anticipate – those who would do it would be billionaires – and are subject to hazards like frost or markets busts.

But the nineties also saw the coming of age of specialty coffees and the glorification of the Arabica kind. Suddenly, Blue Mountain or Kona coffees would fetch stratospheric prices.

Another piece of the puzzle is that coffee distribution is one of the most elaborated and financially demanding businesses, conducing to a huge concentration of the market. It therefore appears as if big corporation was after poor people profits.

This is a market where no evident truths are forthcoming and the most useless thing to do is to blame the rich, amongst which the inevitable US of A.

That Vietnam wanted to have a try on cash crop production is not the fault of Capitol Hill, and that they were hugely successful still less.

I think this book which enlightens some aspects of the coffee trade is trying to find culprits but offers no solutions. In ten years time, when the trend will have reversed and back again, Whose fault will it be?

Rating: 3 / 5