954 FINANCIAL REFORM AND THE ECONOMY
means was it necessary that a serious thinker would be forced to conform with
the majority point of view. But because Yi Ik lived in an age when many offi-
cials had begun to react against some of the negative consequences of a mis-
managed cash economy at the end of King Sukchong's reign, like King Yongjo
he adopted an extremely negative attitude toward cash and preferred that it be
abolished altogether.
Yi argued that the circulation of cash contributed to the decline of agricul-
tural production, the loss of national income, the desertion of peasants for the
attractions of moneymaking and profiteering in the markets and cities, the rise
of usurious moneylending, the stimulation of ostentatious consumption, the
growth of banditry, and the decline of public mores. The peasants abandoned
frugality and saving to squander their money to satisfy their tastes in food, drink,
and clothing, leaving themselves poor and destitute. The rich saved their cash
and lent it at usurious rates of interest, increasing their profit still further by tak-
ing advantage of the difference in the price of rice between spring and fall. The
moneylenders made profits far greater than the return on investment for agri-
culture and commerce, while the poor were unable to repay their loans and had
to sell their land and homes to satisfy their creditors. The whole process sim-
ply made the rich richer and the poor poorer, destroyed the putative equality and
balance of the natural village, and reduced state revenues in the process. Only
"the tax gougers, profiteers, conspicuous consumers, and thieves wanted cash;
it was not of much aid to those who worked hard to feed themselves and were
content with a life of poverty."
Yi reasoned that if cash were abolished, people would lose the means for sat-
isfying their desires for lUxury products and would be forced to adopt the ways
of frugality, simplicity, and self-sufficient production in the only items neces-
sary for sustenance - food and clothing. Prior to the introduction of cash for tax
payments, the people had only to pay part of the grain they had grown as taxes
without suffering any harm to their subsistence, but after the adoption of cash
taxes, they had to exchange more and more grain to buy the cash as the value
of cash increased (because of the cash shortage). While the advocates of cash
praised it for its ability to produce wealth for the common people, the common
people were poor to begin with and needed nothing besides salt, iron, tools, and
medicine. Anything else was a waste of money.
Cash was unnecessary for facilitating the exchange of goods because land trans-
portation could be avoided simply by taking advantage of Korea's peninsular-
ity by shipping all goods by sea. The abolition of cash would eliminate usurious
loans, reduce profligate expenditures, drunkenness, and thievery, return the peas-
ants to agricultural production and simpler and purer lives, and eliminate
inequality in the distribution of income.
Cash has been circulating now for about forty years. Was there any harm
done before we had it, or any advantages after we circulated it? Production