Comments on: “The Moneyless Man” Talks to The Green Prophet About The Middle East

By: Karin Kloosterman

Karin Kloosterman — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:32:03 +0000

In reply to Al. Al - some good points. But I think the Moneyless Man is trying to show people how to live simpler, that it is possible to survive, and thrive, on little.

By: Al

Al — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:58:59 +0000

just another useless hippy who is sponging off the hardworking ones.

he proposes a subsistence lifestyle. Now let me present the reality of a subsistence lifestyle: pregnant at 13, and dead of simple infections at 33.

If there is no accumulation of surpluses, there is no capital. And if there is no capital, there are no factories. As in, factories for making medicines, and stethoscopes, and everything else that distinguishes us from the Neanderthals.

And no way to pay for policemen. Now let this clown go spend a few years living in Soimalia, and THEN tell us if he thinks we need to have a police force.

By: gayath pathirana

gayath pathirana — Fri, 20 May 2011 06:09:40 +0000

Good Luck with organic fertilizer…
gayath

By: Tafline Laylin

Tafline Laylin — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 08:45:52 +0000

In reply to Rama Chakaki. Hi Rama: Mark doesn't really claim to know much about the Middle East, but you can find him on facebook and I'm sure he'd be happy to chat with you. The answers to your questions are both multifold and complicated. Economic growth has brought a lot of people out of poverty and to achieve a "better" quality of life. But clearly such growth has come with consequences. I think Mark would advocate more localized living: community engagement, skills-sharing, local food, local currency (or none, as with him), and in general moving away from the globalized mechanism. We can make a difference by becoming more self-sufficient, and by supporting media outlets and non-profit organizations that aren't promoting the growth machine.

By: Rama Chakaki

Rama Chakaki — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:21:01 +0000

Thanks for sharing Mark’s story.. he is right that our culture would make it easier to adopt his lifestyle and philosophy.

How do we address the unreal greed and consumer lifestyle being shoved down our throats through media, popular culture and the corporate and governmental strive for economic growth? would love to have a conversation with Mark to find a workable solution for our region.

By: Juergen Friedrich

Juergen Friedrich — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 07:01:09 +0000

This is an answer to ‘Elie Elhadj’ (author of SAUDI ARABIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROJECT : FROM DUST TO DUST):

The battle for Lebanon in the MiddleEast . . . . is just a new version of the old struggle of TO BE OR NOT TO BE — for those who are directly involved. But – after all – everybody is involved, who knows that less than 11 % of the World’s mainland is arable. More than 20 % is desert (because of lack of rain) and 97 % of the water resources in the World is salty sea. (2 % Snow & Icebergs and only 1 % Freshwater.)

It is time to remember that the relationship of desert and rain is older than mankind. It is somewhat like the relationship between man & woman. Who is desert, who rain? Who decides about ‘The Intelligent Use of Water’ ? Which is more a Matter of Intelligent Use of Brain??

Already in ancient times people connected their faith to agriculture and ‘rain at the right time’. More than 2500 years ago ‘someone invented the witty thoughtful text’ (5.Mose 11,13+) “It shall happen, if you shall listen diligently to my commandments which I command you this day, to love your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, that I will give the rain on your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your grain, and your new wine, and your oil.” ( No Brain – No Rain — No Grain !)

’Faith or no faith’ – that’s not the question to be answered, essentially. More sense makes ‘brain or no brain’… thus mankind has already invented desalination of seawater. The price is high, due to high technique by osmosis and due to huge pipeline systems, more than 50 €-Cent per ton. (~ 620 € per acre foot)

Using the principle of nature – artificial moistening the air with seawater by support of technical means – leads to less than 6 €-Cent per ton of rain (74.- € per a.ft). It will work best with BIG IS BEAUTIFUL and demands approval, that even those will benefit ‘beyond the border’, who are not able to share the costs of to moisten the air.

But then becomes true what the UNITED NATIONS have been founded for:
” . . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more….”

