[alanh]

"And the reason avocados have exploded in the U.S. is that most of them are no longer grown in the U.S.

"We have developed such a voracious appetite for this versatile fruit that the U.S. now annually brings in nearly 3 billion pounds of avocados."

These consecutive sentences each state as fact an opposite causality.

How can the central thesis of the article be so confused?

[jstanley]

They're not quite opposite.

High appetite -> lots of fruit imported -> consumption "explodes"

You can't consume what you don't have, so if they're not growing enough then they have to import them before they can be eaten.

Both importing and consumption are downstream of high demand, but consumption is downstream of high importing.

[szszrk]

But is that really the reason?

High appetite for avocados is the reason. Maybe combined with reasonable prices or some other factors. Importing them simply makes it possible for those purchase numbers to get that high. Means. If US would grow them in huge quantities on their own soil it would also allow for the same outcome. So how it is the reason?

My English ain't amazing, I know, but when I read "old school press" it makes me thing: am I so dumb, or are they deliberately using confusing phrasing to sound smarter than it's actually required?

[whatshisface]

It's a would vs. could thing. To grow that many avocados in the US you would have to plow up whatever is growing there now, crops that are more profitable. That would require raising the price (to beat out the opportunity cost) and potentially accepting a lower quality (avocados aren't like polyethylene, and they'll come out differently depending on the location and the variety the local pest profile and climate require).

Importing them from Mexico lets consumers have a good quality avocado at a low price. Offering someone a good deal raises demand for that deal relative to offering them fewer, lower-quality eaches at a higher price.

[virgilp]

No, parent comment is absolutely correct. This article is crap.

> (Question in title:) Why America now eats a crazy number of avocados

> (Answer in article:) And the reason avocados have exploded in the U.S. is that most of them are no longer grown in the U.S.

How does that make any sort of sense? You could say "it's because they've become very cheap", sure. But if they were grown outside US, and at higher prices, would you accept that as a valid "reason why avocado consumption has exploded"? It would imply that americans must actively hate domestically-grown avocados, with passion.

[whatshisface]

If you had a village in the desert, and one day someone built a water pipeline, the average water use would go up "because" it was coming from someplace other than your village's small oasis.

[virgilp]

There's no mention of "cheap" or "cheaper" in that article. None. I tend to agree that's what they meant, but I for one resent that it's not spelled out/ it's implied. The _cause_ is lower price, it's not source of the product. Is it lower price because it's imported? Sure, probably. But damn it, spell it out - you can even make something interesting out of it (chart consumption vs price, dunno). And let me tell you - I'm not even convinced they got the causality right, even _if_ that's what they meant. It's basically a meme that boomers were telling young people that they're poor because they eat avocado toast - which implies that it got popular (in a niche) before it got cheap. Sure, there's a positive feedback loop in there (more interest -> more import -> economies of scale -> lower prices -> even more interest), but I think they missed the "why".

> the average water use would go up "because" it was coming from someplace other than your village's small oasis

No, absolutely not. It would go up, in your example, because it was more readily available. The source has nothing to do with it except indirectly - the availability has everything to do with it.

[tmountain]

I guess the first sentence could be restated as, “the reason avocados have exploded in the U.S. is that Mexican avocados are much more affordable”; although, the author goes on to state that the price isn’t a driver, and touches on the necessity of getting them from Mexico for year round availability.

[ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7]

Simplistic interpretation, demand increases, supply and price changes occur inline with the demand. More external supply at a lower price, more people buy avocados.

[ckemere]

(Ironically, my dad won an award as a USDA bureaucrat for the economic analysis and rule set that allowed Mexican avocados into the US.)

When you remove a barrier to a market the intersection of supply and demand curves shifts to the right (more supply) and the equilibrium price drops and the equilibrium supply increases. “Why does this happen?” is more correctly explained by “the supply increased” because the supply curve is what changed, not the demand curve. Note that the article argues for a subsequent change in the demand curve, fueled by tax-funded advertising.

[buckle8017]

Simple, the purpose of the article is to argue against tariffs.

[Yeul]

Import tax.

[rvba]

Imported = cheaper