# A Moneyless Life for Over Ten Years



## SifuPhil

The worship of money is the root of all evil, or so they say.

If that is indeed true then Daniel Suelo is a saint.


Saint Suelo


Suelo is a man who has lived his life since late 2000 totally without money. He does not offer or accept it nor does he engage in barter. *His blog* is a testimony to a man driven by his principles.

Give it a visit - you just might learn something about the transitory state of our currency.


----------



## Elzee

Had a quick glance at his blog. It's great that he doesn't use money but then, he depends on other people who use money. If he hitchhikes, then he depends on someone who has to use money to put gas in their car, in order to give him a ride. Also, if he has a blog, then he is dependent on every thing electronic that goes with operating a blog and those companies use money to promote their products and pay their bills. If this guy lived out in the woods somewhere and didn't depend on others, who use money, to get him around and communicate - then I would be impressed. 

Did he weave and make his own clothes, from his own sheep or his own llamas? 
What does he do for food? Grow his own?
What happens when he has a toothache and has to see a dentist?


----------



## SifuPhil

An excellent point, Elzee, and one that I've seen presented many times against his claims. I tend to agree to a point - yes, he often relies upon others, or their discards, in order to survive; it's difficult (but not impossible) to survive totally by yourself in today's developed societies. 

But the underlying spirit of what he is doing is I think a good thing: trying to get us to really look at money, the concept of it and the abuses of it. If what he does can cause one person to become a bit more cognizant of money's true role in the world then perhaps his activities will not have been in vain.


----------



## TWHRider

I agree with Elzee and also with Phil's comment regarding "underlying spirit of what he is doing".

Which brings me to my thought ---- we all grew up in an era of "Less" that quickly spilled into "more is better and if you don't have a job, it's your problem.

The bulk of us should be able to live Off The Grid if we had to; essentially living without much money.  I feel we all need some money for evil necessities such as that nasty dentist trip Elzee brought up.  Thanks for that, I just had a root canal last Thursday - lol lol

Soooo, how many of us honestly feel we could live, somehow/someway off the grid either short term or for the long haul?

I am pretty sure I can still go into Survivalist Mode (not the nutcase Survivalists) if I absolutely had to BUT it would be very dependent on having access to my S.S. retirement and maybe trading out some hard labor for fruits and vegetables, etc.


----------



## SifuPhil

The thing is, any scenario that would cause you to have to go into survivalist mode is most likely also going to freeze the payment of S.S. benefits. I've always said that I'll be waiting in line at the S.S. office for my first check, and when I get to the window they'll slam it in my face with a little sign "OUT OF MUNEE". I'd have a tough time depending upon a government that quite likely _caused_ the scenario to pay me to hide from it. 

You can probably tell I'm not running for office. layful:

If the psyco-social element of isolation is important then sure, I could be a hermit in the middle of the woods. The only problem is that I've unfortunately become dependent upon the comforts of urban living, and have little knowledge of how to survive in the wild. My expertise is urban warfare - give me a good ol'-fashioned riot, social upheaval or crime wave and I'm in my element.

But put me out where the bears and the honey badgers roam and I'll be a steaming pile of kibbles in about an hour.


----------



## R. Zimm

There are free sites you can set up a blog on and he likely uses his local library for Internet access. Ours has a couple of guest computers for non-residents.

But the point is well stated. There are many aspects of this guy's life that he just "freeloads" off of others or society in general. That does not make him a criminal if he is up front about what he is doing and gives everyone the option to help rather than just "borrowing" what he needs.


----------



## MercyL

R. Zimm said:


> There are free sites you can set up a blog on and he likely uses his local library for Internet access. Ours has a couple of guest computers for non-residents.
> 
> But the point is well stated. There are many aspects of this guy's life that he just "freeloads" off of others or society in general. That does not make him a criminal if he is up front about what he is doing and gives everyone the option to help rather than just "borrowing" what he needs.



Every time I read about this fellow, I hear my mother's irritating quip,"what if everyone did that?"

My answer, every time, is that everyone is not going to do that. Humans do not engage is pack-like behaviors unless frightened into it.
However, while admiring this fellow's dedication and his friends' tolerating his lifestyle I wonder what our society would look like if we all simply swore off money.

Of course, we are already seeing some of what it might be like as we watch our infrastructure decay, but I digress.

