°

Kalau mau tau kenapa tiket pesawat domestik mahal, bisa baca paper LPEM ini lpem.org/repec/lpe/pape…

Indonesia has already spent around Rp5.9 trillion building the e-KTP system. If not more. The infrastructure exists. The question is whether there is political will to use it properly. Malaysia offers a clear reference. MyKad is integrated with subsidy delivery, allowing targeted fuel support based on identity and eligibility. It reduces leakage and limits abuse. Subsidies reach those who actually need them. Indonesia can do the same with e-KTP. Link fuel purchases to verified IDs. Set eligibility thresholds using income, occupation, or vehicle ownership. Cap volumes per user. Track usage in real time. The system is already there. It only needs to be activated and enforced. The current approach is blunt. Subsidized fuel is still consumed by higher-income households, multiple-car owners, and even resold into informal channels. That is fiscal leakage. It weakens the subsidy’s purpose and inflates the budget burden, especially when oil prices rise. Targeting fixes three problems at once: 1) reduces fiscal cost without cutting support for the vulnerable; 2) improves energy allocation efficiency; and 3) limits arbitrage and black-market diversion The barrier is not technical. It is execution. Data integration across ministries, enforcement at retail points, and willingness to absorb short-term political backlash. Fuel subsidies are one of the largest recurring fiscal items. Without reform, every oil price spike forces the government into the same corner: higher deficits or sudden price hikes. A targeted system breaks that cycle. Indonesia does not lack the tools. It lacks the decision to use them.

Guys Danantara mau terbitkan surat utang lagi. Rp7 triliun. Tenor 5 dan 7 tahun. Bunganya 2%. Gw ulangi. Dua persen. Deposito bank digital sekarang kasih 4 sampai 6%. SBN ritel kuponnya 6 sampai 7%. US Treasury yield-nya 4 sampai 5%. Dan Danantara mau jual surat utang dengan bunga 2%. Secara logika investasi paling dasar ini tidak masuk akal untuk investor retail biasa. Kenapa lo mau kasih duit ke Danantara dengan bunga 2% kalau opsi lain kasih dua sampai tiga kali lipatnya dengan risiko yang lebih jelas? Tapi sebelumnya Patriot Bond Rp50 triliun dengan bunga yang sama kata mereka terserap 100%. Yang beli siapa? Hampir pasti bukan ibu-ibu yang baca brosur di bank. Bukan anak muda yang scroll TikTok soal investasi. Yang beli besar adalah konglomerat Indonesia. Grup-grup besar yang punya kas besar dan punya kepentingan besar untuk tetap baik-baik sama pemerintah. Dan itu bukan filantropi. Itu kalkulasi bisnis yang sangat dingin. Kalau lo konglomerat Indonesia lo punya izin usaha, konsesi tambang, kontrak pemerintah, akses proyek infrastruktur yang semua bergantung pada hubungan baik dengan penguasa. Beli Patriot Bond Rp1 triliun dengan bunga 2% itu bukan rugi itu biaya politik. Lo bayar diskon dari return pasar demi akses dan proteksi yang nilainya jauh lebih besar dari selisih bunganya. Sekarang pertanyaannya apakah konglomerat mau beli lagi di putaran kedua ini. Kondisinya jauh berbeda. IHSG sudah turun lebih dari 20% dari puncak. Rupiah di 17 ribu. Perang Iran belum selesai. Rating outlook Indonesia sudah diturunkan Moody's dan Fitch. Saham-saham konglomerat sendiri sedang kena pressure MSCI free float. Kas mereka tidak sebebas dulu. Dan kalkulasi politiknya mungkin sudah berubah. Tapi ada satu hal yang tidak berubah. Selama pemerintah masih pegang kunci izin dan konsesi konglomerat tidak bisa benar-benar bilang tidak. Mereka mungkin tawar. Mungkin minta porsi lebih kecil. Mungkin minta konsesi lain sebagai kompensasi. Tapi keluar dari game ini sepenuhnya terlalu berisiko untuk bisnis mereka. Dan itulah yang paling menarik dari seluruh skema ini. Danantara tidak perlu jual produk yang kompetitif secara pasar. Mereka jual sesuatu yang jauh lebih berharga dari bunga 2% akses dan aman. Kalau lo investor retail biasa ini bukan untuk lo. Return-nya tidak masuk akal. Kalau lo konglomerat dengan kepentingan bisnis yang bergantung pada pemerintah ini bukan investasi. Ini iuran. Ibarat preman di pasar cuk Dan bedanya tipis sekali.

