According to the Economist,

The plunging price of coffee over the past decade has certainly caused regrettable misery for many farmers. But while Oxfam lays the blame on fat-cat western companies, other forces are more deserving of its ire. New production in Vietnam�partly encouraged by international poverty-relief programmes�combined with vast increases in Brazilian productivity have helped to create a global abundance of coffee. Rich countries' trade barriers make it hard for farmers to switch to other crops.

Solving these problems is not as thrilling as crusading against rich, profitable western firms. Marketers' ability to extract $4 a cup from middle-class consumers explains why coffee is being lashed by the likes of Oxfam. Its new campaign is cleverly aimed at the anxieties of yuppies�a large proportion of its donors. Oxfam says that coffee farmers are pulling their children out of school. At the same time, the American television programme �Friends� dares to depict young, attractive New Yorkers sipping cappuccinos at Central Perk without a care. The shame.

Instapundit links to this WSJ article:

The battle between independent coffeehouses and Starbucks may be one of the most hostile -- and most misunderstood -- rivalries in retailing.

Conventional wisdom, meanwhile, says Starbucks is clobbering the independent -- invading its turf, stealing its customers, bankrupting its owners. In fact, most independents are doing fine -- and not just in spite of Starbucks, but perhaps because of it.

Many people believe that Starbucks increases the overall market, attracting new customers to the product who then patronize the independent provider next door.

How can the independents make money?

The profit margins on gourmet coffee drinks are so high that independent operators can thrive even without volume purchasing discounts. That's especially so for coffeehouses that roast their own coffee beans because of the plunging prices of raw beans.