What I want to know his plans for his waning years. Will he live with friends if he cannot live on his own? Does he plan on just dying in the wilderness?

I looked at the website, Living Without Money, and saw some good ideas. I won't be dumpster diving for food, but it looks like the answers to many of my questions are there. I might be able to use some of them!


----------



## SifuPhil

MercyL said:


> Every time I read about this fellow, I hear my mother's irritating quip,"what if everyone did that?"



"If all of your friends threw their money off a bridge, would you throw yours too?" 



> My answer, every time, is that everyone is not going to do that. Humans do not engage is pack-like behaviors unless frightened into it.



I agree that not everyone is going to do it. I'm not so sure about the pack-behavior thing - have you ever been to a Black Friday sale? A soccer game in Brazil? A Rolling Stones concert? Rush hour in a NYC subway? These are a few examples I can think of where the pack mentality rules without having fear as the motivation.



> However, while admiring this fellow's dedication and his friends' tolerating his lifestyle I wonder what our society would look like if we all simply swore off money.
> 
> Of course, we are already seeing some of what it might be like as we watch our infrastructure decay, but I digress.



Actually you bring up a very good point. With the way we're being milked every time we turn around - gasoline, heating oil, cable, food - we're beginning to approach the point where money is losing its meaning. The value of money is all an illusion to begin with, but that illusion is starting to wear at the seams and people are beginning to question just how much they really "believe" in money. 



> What I want to know his plans for his waning years. Will he live with friends if he cannot live on his own? Does he plan on just dying in the wilderness?



Always an important thought. I get the impression he'd be content with just passing-on in the woods surrounded by his "tribe".


----------



## MercyL

SifuPhil said:


> ....
> 
> I agree that not everyone is going to do it. I'm not so sure about the pack-behavior thing - have you ever been to a Black Friday sale? A soccer game in Brazil? A Rolling Stones concert? Rush hour in a NYC subway? These are a few examples I can think of where the pack mentality rules without having fear as the motivation...



Black Friday, pack behavior by people afraid of missing out on a "deal", and needing the deal because they are afraid to go without xmas gifts?

The soccer crowds crushing that first row of folk because they are afraid of being left out of the on-field, post game mayhem??

Crowds crushing the first row at the Rolling Stones concert fearing they will miss some part of the performance or being afraid they can't see everything from their seats?

Rush hour...fear of not getting to work on time, fear of not getting home quickly or before that favorite tv show comes on? That's a "pre-DVR" fear, btw.

I'm just throwing out possibilities, don't get too serious about them. LOL!

layful:


----------



## SifuPhil

MercyL said:


> ... I'm just throwing out possibilities, don't get too serious about them. LOL!
> 
> layful:



Actually that was QUITE insightful - you've given me a rather large piece of mental cud to chew on.

Thank you!


----------



## That Guy




----------



## FishWisher

All of this banter points out to me how downright handy money is. I'm keeping mine and am willing to take yours if you wish to join the moneyless crowd!


----------



## rkunsaw

I agree with Elzee. He uses money, just let's others do the work to earn it then mooches off those who work for a living. Reminds me of the professional welfare families.

I can't believe some people make a hero out of a bum.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

The Amish live a similar style of life, in that they do not believe in have the usual comforts that we take for granted, electricity, city utilities, garbage pickup, etc.   They do work for, and receive money, so it is different from the Moneyless Guy in that respect, but similar on many others. The Amish all work together to help each other when needed, such as building a house or barn. 

They are also dependent on the society in general, to exist. Even though they drive a horse and buggy, they will happily ride with someone that has a car, and they actively market their products to outside people. I actually think that they are less dependent on other people than Moneyless is, since he depends on rides when he is hitch hiking, as well as someone to provide not only food, but shelter as well, when he is on the road traveling. 


I think that some of his ideas are good ones, and that people working together, and helping each other, without money being the main objective all the time, would be a great thing. I can't see many people just being willing to give up money and become nomadic though, unless they don't HAVE any money to begin with, and see this as a way to survive better .


----------



## Anne

I envy the Amish lifestyle in some ways.  They, at least some, manage to do without electricity, etc; a lot of the modern conveniences we have, as Happyflowerlady mentioned; tv's, computers, etc.  They are there to help each other when someone has trouble, there should be more of that.