Brave economists should do the same for Indonesia? 😝 I read the paper, it is very solid.

You alone are enough. You have nothing to prove to anyone. ~Maya Angelou

Ide bangun ulang ojol ini ternyata banyak yang notice & minta aku bantu 😅 Kalau dibangun sekarang2 ini, aku yakin tech seperti Gojek bisa lebih efisien, lebih murah, dan potongan aplikator bisa turun dari 30% ke 5% 👏 Dampaknya, lebih banyak rakyat yang sejahtera 😊 Tapi...

This chart captures a fundamental pattern of global economic power: manufacturing leadership tends to move in long historical waves rather than permanent dominance. In the 18th century, China accounted for roughly one-third of global manufacturing output, reflecting the scale of its population and pre-industrial craft economy. That dominance collapsed during the Industrial Revolution as Europe industrialized while China stagnated. By the late 19th century, the United States overtook the United Kingdom as the world’s largest manufacturing power, around 1890. The key drivers were scale, natural resources, and technological adoption. The U.S. combined abundant land, energy resources, and a massive domestic market with the rise of mass production. By the mid-20th century, America’s manufacturing share reached nearly 45% of global output, an unprecedented level that reflected both industrial strength and the destruction of competitors during World War II. That dominance gradually declined after the 1970s as globalization accelerated and production shifted to lower-cost regions. Japan briefly emerged as a major challenger in the 1980s before stagnating in the 1990s. The most dramatic shift occurred after China’s WTO accession in 2001, which triggered the largest industrial expansion in modern history. China’s share of global manufacturing surged from single digits in the 1990s to more than 40% today, far exceeding the peak levels reached by previous industrial leaders. What makes China’s rise unique is the combination of scale, state-backed industrial policy, infrastructure, and extremely deep supply chains. China did not simply specialize in a few sectors. It built an entire manufacturing ecosystem spanning chemicals, steel, electronics, machinery, textiles, and increasingly advanced technology. That ecosystem advantage is precisely why many attempts by other countries to revive low-value manufacturing sectors struggle to succeed. For example, Indonesia’s Danantara plan to revive the domestic textile sector reflects a misunderstanding of global industrial dynamics. Textile manufacturing is one of the sectors where China’s cost advantages, supply chain depth, and production scale are most entrenched. Competing directly with Chinese textile manufacturers would require massive subsidies, extremely cheap financing, and an integrated upstream supply chain that Indonesia simply does not have. Pouring state capital into reviving that industry risks becoming a costly misallocation of resources. The likely outcome is that domestic producers still struggle to match Chinese efficiency while the government absorbs the financial losses. In other words, the lesson from this chart is not simply about historical leadership. It is about industrial realism. Countries succeed in manufacturing when they build competitive advantages in sectors where they can win globally. Attempting to resurrect industries already dominated by an entrenched industrial superpower is rarely a winning strategy and often ends up wasting capital that could have been deployed more productively elsewhere.

