I understand the individual sentences in your post, but I don't understand what overall argument it makes.

(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.)

▲

fluoridation 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's possible I might have misunderstood your point. What I was getting at is that the economy being diverse is not a reason for money to be pegged to rice. Perhaps you were talking about the physical act of paying? "We pay taxes in money" = "we give stacks of paper to the government [rather than bags of rice]"?

▲

vkou 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I was talking about the physical act of paying - and the form that payment could take when you're trying to extract taxes out of cash-poor subsistence peasants - and how in that kind of world, taxes in a single, fungible type of good (food, days of service in agricultural labour) are common.

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.

	▲	fluoridation 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But just like how you don't actually hand over stacks of paper to pay your taxes, you wouldn't need to actually pay in literal bags of rice in a world were rice was currency. I would imagine any economy that kept using rice as currency past the point of subsistence farming would develop tokens.