As months have gone by since coffee pr ices reached the i r peak and we see those prices beginning to decline, there is sti” much confusion about what caused the unprecedented boost. We have been told that frosts in Brazil killed a large percentage of the crop, that both Brazi Ilan qovernment and private exporters demanded higher and higher prices, that there was wi Id speculation in the American coffee market, and that anyhow we were increasing our consumption of coffee more rapidly than its increased avai labi lity.<\/p>\n
Careful investigation now reveals that, whi Ie frost did considerable damage, its total effect was not enough to influence seriously the total exportable yield. So, without any pretense to knowledge of economics, we suggest that one doesn’t have to look far to find out why coffee has been costing the American Consumer so much. The answer is found in one little five-letter word: greed.<\/p>\n
Both Brazi I i an exporter and Ameri can importer saw a chance for qui ck, bounti fu I profi ts if enough peop Ie coul d be made to be I ieve that coffee was going to be scarce. So the frost stories were exaggerated, the warehouse holdings were min~ imized, and there ensued a mad rush to buy large shipments in what looked like assurance of big prof its.<\/p>\n
For a brief time those profits must indeed have been big. They were not the profits of legitimate dealers, but of speculators who often owned no coffee at al I, <\/em>but only rights in future coffee. Then what happened? The speculators overlooked an old law of economics, the law of diminishing returns. That law fundamentally applies to expanding production beyond what the public can or wi II buy, but it can app Iy equally as well to prices.<\/p>\n I n respect to coffee, here was a product for wh i ch there exi sts tremendous demand. People would pay gladly any increase in price because coffee had become a necessity. Didn’t all business and industry recognize a recent, previously unknown phenomenon called the coffee break? That rest period in offices wasn’t called a tea break, nor a coke break, nor a snoke break. It wasn!t even called a rest break. Its spontaneous name was coffee break. Didn’t that prove the supremacy of coffee in Ameri can life?<\/p>\n Now in the fal I of 1954 economic disaster threatens Brazi I because coffee exports aren’t moving. American warehouses are ful I. Prices are already starting to decline. Why? Because enough people stopped buying. Amonq them may have been no one that you know. You and your neighbors may have purchased as much coffee as you ever di d. But among a II the 160 ,000 ,000 Ameri cans, enough of them reduced their coffee consumption so that retai I purchase by householders fel I off 20% in a few short months. That is one phase of the law of diminishing returns. It is possible to get the price of any commodity so high that the volume of its sale diminishes seriously.<\/p>\n realize that, in my economic ignorance, I’m asking for it when I venture this layman’s opinion. But, honestly, that is what I think explains the coffee situation — two things — <\/strong>greed and diminishing returns.<\/p>\n Oi d you know that, for some ti me after oi I I amps came into use, the 0; I was called I1burning fluid!!? Here is the wording of an ad in the Christian Mirror, published in Portland in 1854:<\/p>\n “Burning Fluid. Camphene and Marsh’s Patent Oi I. of superior quality, may be found at Samue I Thurston’s 011 Exchange Street .”<\/p>\n The Mirror also gives us a glimpse at one vital living cost in 1854 — the cost of shelter. Listen to this ad:<\/p>\n !fTo be let. Half of a dwelling house, with convenient out-bui Idings, orchard and garden, pleasantly situated in Gorham village, between the depot and the seminary. Rent $50 a year. Also for sale in the same vi II age , a two-story house and barn with about one acre of land. Price $800, of which only $100 need be cash down, with balance payable over a five year period.”<\/p>\n Looking over old railroad timetables and notices recently reminded me that do not know when Sunday trains first operated regularly in Maine. I believe a hundred years ago, in 1854, there was no Sunday train anywhere in the United States. So it does not seem unusual to find the Grand Trunk, in its announcement in the spring of 1854, listing trains only on week-days. That railroad, the result of John Poor’s famous ride by team from Portland to Montreal in a howling blizzard, had been open only a short time In 1854, but it was already operating two trains a day in each direction, between Portland and South Paris, but only one between South Paris and Island Fal Is, Vermont. In 1854 the Grand Trunk di d not actua Ily enter Montrea I. With no bri dge then across the St. Lawrence at Montreal, the Grand Trunk’s terminal was at Longueull on this side of he rl ver.<\/p>\n Like all early rai I road ads, this one boasts of stage connections along the way. It says: “At South Paris stages leave Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday for Harri son, Bridgton, Waterford, Lovell and Fryeburg. At Bryant’s Pond stages leave dai Iy for Rumford; Monday, Wednesday and Friday for Dixfield; Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday for Andover.”