Indonesia’s core economic problem today is weak income growth, and many of the country’s structural issues stem from that single reality. Low income levels directly explain why Indonesia’s tax ratio remains persistently low compared with OECD economies. Governments can only tax what exists. When household incomes are limited and a large share of employment sits in low-productivity sectors, the tax base naturally remains shallow. The same dynamic is visible in the labor market. Unemployment among fresh graduates remains high, not necessarily because people lack education, but because the economy is not creating enough high-quality jobs. Skilled professionals often struggle to move between companies for meaningful salary increases because the number of firms capable of paying significantly higher wages is limited. Many workers therefore remain stuck in roles that offer little career progression. Weak income growth also constrains the business environment. When consumers have limited purchasing power, companies struggle to scale revenue. Businesses that rely heavily on volume growth face particularly difficult economics. Ride-hailing platforms such as Grab and GoTo illustrate the problem clearly: fares cannot be raised significantly because customers are highly price sensitive, yet drivers demand higher earnings to keep up with rising living costs. The result is a constant tension between platform economics and worker income. The technology sector faces similar constraints. Without strong domestic purchasing power, it becomes difficult to build large, profitable digital platforms purely from the Indonesian market. As a result, the local tech ecosystem has increasingly stagnated after the initial wave of growth during the previous decade. All of these issues ultimately trace back to the same underlying factor: wealth creation in Indonesia has been weak. Over the past ten years, roughly 80% of new jobs created in the country have paid less than Rp3 million per month (around $175). When the majority of employment growth occurs at such low income levels, it becomes extremely difficult to expand the middle class, deepen consumption, or build a robust tax base. In other words, the challenge facing Indonesia today is not simply about growth rates. It is about the quality of growth. Without stronger productivity gains and the creation of higher-income jobs, many of the country’s fiscal, labor market, and business challenges will remain tightly linked to the same structural constraint: insufficient wealth generation.

The fundamental issue with PDF parsing is that PDFs are designed for display purposes. The internal representation of data is outputting shapes at specific coordinates on the page (e.g. "render this string at coordinate (84, 720) with this font") each displayed character could be not contiguous at all, there could be no font mapping back to unicode so you have no idea what the character is. Any PDF parser needs to magically reconstruct this random sequence of display coordinate data into semantically meaningful text, tables, and more. VLMs do help (screenshot the page and read it), but besides collapsing the metadata they still struggle in terms of accuracy and cost. note: parsing Word/Pptx as text representations so typically a bit easier too read. Our entire company at @llama_index is laser-focused on PDF parsing so we've been really trying to understand all the nuances of doc formats, especially PDFs 🙂 more notes on this coming soon

Belum baca penuh kasusnya Tapi intinya dianggap korupsi karena rangkap jabatan yg mana itu merugikan negara karena ada aturan larangan Gajinya hanya 2,2juta/bulan Kok saya kesal ya bacanya? Rasa2nya hal biasa rangkap jabatan? Apalagi ubah aturan Saat orang kecil, dihajar?

Percaya ga, gara-gara neliti fenomena ‘masuk angin’ di masyarakat, akhirnya bisa mengantarkan seorang dosen antropologi UGM untuk jadi guru besar. Kok bisa? Here we go mimin jelasin naskah pidato dari Prof. Atik Triratnawati yang berjudul “Masuk Angin Sebagai Fenomena Budaya” (a thread)

Jepang itu ga main2 kalau urusan kepercayaan publik, yg aku tau salah satunya adalah aturan dalam membuat packaging kemasan minuman/jus. Intinya: Kandungan Buah 100% Boleh menggunakan gambar potongan buah/tetesan jus yg realistis/asli. Kandungan Buah 5-99% Boleh menggunakan foto buah asli secara keseluruhan, tp tidak boleh ada potongan buah/tetesan jus. Kandungan Buah < 5% Dilarang menggunakan foto asli buah, hanya boleh dalam bentuk kartun. Hal itu dilakukan biar ga ada missleading persepsi konsumen terkait produk tsb. Konsumen bener2 dilindungi dari kesalahpahaman produk yg dibeli. Kalau di Indonesia gmn, ada yg tahu?

BREAKING NEWS : ⚡Kementerian Komunikasi dan Digital (Komdigi) menjelaskan alasan mengapa kuota internet hangus atau tak terpakai tidak bisa diperpanjang untuk masa aktif berikutnya atau rollover.⚡ setalah saya baca alasannya.... ga jelas 😭

General equilibrium effect dari MBG. Anak makan di sekolah sekali sehari tapi di rumah gizinya ga terpenuhi karena bahan makanan serba mahal.