As far as money, isn't our money fiat money, anyway??  More and more printed up, but nothing to back it anymore??   They can only do that for so long; eventually something has to give.


----------



## SifuPhil

I think the motivations of the Amish are a bit different than the Moneyless Guy, though ... theirs is a more religiously-mandated economy, whereas MG is merely making a personal choice without any peer pressure.

But maybe that's just splitting hairs, huh?


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Sifu, you are right that the Amish society is based on religious beliefs, whereas MG just wants to devop something that is maybe more along the lines of the 60s Hippie Communes. He wants to travel together, he calls it a "tribe" , and even though they dont have money or vehicles, they would be working for people that did have those items, to earn food, clothes, and shelter. 

Maybe a little like the WW2 hobos, who weren't exactly tribes, but lived in hobo camps, and worked for food.
I remember seeing  the old hobo camps along the railroad tracks, when I was a kid. ( we weren't supposed to ride our horses through there, but of course, we did )   By that time, the economy was better, so they were pretty much fading out, but we still saw some, out sitting around the campfire at nite.

While I am not ready to give up my little trailer home and become a nomad again, I do not see anything wrong with his idea of living without money, and working for what they need.


----------



## SifuPhil

As much as I would like to romanticize the days of the train-hopping hobos with their bristled little faces and little ditty bags slung on a stick I realize that there were many instances where said hobos were responsible for crimes, some of which were doubtless pretty serious. 

I just don't believe that it happened with the same frequency as it would now. Just as hitchhiking in the old days was a fairly safe action, now you'd have to be a bit insane to practice it. I'm afraid I would look at the modern-day hobos the same way - with disbelief and suspicion.

I have no problem with communes at all - in fact, I'm sad that I wasn't in the right time-period to live in one.


----------



## Anne

I've had this 'dream' for years that our entire family could live together; in separate homes with a bit of land for each, and have a farm that everyone could work. It would have huge veggie gardens and animals for our food.  We'd all have our privacy, and be there for each other when needed, and if possible, have a money 'pool' someone could draw from in an emergency.

What's wrong with that picture??  Well, it most likely wouldn't work, is all.  But a good dream, nevertheless.


----------



## FishWisher

Anne said:


> ...and if possible, have a money 'pool' someone could draw from in an emergency.
> 
> What's wrong with that picture??  Well, it most likely wouldn't work, is all.  But a good dream, nevertheless.



Quite right. It would always be the same ol' suspects needing help for an "emergency". Like the old saying goes: if we spread all the wealth around equally (does that sound familiar?), and every person had equal wealth (or poverty), in five years the same ol' rich people would be rich again and same ol' poor folks would be poor again. It ain't the money, it's the way we live our lives. layful:


----------



## SifuPhil

FishWisher said:


> Quite right. It would always be the same ol' suspects needing help for an "emergency". Like the old saying goes: if we spread all the wealth around equally (does that sound familiar?), and every person had equal wealth (or poverty), in five years the same ol' rich people would be rich again and same ol' poor folks would be poor again. It ain't the money, it's the way we live our lives. layful:



Because the rich would still know how to take advantage of the poor, right! 

What is the #1 wealth-producing method of billionaires today? Investing. Playing games, gambling with money, most often relying on other people to provide it. 

I agree that it's the way we live our lives - it isn't noble to be poor, but the rich are so rarely noble.


----------



## Anne

But, but, but - the money pool would be for emergencies *only*....y'know, borrow and pay back when you can.

I know, I know...:rofl:   Much as I love my family, there's always going to be those who have good intentions, but, gee, just can't manage it right now.....whether they can or not.


----------



## FishWisher

SifuPhil said:


> Because the rich would still know how to take advantage of the poor, right!
> 
> What is the #1 wealth-producing method of billionaires today?



The rich provide the needs of the poor. Who designs and builds our transportation system and all the rolling inventory? Who grows, harvests, packages and distributes to poor people's tables the food they need? Who makes the great medical discoveries and inventions that keep us old geezers alive and improves almost everyone's lives? Who... well, you get it.

The answer to all of the above is not poor people, but _rich_ people! And that's why they're rich - they find a need and fill it, many of them putting in 15 - 20 hour days to do so! If that's called taking advantage of the poor, I can accept that!

The rich are taken advantage of by government a whole lot more than the poor are taken advantage of by the rich. Count on it!


