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.
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.
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.
There are enough differences that we still need to worry about them: Would you really have no preference between them when there's a famine? Which one would you rather have when someone announces they've just cracked fusion power generation?
Even among such "suitable" commodities (durable, fungible, divisible, etc.) there are differences in risk/utility which don't vanish simply because there's a market for exchanging the two.
Fiat currency is significantly more isolated from such confounding factors, at least as long as people assume the government will continue to exist. It doesn't go crazy
> it's ultimately for the most part powered by people eating.
I am reminded of the subsistence farmer's reasons [0] for not converting everything they have to/from coinage:
> The thing is, as the food supply contracts, the price of food rises and the ability to buy it with money shrinks (often accelerated by food hoarding by the wealthy cities, which are often in a position to back that up with force as the administrative centers of states).
> Consequently, for the [farming] family, money is likely to become useless the moment it is needed most. So while keeping some cash around against an emergency (or simply for market transactions – more on that later) might be a good idea, keeping nearly a year’s worth of expenses to make it through a bad harvest was not practical.
[0] https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...
Did I say rice was exactly equivalent to energy, or did I say that it was not too different? Surely you can see that rice is more analogous to energy than to drill bits.
>So while keeping some cash around against an emergency (or simply for market transactions – more on that later) might be a good idea, keeping nearly a year’s worth of expenses to make it through a bad harvest was not practical.
Hence the point of notes. "Rice is not such a bad thing to base your currency on" doesn't mean wallets should be literal fistfuls of rice grains in bags that you lug around.
I'm not a big fan of how abstract modern monetary systems are, and I'm still trying to decide whether they confuse people by accident or design.
It's funny how too many of us are obsessed about keeping our number in the database as big as possible...
(It also fails to take into account the practical aspects of collecting taxes, which is why food and labour were a common currency for them pre-industrialization, and money is the common currency for them post-industrialization. My post addresses the issue of collecting taxes more than it does the issue of generating wealth.)
The economy being diverse, and not just a bunch of peasants barely making ends meet is a great reason for me to not be taxed in rice. I don't grow rice. I don't know anyone who grows rice. I'd have to take money, buy rice, give it to the taxman. This is... Not ideal. (Just like the taxman getting paid in <whatever random non-food good I produce is not ideal.)
Even in pre-industrial societies, where where taxes-in-food were common, city-dwellers paid taxes in cash.
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.
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.
As a Bengali man, that's exactly how I felt when I came to USA and first visited japanese restaurants. Part of the reason we consume so much rice is that rice is kind of the main dish (not a side)- it literally takes up central and most of the space in your food plate.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E0%A6%87%E0%A6%B2%E...
Most of other Asian nations will not eat their rice until it's completely finished. Even with their most delicious biryani dish there're always many rice grains left in the plate. I think the small bowl make it much easier to completely consume the rice unlike the big bowl or plate.
The Indian subcontinent eat long-grain Basmati or similar rice which fluff up into individual grains on the plate. It doesn't make sense to individually pick out single leftover grains.
In nearly every culture is the idea of "Annapurna" or the god of food, and wasting food is generally frowned upon and considered bad table manners. I've been scolded plenty of times as a child for not cleaning up my plate in Nepal.
I wouldn't attribute it to small bowls at least. The Japanese instilling good virtues into their children almost institutionally perhaps plays some part in it, but also some of it is just physics.
Surprisingly comical record-keeping.
Every table, a buffet of tiny servings surrounding a large rice bowl.
30+ dishes isn't uncommon to serve to a group. The structure is less a statement about food abundance (which is definitely what the article is claiming) and more about the variety historically available to the class which can afford to eat in sit-down restaurants or be fed by courtly chefs.
The traditional Chinese sit-down restaurant experience (to grossly generalize) isn't that different; There might be as many entrees as there are people, using large serving bowls, but each person is by default expected to take a fraction of each entree.
But yes, the leftover dishes are thrown away.
Many middle-aged and older customers have a habit of mixing up leftover vegetables after a meal, and they encourage others to do so. The idea is that if everyone does the same, the restaurant can't reuse any dishes.
Meanwhile, honest restaurant owners want to assure customers that the their dishes are new. So they serve food in a way that will make it very obvious if it was reused. For example, kimchi is often served in long (~30cm) slices, so that customers will have to cut them themselves, as if breaking a seal.
In terms of the total number of plates that the staff needs to serve and clean, it's probably not much different from a European meal that consists of several courses.
I've been to that makgeolli place in Jeonju, and it sells drinks and food as a set; there is no free food.
This is not much of an explanation, since feudal Japan had basically the same system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokudaka
$20 will buy a good meal. $40, decadence. (Avant alcohol.)
I have tried a few in and around Paris (the latest was yesterday, a small family-run one lost in some random street), and the food is at best normal size, and less positively massively overpriced.
You usually get 3 tiny plates (with two leaves of kimchi, to give some context) and a normal plate of food + a small bowl of rice.
This is enough for my French stomach, but reading about the lavish servings and whatnot, this may just be a local thing.