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:24:51 +0000

Hi Tafline. Thankyou for your reply. Ive not much to say really. All the above comment is from normal textbook economics. Its well known. Though I have an essay to write, to get the scarcity aspect of it down clearer than I have above. I feel it is needed, as many other things are blamed for world injustice rather than the business interest of creating perpetual ongoing need and shortage. Which as I inferred above is only really a serious issue where it concerns life needs. As the recent world credit crisis only really worries and destabilises people because of its serious consequences they feel on their livelihood-life needs. And for a solution to that id advocate a split in economic goods. Basic life goods, or land to reap them from, only available in the gift economy and the rest of the less necessary goods, carry on trading as normal, if thats what you like. (And then sit back and watch a whole society of good sharing people start to organise themselves a new form of open society! Side by side with a decreasing commercial society) The internet shows how good people share. An essay is alright, but the free economy in practise is my interest. (Though I wonder if writing actually does have an effect or not. An essay I wrote in the Cat magazine in 91′ on the rebound effect, may have helped in airing and bringing out the issue of the energy efficiency paradox. In 92, economist Harry Saunders went on to write the definative economic paper on this about the kazzoom-brookes postulate) Other aspects of free, are that the Gift economy, freeconomy is the sharing origins of the co-op movement, it is the normal workings amongst families, voluntary work, and most religions operate their funding on this basis, re: the collection plate. It is a total socially inclusive economy. Its the normal economy of tribes of less than 150 members, above which number social group members become progressively alienated from each other, and these strangers are then fair game. Genevieve Vaughan has written the book on the subject, called ‘for-giving’. Her website is gift-economy.com. I havent met Mark, but he is doing exceptional work for all of us, and is gifted at it, im very glad hes doing it, he has a very good way with him, and describes our situation very well and our need to transition. In my own self interest and small way, Im also involved with practical gift economy work, and hoping interest in it and the richness of it will increase. 🙂 .

By: Tafline Laylin

Tafline Laylin — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:19:44 +0000

Hi Frank. Thanks so much for this really long and meaningful response. I’d love to learn more. Any chance you’d be willing to send an email (tafline at greenprophet dot com) to tell me more about yourself and your experience with Mark?

By: Frank Bowman

Frank Bowman — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:08:45 +0000

The first pages of every Economics text book teaches us that we have to make decisions about opportunity costs. Which means we have to give up one choice of purchase to take another choice of purchase. Because of a scarcity, a scarcity of what is available on the shop shelf to purchase and a scarcity of our resources available to purchase them. The texts state that all goods are scarce. And that only the air is free. But this is being economical with the truth. It is false, and not entirely true. While it is true for art work or for processed goods, because there is a limit to what can be produced by one talented person or a factory, but for basic needs, land from which to gain food warmth and shelter and water, which, where it is meagre, we can share thriftily. This statement of scarcity for basic needs is a false notion. There is land. We, as a loving bonded community looking after our members wherever we are, ought to treasure basic needs above all else, and feed all our peoples. Love which we think is the most highest to revere, is a most practical thing, or it is nothing!. We need to do that practical thing. We need to plant food, and food trees, which bear every year. Basic needs are the material our bodies are made out of. We are basic needs, inseparable. We are the living land. That is truly truly spiritual, and honour is beholden on us to acknowledge it. To see ourselves not only inseparable, but we are the nature itself. Conventional Economics cannot feed us, as land is not put to use to grow food to feed total demand, as, to satisfy total demand would bring the price to zero, which we wont do, as it is a stupid thing to do in economic terms! this realisation and the practical action needed to change it, is the paradigm shift that is needed, a new crushing realisation that we have been relying on a system of shortage of provision for us and our children and our communities through the ages. And going on into the future, if we dont do anything to change it. We use money to exchange. An exchange is always competitive and because not all people are competitive, and because prices are pegged at the optimum level, which brings in the greatest return never ever satisfying total demand, we cause a human made scarcity which does truly exist, but it is amidst a world of fruitful abundance, which we, the common people through dispossession, do not have access to reap. We need to share those basic needs. Instead of exchanging them by the common commodity of money. The original reason why the worlds peoples are forced to do this and cannot break out of the worlds scarcity of basic needs is because of Usury. Usury is a forced exchange. When it is used for basic needs, we are forced to pay or we shall forfeit our lives. Usury is an unimportant irrelevant thing when it is used for comparitively petty irrelevant things like renting cars etc. But for lifes needs such as housing rent, land rent, it is a totally different thing. Usury which is rent, or the form of rent such as tax, or protection money, is only wrong when it is used to extract payment for basic needs. Land tax is a form of rent on land. Usury. As such it is the original tax on land which forces people off their lifes source and livelihood, our mother earth. And the exchanging of land, because that economic price , means that it too shall be held in shortage. Many in the middle east are aware of the importance of Usury. And the great harm, that it has always perpetrated on us, from when we had no fossil fuels to now, when we have all this fossil fuel to power all those machines, to do all of our work for us, we still cannot feed ourselves. And while we use money to arrange these affairs we will always be very very poor!
Trashing and dumping our world to feed only the rich third. Marks work of living lightly, caring, nurturing, showing how we can share, and looking for ways others can too, is part of the most important work of our time.