----------



## That Guy




----------



## Anne

But it's the rich who run corporations, who have the lobbying power that hurts the poor.  $$ IS the bottom line for most of them, not the ' little people' who do the work for them. 

Sure, we can vote, but we know money has power to buy votes.....and does.


----------



## SifuPhil

FishWisher said:


> The rich provide the needs of the poor. Who designs and builds our transportation system and all the rolling inventory? Who grows, harvests, packages and distributes to poor people's tables the food they need? Who makes the great medical discoveries and inventions that keep us old geezers alive and improves almost everyone's lives? Who... well, you get it.
> 
> The answer to all of the above is not poor people, but _rich_ people! And that's why they're rich - they find a need and fill it, many of them putting in 15 - 20 hour days to do so! If that's called taking advantage of the poor, I can accept that!
> 
> The rich are taken advantage of by government a whole lot more than the poor are taken advantage of by the rich. Count on it!



Are you saying that it's only the rich that _invent_ medical devices? That only the rich design and build tractor-trailers and trains? Or are you saying that the rich _subsidize_ these inventions? 

Sure, you've got your wealthy dilettantes over the ages that have had the time and money to putz around in their basements and discover a few things, but you also have legions of unwashed masses who have given us useful inventions. 

As for growing food, etc. - I had to laugh at the vision of rich people in their fine clothes out in the fields, stooped over, hoeing and picking and weeding. 

No, my friend - the rich _oversee_ the poor. They control them, they tell them where they can live and how. They tell them what schools they can send their kids to. They even tell them how long they can live and what medical treatments they can avail themselves of. 

"The rich are taken advantage of by the government"? Oh, please - they get the majority of the tax breaks and can afford all the high-priced legal and financial help to ensure that they hide the lion's share of their ill-gotten gains.


----------



## TICA

Anne said:


> I've had this 'dream' for years that our entire family could live together; in separate homes with a bit of land for each, and have a farm that everyone could work. It would have huge veggie gardens and animals for our food.  We'd all have our privacy, and be there for each other when needed, and if possible, have a money 'pool' someone could draw from in an emergency.
> 
> What's wrong with that picture??  Well, it most likely wouldn't work, is all.  But a good dream, nevertheless.



Not a thing wrong with that picture and I'd love to have that situation.  And.... regardless of what most people think, I'm one who truly believes this would work for my family.  Will it happen?  I doubt it, but if a situation came up where as a family, we would need to live together - I'm all for it and would look forward to it.  I have 20 acres that will be subdivided so that my children can build homes there should they ever want to and I hope they do some day.


----------



## Anne

TICA said:


> Not a thing wrong with that picture and I'd love to have that situation.  And.... regardless of what most people think, I'm one who truly believes this would work for my family.  Will it happen?  I doubt it, but if a situation came up where as a family, we would need to live together - I'm all for it and would look forward to it.  I have 20 acres that will be subdivided so that my children can build homes there should they ever want to and I hope they do some day.



TICA, I hope it can happen for you!!  Not out of a bad situation, but because the family wants it that way.   With our family (including siblings, in-laws, etc), we're so spread out it just wouldn't work, and of course, so many have their careers, and have to be in certain areas.  But - I figure I can dream; LOL


----------



## Happyflowerlady

I really think that if there are enough people in the family, and they want to do something like this, that having kind of a family commune is a great idea. 
My mother was sure that the End Times were coming anytime, and they had some property that they held onto for years and years, just so there would be a place that everyone could go to if the economy totally crashed, and we all needed a place to live together. She had all sorts of developments planned  for the property, just never had the money to do any of it, so it would have been a hard thing for everyone to live there, if things had made it necessary.
Now, my family is kind of spread out all over, and all have their own life going, so there is no likelihood of us all ending up on a property together, but I still think it is a good plan for any family that can manage it, and wants to do that.


----------



## Old Hipster

rkunsaw said:


> I agree with Elzee. He uses money, just let's others do the work to earn it then mooches off those who work for a living. Reminds me of the professional welfare families.
> 
> I can't believe some people make a hero out of a bum.


I agree, I have worked hard all my life so I could take care of myself and not look for hand outs or free load off of others. 

I bought a little old house in the early 70's and we are still in it. Except for this house, that has been paid for since 1984, everything else we have bought we saved up to buy it, no credit cards or loans. 