Only the "touristy" Korean restaraunts outside of the country don't do this - they charge hefty prices to innocuous side dishes like kimchi, and I've even heard places in Europe sell soju in shots (which is outright ridiculous, soju is one of the most cheap-ass low-brow artificially made commodity liquor here!)
That said, the first Korean place I ever went to (in Dublin) served comically large amounts of food. I could never figure out how they made the economics work; they were the same price as the neighbouring Chinese places but must have been using at least twice as much food.
When I went London over ten years ago, the recommended Korean restaurant paled to what’s in NYC.
I imagine competition and easy access to Korean ingredients are the main factors.
It doesn't seem physically possible for most adult men to consume 13 pounds of potatoes a day. I'm a large man and I think I'd burst or vomit before choking down that much, regardless of how hard I'd been working. Most likely that number is just wrong.
Presumably you aren't doing hard manual labor every day.
A Russian and American soldier meet during some peacekeeping mission/veteran fair and discuss which army is better.
They go through weapons, the American really likes AK-47. They talk about training. They discuss the distributed vs centralized command.
Finally the American says that they eat 5k calories per day. The Russian suddenly jumps up, points his finger at the American and starts yelling: "Liar! Nobody can eat that much potatoes!"
Seriously guys, get out your scale and weigh 13 pounds of potatoes. Could you really consume that much volume in a day without feeling sick? Let's do a reality check here.
Obviously it's possible for an active man to expend ~4500 kcal/day. I've done it myself many times. Even back during the Civil War, US soldiers typically consumed more energy dense food and only got a fraction of their calories from potatoes.
FWIW this is exactly the opposite hypothesis to that of the Keto diet (whereby consuming fat in absence of carbs does not drive obesity / metabolic disease)
To me seems more likely they were just burning more calories
>Potatoes and milk, particularly buttermilk, were a nutritionally complete diet for many Irish peasants before the famine, allowing them to be healthier than some European counterparts who ate a bread-based diet.
1 liter of Korean-style cooked white rice weighs about 500 grams. It contains about 1.5 Calories per gram, judging from the label on my Hetbahn. So that's about 750 Calories tops. The photo doesn't look like white rice, so the caloric content is probably lower.
I would give at most 100 Calories for the soup and all the side dishes combined. The soup is mostly water, with very little solid content. (That chunk you see in the photo is rice. Dude is dunking his rice in the soup to make it softer, because who wants to munch on 1 liter of rough brown rice?) Meanwhile, his side dishes are leafy vegetables like kimchi and namul. Side dishes made of animal products like ham and eggs were considered a luxury until only 60 years ago. Fat was also a luxury, so everything had to be lean. This is in stark contrast to a Western meal, where fatty side dishes contribute a lot of Calories.
So that's about 850 Calories for the whole table, or about one Big Mac with medium fries and a sugar-free drink. Not a particularly heavy meal for an adult male who spends most of his time working in the field.
The reason Koreans ate a lot of rice, fruit, and vegetables is because those foods have low caloric density by modern standards. It's mostly just water and carbohydrates. If not for their high energy expenditure, Koreans would all have died of diabetes.
To me the article doesn’t really make sense. Either the Korean diet was being overstated (likely, but why if it was consistently noted?), or there was some unexplained extra energetic expenditure by Koreans versus Japanese (unlikely), or Koreans were significantly more fat than Japanese (unlikely).
There are also statements that Irish farmers ate 14 pounds of potatoes, English peasants ate 4 pounds of bread, and that Japanese samurai ate 4 pounds of rice a day.
All of these statements were made from the point of view of aristocrats who had rich foods, as they looked down upon commoners who had nothing but plain starch to fill their caloric budgets with.
So I think that a large part of this stereotype has to do with the fact that Korea used to be one of the poorest countries in the world until very recently. In China, even commoners had access to delicious 9-Calories-per-gram cooking oil since the Song dynasty. In Japan, sushi as we know it appeared in the Edo period and became the fast food of choice for urban laborers. Meanwhile, Korean society remained almost exclusively agricultural until Western visitors arrived to take photos of their massive rice bowls. Same caloric content, just more voluminous.
There are also issues of measurement that were lost in translation. The report that Korean soldiers ate 3 times as much rice as the Japanese? True, Koreans ate 7 cups of rice, while the Japanese ate 2 cups. But the Japanese measuring cup was 3 times as large as the old Korean cup (hob). The much more reasonable 7:6 ratio can probably be explained by the fact that Koreans had the home advantage at the time of the war, or that Koreans are taller than the Japanese on average. And yes, the obesity rate is also higher in Korea, despite the fact that Japan has enjoyed a modern lifestyle for much longer.
* Korean are tall by East Asian standards; 3-4 cm taller than Chinese and Japanese
* Thais don't eat that much, but they will massively over-cater, and there's not really the same taboo as in Europe of food wastage. My father, who like me spent a couple of decades in Thailand (although at different times) reckoned it was because historically they've had very few food shortages compared to other countries
Thais don't have big meals, but they do snack incessantly, which makes up for it. And overcatering for guests is a pan-Asian or arguably a global phenomenon.
