If money is a primary concern, why grow food at all? Just strip-mine your land instead, or simply engage in real-estate speculation and landlordism.
I wonder if there can be a sort of ecosystem effect on money that works like produce. If you overproduce something, it ends up going bad and rotting. Maybe you could have a currency where if you don't use it, it diminishes. That would make sure that money would be spread around, just like an abundant harvest would be shared widely before it goes bad.
>That would make sure that money would be spread around, just like an abundant harvest would be shared widely before it goes bad.
Yes, that's how we get "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"
I though clinton said something along those lines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid
Isn’t that what inflation is? Maybe at a lot slower scale, but the long-term effect is the same.
https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/digita...
Sure, making money on things that aren't actually valuable is all too easy, but that would defeat the point. "Economy", formal and informal, seems to be a big and acknowledged part of permaculture culture.
However, permaculture is centered around a radically different approach: maximally leveraging existing ecosystem features rather than trying to fight them, or trying to wipe the ecosystem clean and turn it into mere substrate for building something artificial.
A correctly implemented permaculture "farm" should require minimal or no artificial inputs at all, instead relying on a composition of self-sustaining closed loops (e.g. food waste goes into compost and a worm bin, where the compost is used to grow more vegetables while the worms are used to supplement chickens foraging in the garden and eating pests like slugs)
It's always been like that. Farmers from the stone age on have used tools manufactured a long way away.
You seem to be confusing permaculture with primitivism.