Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Where is the Market?

OK, I need your help. I fail to understand this:
"Philosophically, what I imagine as Indonesian version of Social Market Economy is to put the Family (?) (my note: does he mean Household?) as the dominant element in development paradigm, along with the State. European welfare states, so far, marginalize the Family, along with Market; and set the State as dominant role. On the other hand, neo liberal states, such as the US, assume the Market as the dominant role, while the State and Family marginal."
--liberal translation of an op-ed "Kaum Muda" in Kompas, December 4, 2007.

If he says that it is the Family and the State that matters, why he uses the term Social Market Economy? Where is the Market?
And on his assertion on European and US economy, I don't know what to say. Really.


  1. Hi Rizal,
    I would say that your question is absolutely hard, so is the article. I have no idea. My apologies :-)

  2. Bos Rizal,

    I believe you ask a wrong question. Instead of asking "Where is the market?", after I read the article twice, you should asking "What is market?" according to the writer? Just like you questioning family versus household? That's also ambiguous.

    What is "marginalized"? Bla bla bla... This is nothing but a language/writing issue.


  3. Zal,
    try this, hope this helps: stop reading any articles written by SR. at least stop reading it seriously.

  4. guys, don't embarass yourself by criticizing something you don't really know.

  5. Dendi, yeah, it is hard. Apologies accepted :-))

    Dewa, a lot of issues in that writing. Too many that I don't know where to start. I just raised thing that I think I know about -on market and state relationship. Still I failed to understand that "neither-nor" approach.

    AP, are you saying that I'd better take it as a joke? :-)

    Anonymous, oh thanks for the advice. But let me assure you that Dendi, Dewa, and AP really know what they're talking about.

  6. Rizal: no, it's not a joke either. Well, if it's a joke, then I still don't get it :-)

    Our anonymous friend is quite right. Anything that has no substance can not be criticized for its substance -- just like a head without body can't be beheaded.

  7. Ap, but it sounds heroic. And, on substance, dude, you are so mean :-))

  8. why don't you guys write down your own ideas countering this silly piece, instead of grumbling in limited space and few audiences? i've seen a current "bad" trend in which young economists take blogs seriously and turn away your back from public debates in media. This is obviously different from the previous generations.

    Well, i know that's your choice but it wouldn't be surprising if this kind piece appears.


  9. OK, Elga, thanks for the advice. Maybe you are right, "young" (hell, yeah) economists share the guilt for failing to communicate good economics with wider audiences.

    Why the previous generation of economists did not blog? Because blog wasn't even there, yet :-))

  10. Smart answers Zal! :-)

  11. Rizal, the issue is in his "epasos" term, how hard do young people work to earn money as accumulating their wealth until retired (25-55)? 30 years are too short for them to consider "epasos" or things like that. Moreover, job is a market, salary and spending are indexed by CPI of market products, and the accumulated wealth is the individual discipline of investment choice. In my opinion, the role of family (household) is to teach young people how to grow money with aggressive investment (study/capital) and pay tax. To teach them to be part of a progressive movement? I don't think so, it's useless.