<\/p>\n So in 1854 Maine people were beginning to get around actively. They could trave I by what they called the steam cars, not only from Portland to Watervi lie, but all the way from Portland to the St. Lawrence River. But they couldn’t do it on Sunday. I know that among my listeners are a numbe r of persons who have been close Iy connected with Mal ne rai I roads for many years, and some of you have records of railroad events long before your own time. Now who among you can help me out? I want to know when regular Sunday trains were first operated in Ma i ne.<\/p>\n In the town of Winslow I recently ran across a letter written 115 years ago — a letter that especi a Ily attracted my attenti on because it was addressed to my own boyhood town of Bridgton. It is just a friendly, unimportant letter, and I quote it only to show what our Maine folks had to say to each other a century ago. Written by David Garland of Winslow to Dr. Charles Parsons and wife of Bridgton, this is what the letter says:<\/p>\n “Yours of the 20th is before me. GI ad to hear of your safe return to home and friends. We are glad you did not forget to write particularly respecting Sister Wiggin. Keep us informed about her, as we are anxious. The last direct word from he r was a letter severa I months past in wh i ch she bade us farewe I I, told us she had given up al I hope of recovery, and assured us she could look into the grave with composure. She said she expected within a few days to take up he r I ast abode. When I read he r short I ette r, I sat down comp I ete I y ave rwhelmed with the contemplation of the brevity, frailty and uncertainty of human life. How important, how inconceivably important, are the changes which a few years make in the condition of our fami lies and friends. Where is Catherine? Where is Martha? \\’ihere is your father? Where is my mother? And where in a few days will be Sister Wiggin? Gone — all of them gone — we hope gone to join the company of the redeemed in Heaven.<\/p>\n “Miranda’s health has recently been poor — constant pain in the head and back, and between the shoulders. Her feet and hands burn and ache so as to deprive her of sleep for hours at night. Samuel is to commence his studies at Waterville College tomorrow and is much pleased at the prospect. I hope he will improve th i s opportuni ty we II.<\/p>\n “You remarked in your letter that Brother Pease and wife send love. NON it is news to us that he has a wife living, and if he has, will you just give our love to him and te II him that we shou Id rejoice to have the pleasure of waiting upon him at Winslow~ especi ally if she should come with him,”<\/p>\n Some of this reg i on’s most important pub Ii c men in the fi rst quarter of the 19th century were Dr. tv10ses App leton of Watervi lie, Dr. Ambrose Howard of Sidney, Jacob Southwick of Vassalboro, Simeon Mathews and William Redington of Waterville.<\/p>\n It gave me quite a thrill, therefore, to find recently the record of the following marriage returns made by that first of Watervi lIe’s settled ministers, Joshua Cushman:<\/p>\n December 6, 180 1<\/p>\n October 11, 1801<\/p>\n July 11, 1819<\/p>\n – Dr. Moses Appleton to Ann Clarke<\/p>\n – Amb rose Howard of Sidney to Ruth Parke r of Fa i rf i e I d<\/p>\n – Jacob Southwi ck and ~1ary Wayne, both of Yassa Iboro<\/p>\n September 30, 1817 – Simeon Mathews and Clymene Esty, both of Waterville<\/p>\n June 22, 1 823 – Wi lIiam Redington and Sophia Parker of Waterville<\/p>\n Churches were in operation a long time in Maine before organ or other musical instrument was ever used in a service. In the 17th century the Puritans, who pretty much controlled New England religion, forbade all music, even singing, in church. When the singing of hymns became popular, in the latter part of the 18th century, they were sung under a leadership called “lining out”. The leader lined out, or measured out, the syllables of the hymn, named the tune, which the congregation was supposed to recognize by its name, then himself struck the fi rst note. When the whole company joined in, the result was often anything but harmonious. ~\/hen did instrumental music fl rst come in? We can te I I you when it arri ved 1 n Augusta. The fl rst i nstrumenta I mus i c used for church services in what is now the state capital city was a bass viol, purchased by the South Parish in 1802 at an expense of $35. It was played by Stephen Jewett, a hatter.<\/p>\n Another incident, just a year earlier in 1801, reads strangely when we re.,.. call the prominence of Hallowell granite allover the nation in the latter half of the 19th century. In the 1880’s and 1890’s the famous Hallowell qranite was being used in the construction of many public bui Idings far from the Kennebec.<\/p>\n Yet in 1801, when Judge Bridge bui It his mansion in Augusta, all the granite for its underpinning was brought from Massachusetts.<\/p>\n Year: 1954<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Read the script for “Little Talks” program #238, broadcast on October 31, 1954<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":405,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[749,35296],"tags":[],"builder_content":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7452"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/405"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7452\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n