Of fruit and nuts, thugs and villas

I like fruit. It tastes good. I like nuts. They're real healthy. They say, "you are what you eat", and I have often heard people say, particularly Texans, that, "California is just a bunch of fruit and nuts .." Well, if those two maxims are true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then at least I know what I am - being Californian and all.

Well, now I live in Indonesia and I still like to eat good fruit, which is a good thing, because there is a lot of good fruit here, although I still miss those nice, juicy Californian nectarines and sweet, succulent peaches. But, this is a family newspaper, so we'll talk about my faves here, the papayas, rambutans and mangoes, and in certain moods I get a mighty hankerin' for durian.

That said, I was very disappointed to learn of the Ministry of Agriculture's recent plan to hike up import tariffs on fruit to curtail fruit imports from neighboring countries in a bid to "protect" the domestic fruit conglomerates and presumably to increase the bank accounts of whoever will get the extra money from those higher tariffs.

For the average consumer here that would mean, in the ministry's own words, "lower quality and higher-priced fruit". Wow, now that sounds like a positive policy!

Actually, the fruit producer association also praised the plan, because they are unable to compete with imported fruit, due to a number of factors. They pointed to the high cost of transportation, including all manner of fees along the highways, some to dubious, but apparently legal, groups such as the Ministry of Transportation tolls and the odd, pass-through-our- province/regency tariffs, but others to illegal road gangs who extort money from drivers.

Another problem they pointed out was that Indonesian farmers produce lower quality, less marketable fruit.

So the solution to these problems, in their minds, is to eliminate higher quality fruit, so that farmers here do not have to compete.

That seems like a real sound policy, much like a classroom where the students who don't study cannot compete with the more studious kids. If these guys were in charge they'd expel all the good kids from school, so that kids who do not like to study can falsely get better marks.

This is negative reinforcement, wherein the authority figure (teacher, parent, government, etc.) rewards those who underachieve, and punishes those that work efficiently.

At the end of the day, this does two things, one is it sends a clear message to the underachievers that they are inherently inferior, and unable to improve. And two, it does not improve the community as whole, which it supposedly was intended to do, but makes it worse, because the problems they had were rewarded, so more problems develop so they can get more rewards.

Now, let's have a look at our fruit situation here with that concept of negative reinforcement in mind. Who would benefit from such a policy and who would not benefit?

"And the winner is: Oh my, it seems we have tie for first here, Jack. We have the domestic fruit conglomerates, the ministries of agriculture and transportation, the provincial and regency gatekeepers, the roadside thugs and extortionists, and of course, the customs/tariff office!" Maybe the secondary winners will be a few villa developers and Mercedes dealers as always.

And the losers?

Well, clearly the foreigners from Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. would be hurt, "but who cares about them, we are a sovereign nation" some may opine. But who here would be hurt? Me? Probably not so much, as I would still be able to afford the higher quality stuff. Of course, the big losers would be the average family here, the people that work their butts off to put their kids in school and put nutritious food on the table so their beloved babies can develop physically and mentally.

They would not be able to afford the nutritious fruit they love, and naturally, with no competition the domestic producers would charge even higher prices and skimp on quality even more. Plain and simple, once again the government is hatching a plan to hurt the little people. And, in more ways than just the wallet or children's nutrition, but also the reinforcement of the idea that sends the clear message that this nation cannot compete on an even playing field, or are just not as good as others such as Filipinos or Vietnamese at producing and marketing.

Worse still, the government would be taking money from the poor to pay such folks as roadside thugs and inefficient farming conglomerates. There must be some crime being committed here, it just seems too preposterous for words.

Therefore, instead of helping farmers produce better fruit and eliminating domestic tariffs (provincial fees and thug payoffs), the government is just going to stick it to the poor once again. The solution is not short-term, stopgap measures and greed that reinforce a sense of inferiority and kill the poor. The solution is to identify the problems in the farming and transportation of the produce and rectify those things and then everybody will be a winner. The Indonesian consumer will get nutritious, affordable produce and the farmers will have a sense of accomplishment for having competed and won against their counterparts from other countries.

Unfortunately, there might be a few less villas and the thugs might actually have to find something productive to do. Maybe, with all the other problems in the country, you might say, "you're a nut, this is such a trivial matter", and you might be right, but a deeper analysis would reveal that this is a perfect microcosm of so many other things here that hinder development and hurt the majority of people, as well as the attitude of businesses not wanting to "build a better mousetrap" but to manipulate the situation so stronger competitors are eliminated.

P.S. Don't tell my mates in the anti-globalization camp about my ideas here, they might not like me anymore and may get confused about what they are opposing.

-- Rich Simons