By Patrick F. Cannon

Back in 1946, when I was just a wee lad, Frank Sinatra released a recording of a new song by Bob Hilliard and Dick Miles called (I think) “There’s an awful lot of coffee in Brazil.”  As I recall, some of the lyrics went like this:

            A politician’s daughter was accused of drinking water,

            And was fined a great big 50-dollar bill,

            Because there’s an awful lot of coffee in Brazil!

Of course, an awful lot of that coffee was and is shipped from Brazil to us, since our independence from Britain also became an independence from tea. Ever since our future Americans tossed 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor in 1773, we have largely transferred our allegiance to coffee (except for those who watched too much Downton Abbey and are happy to spend big bucks to have afternoon high tea at fancy hotels).

            I start my own day with 16 ounces of strong coffee. I drink another eight ounces of regular coffee at lunch, then switch to decaf after dinner. Altogether I consume a quart of the stuff every day. When I was a wage slave, I drank even more. Now, coffee packagers rarely tell us where the coffee beans originated, but about one-third comes from Brazil, worth about $2 billion a year. We get a comparable amount from Columbia. The only part of the United States that produces any significant amount of coffee is Hawaii, whose Kona coffee is among the most expensive.

            As it happens, I have long believed that the tariff system has treated us unfairly. A good example is Europe, where many countries – France being a good example – protect their farmers from competition by using phony reasons for keeping our products out. A good example is the ban on Genetically Modified Organisms, the dreaded GMOs. There is no credible evidence that these crops are in any way unsafe (many of our own consumers are guilty of this bias as well). Despite this, they are banned. The real reason? To protect their inefficient farmers from fair competition.

            There are many other examples of unfair trading practices, including government subsidies that support certain industries. The Chinese auto industry is a good example here, and both Europe and the United States should take this into account when setting our tariffs on these products. But what if tariffs are used to punish a government for their internal legal decisions?

            President Trump has decided he can’t abide Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of organizing a coup to overthrow the election of his successor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, so he threatened a 50 percent tariff on imports from Brazil, including of course coffee. The reason is not unfair trading practices, but because he thinks the prosecution of his friend Jair is a “witch hunt.”  Does this situation have a familiar ring to it?

            Anyway, if it goes into effect, expect to pay more for your restorative cup of joe. Coffee is a commodity, for which the cost fluctuates based on many factors. As I reported, we get two-thirds of our coffee from other countries, so we probably won’t be paying 50-perent more. But we will be paying more, because the roasters and packagers will be paying the tariffs, and will be passing along these costs to us. Of course, we can be comforted by the fact that all the tariff income will go to the Treasury, just like our income tax payments.

Copyright 2025, Patrick F. Cannon