The real heros are the ones who pull themselves up by their own boot strings.


----------



## Penelope

I've been looking into the many options for living "off the grid"; this interests me. The tiny house movement has gained popularity, but checking into my local codes recently left me thinking that there just has to be another way! (These were in-city regulations). I thought maybe being within walking or bike-riding distance in a small city would be ideal, but living in the city seems geared to keeping me working longer and continuing at a higher consumption rate than where I'd like to be.

Has anyone researched this topic enough that they feel one particular way is better (I use that word loosely) than other?


----------



## Penelope

Anne, I'm right there with you! I've been dropping this little scenario into conversations with my family members for a few years now. Mostly, my peeps just shake their heads. :topsy_turvy:


----------



## SifuPhil

Penelope said:


> Has anyone researched this topic enough that they feel one particular way is better (I use that word loosely) than other?



I would say that smaller is better, but then I'm a prejudiced minimalist. 

Take a look at a typical European house or apartment and compare it to the square footage in an average American home - it's usually half the size or less. We have living rooms AND dens AND rumpus rooms AND basements - as if we NEED all that room to run around like kids. 

When I was growing up we only sat in the living room to watch TV. Otherwise the center of activity was always the kitchen, and it was barely 12'x12' but fit our family of 6 along with any visiting relatives and friends. 

The small house movement is indeed becoming more popular here, as we realize that we really don't NEED all that space (and the attendant overhead). What's that cute little mortgage buzzword that's being used today - "_being underwater_"? I see commercials on TV from Quicken Loans, bragging that they can help you "even if you owe $300,000 on your $150,000 house".

That's just insane.

It only makes sense, ethically and financially, to go small. We've been brainwashed into thinking that a big house, a white picket fence and 2.5 kids is the American Dream, but since the '60's it's been turned into a nightmare. I've been a home-owner (6,000SF loft and 5-acre glass/wood house in the woods) and I've been a minimalist (a 10'x12' rental room) - I much prefer the latter.


----------



## rkunsaw

For me, bigger is better. We have 25 acres and would like a lot more. Our house isn't so big ( would like more room for guests) but we have an old Travel trailer under a shed, a garage, a shop building a greenhouse and two other buildings for storing equipment. 

I do think it's ridiculous to get over your head in debt but why be cramped for space when you can afford it? I would bet my place with all it's space is cheaper than a small house on a lot in just about any big city.


----------



## SifuPhil

Larry, I agree with you - put the money into the land and the working buildings rather than a fancy-schmancy house. 

Personally I'd rather take my chances _off_ the grid than _on_ it. At least then I have only myself to blame when TSHTF.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Penelope said:


> I've been looking into the many options for living "off the grid"; this interests me. The tiny house movement has gained popularity, but checking into my local codes recently left me thinking that there just has to be another way! (These were in-city regulations). I thought maybe being within walking or bike-riding distance in a small city would be ideal, but living in the city seems geared to keeping me working longer and continuing at a higher consumption rate than where I'd like to be.
> 
> Has anyone researched this topic enough that they feel one particular way is better (I use that word loosely) than other?



There is a book on amazon, and available cheap (and some days for free) at the Kindle store, and it is called "Trailersteading", by Anna Hess. It talks about starting out with an old, but livable mobile home on property, rather than trying to build a house from scratch. Old trailers are usually pretty easy to find at a very reasonable price, so the main expense is having it moved to the property. Of course, you could use a self-contained camper trailer that can be pulled up there with nothing more than a full-sized pickup.

I think that it is a smart thing to do whatever you can do to be self-sufficient; even if it isn't very much. The idea of a little place off-the-grid, and living off the land might sound like the best option, but it certainly is not for everyone, many of us seniors included.
But neither do we need to sit around in an apartment, watching re-runs on tv. Grow a little garden, even if it is only lettuce and tomatoes, and use containers if digging is no longer possible. Even if you live in an apartment, you can still grow plants in the sunny windows.
And don't overlook sprouting. Sprouts are over 30 times more nutritious than the seeds are unsprouted, and literally everyone can easily grow sprouts.

Even if you need to live in town because of your job, you can still use whatever area you have to grow your own garden, stock up on extra canned and dry items, and just do whatever else you can to be more self-sufficient.


----------



## That Guy

Living a moneyless life . . .


----------

