Comment by Terr_
16 hours ago
> Daedong-beob unified the various forms of taxes to a single kind: rice. This, in effect, made growing rice equivalent to growing money, encouraging even more production than strictly necessary.
This is still relevant these days, whenever someone talks about linking a currency (and taxes collected in that currency) to a commodity like gold. The market for the metal becomes distorted, and the overall economy distorted as well, vulnerable to anything that might impacts the the mining or refinement of the metal.
Another historical connection might be how the weird status of silver and gold are linked to European colonization.
Rice makes quite a good currency, especially if you only have one primary cultivar. It's relatively fungible and dried white rice more or less lasts forever without spoiling. It's quite nice it has the side effect of also literally being food. If rice had been common in Rome, we might still be paying taxes in rice.
It's still used for bribes in Japan, where earlier this year the agriculture minister was sacked for receiving gifts of rice in the middle of a nationwide rice shortage. His replacement still has an outside chance to become the next prime minister.
Surely that was somewhat of a once off, bribes in Japan are usually money like anywhere else, this is an extremely atypical exception
> we might still be paying taxes in rice.
As long as the largest form of economic activity was agriculture, and access to hard currency was limited, people were paying taxes with food (or labour in their landlord's fields).
We pay taxes in money because we have a diversified economy, where 90% of us are not subsistence peasants, and the money supply & availability of banking is large enough that we (or our employers) have cash on hand.
>We pay taxes in money because we have a diversified economy
It's all a fiction, though. Ultimately wealth can be translated to very raw things, like energy, space, and time. Using rice as currency is not too different from using Joules as currency, as it's ultimately just captured and stored solar radiation. The issue with using food as money is not that the economy is diverse, as it's ultimately for the most part powered by people eating. The issue is that if you spend money to make a km^2 of land usable for factories that produce, say, semiconductors, that's not exactly translatable to tons of rice.
14 replies →
One thing that has stuck me in old tax records is that when taxes were paid in natura according to fixed exchange rates (e.g. one cow is two sheep, one measure of butter is three squirrel skins etc.), then government probably actually valued some income more than others. The "market value" of these goods almost certainly didn't match the fixed exchange rates, but people's ability to trade for the best tax unit were also limited (and often legally restricted to the same exchange rates!).
So e.g. pastoralists who paid their tax in actual skins may have been more valued than people who paid their tax in "a skins worth" of grain.
I wonder if there's some good books on this sort of thing.
>Another historical connection might be how the weird status of silver and gold are linked to European colonization.
Land is a finite resource so people fight over it. If you make your money a finite resource, then people will fight over money as well. It's not very complicated.