Look, the practical consequence is simple: if food prices keep climbing, the average Indonesian family ends up spending nearly everything on rice and vegetables, and then what's left for school fees or transport? If that were true, then we'd have to accept that one bad harvest or one supply chain hiccup is enough to push millions into real hardship. And we're already seeing it—tempeh, chilies, cooking oil all creeping up. You can't argue your way out of a price tag. The numbers move, and wages don't keep pace. That's the reality.

If we accept that food price rises are just a normal global trend we can't touch, then we'd also have to accept that government intervention is pointless—which is absurd, because we've seen Bulog manage rice prices before and it worked. The real problem isn't that inflation happens; it's that our safety nets keep failing exactly when they're needed most. You can say prices always go up, but that's like saying fires always happen. The question is whether you show up with a fire extinguisher. Right now, too many families are left holding the bucket.

The fact that you're asking for a solution kind of proves my point, doesn't it? If the price rise weren't actually hurting people, there'd be nothing to solve. If it were just a harmless global trend, you wouldn't need a strategy — you'd just shrug. But you're not shrugging, and neither are families skipping meals. I'd say the real solution is making Bulog work properly and cutting the supply chain middlemen, but we only need those fixes because the problem is real. We're not debating whether there's a fire anymore; we're debating which hose to grab.

Rhetorical question: if food prices aren't a real crisis, then why are you demanding I hand over a ready-made solution like it's a menu item? If that were true, we'd have to accept that families choosing between eggs and school fees is just a minor inconvenience—and then we'd all just shrug while kids eat less. But you're not shrugging, you're asking for fixes. I already gave you two: strengthen Bulog and cut middlemen. Yet you want a cleaner answer, which just proves the fire is bigger than you want to admit. That's the thing—the problem doesn't disappear because you don't like my analogy.

Last week I watched a buyer at the market put back chilies after hearing the price and walk away empty-handed. Now you're asking about remote farmers with broken supply chains, which is a fair point. But if that were the true problem, then you're basically describing my side of the debate: distribution breaks down, food gets stuck, prices spike. Whether it's middlemen or disrupted routes, the household still pays more . You're just relocating the fire and calling it not-a-fire. Prices rose, the family ate less. That's the whole debate.