Indonesia punya 40+ jenis SOTO. Dari infografis Kompas: Soto lahir dari campuran China-India-Eropa-Nusantara, tapi kenapa tiap daerah ngotot punya versi TERBAIK? Drop daerah asal + alasan kenapa soto situ nomor 1!

tiap ingat bagaimana semrawutnya kultur berkereta kita jaman dulu, bikin makin sadar bahwa hal-hal jelek yang ada di negara kita ini memang salahnya pemerintah. pak jonan di KAI membuktikan, bahwa dengan aturan yg baik, dan penegakan aturan yg baik, ternyata bisa-bisa saja membuat masyarakat jadi lebih baik. kita kalo di singapore mau buang permen karet sembarangan pun gak berani, tapi di sini.. hehe, tau sendiri. jadi memang yg sering jd simpul masalah di negeri ini adalah penegakan aturannya, penegakan hukumnya.

Setelah Presiden Soeharto lengser, Kejaksaan Agung menemukan penyimpangan dana dari yayasan-yayasan yang didirikan oleh Soeharto, termasuk Yayasan Supersemar. Jumlah dana yang diduga disalahgunakan mencapai Rp1,4 triliun dan US$420 juta. Kejaksaan Agung menggugat keluarga Soeharto secara perdata. Pengadilan memutuskan Yayasan Supersemar harus membayar ganti rugi sebesar US$315 juta dan Rp139,2 miliar. Pada 2018, Kejaksaan Agung melaksanakan putusan pengadilan tersebut dengan menyita sejumlah saham dan rekening atas nama Yayasan Supersemar, termasuk menyita Gedung Granadi. Aset Yayasan Supersemar yang baru disita sekitar Rp243 miliar dari Rp4,4 triliun. Selain Yayasan Supersemar, menurut laporan majalah Tempo, ada lima yayasan lain yang juga diduga melakukan penyelewengan dana. Terbaru, mulai tahun 2021, pemerintah melalui Kemensetneg telah mengambil alih Taman Mini Indonesia Indah (TMII) dari Yayasan Harapan Kita, yang didirikan Ibu Tien Soeharto, dan mengelola TMII sejak didirikan tahun 1975. Sumber: tempo.co, 12 Maret 2024.

HOW TO WATCH A SOCCER / FOOTBALL MATCH itsjustasport.com/articles/how-t…

Final Thomas Cup 2002: Indonesia tertinggal 1-2 setelah Taufik Hidayat kalah dari Lee Tsuen Seng dalam laga yang penuh kontroversi dari wasit. Saat Malaysia unggul 2-1, pemain-pemain Malaysia sudah berpelukan. Hal itu karena di partai keempat alias ganda putra kedua (MD2), Malaysia punya Choong Tan Fook/Lee Wan Wah yang merupakan ganda nomor dua dunia. Saat itu Malaysia memang punya MD di nomor 1 dan 2. Sedangkan Indonesia menurunkan Trikus Harjanto/Halim Haryanto yang bukan merupakan pasangan tetap. Trikus/Halim, terutama Halim berusaha keras mengatasi ketegangan. Saat Trikus/Halim masuk lapangan, Hendrawan sempat berpapasan. Hendrawan lalu berkata pada Trikus/Halim: "Kalian fight. Kalau menang, urusan laga terakhir, serahkan kepada saya." Pada akhirnya, Trikus/Halim bisa mengakhiri situasi kritis dari tubuh Indonesia. Hendrawan kemudian menjadi penentu kemenangan Indonesia. Indonesia vs Malaysia 3-2.

Poin No.2 agak aneh sebagai pembahasan di forum resmi. Artinya sudah ada ancang2 Malaysia, peringkat 4 SEA Games '25, bakal jd juara umum SEA Games '27. Sedangkan Indonesia mempersiapkan diri agar bisa bersaing dgn 3 negara lain utk jadi runner-up? Luar biasa blak2annya..