Talk:Resource-based economy

Resource Based Economy

The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.87.211 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC) '

Hey, I suggest we put a mention about Fresco´s RBE in the text because now this article is very misleading. Mmaybe the elite is a bit afraid if this Fresco´s ideology will spread? I suggest we put a mention as above to the article and links to Venus Project. In the end, it is information that matters. What do you think? 85.76.87.31 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no 'elite'. That is conspiracy theory. Fresco's idea is not mentioned in the article because he did not coin the term 'resource based economy' and he is not notable in regard to the term either. This article is about resource based economies in the mainstream meaning of the term. Earl King Jr. (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The two terms mentioned should be separated, as it is misleading. S1id3r0 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Propose also using Natural-resource-based economy

The first reference used the phrase, "Natural-resource-based economy". I propose adding this as a redirect and explaining that both these phrases are used interchangeably.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No. The article is not a plaything of primary sources from Zeitgeist or Venus project. Resource-based economy is different than the Faq's material you want to interject from Zeitgeist. The call for editors from your group non-with-standing we can not let the article reflect your primary source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Look again. 'The first reference used the phrase, "Natural-resource-based economy".' Look before you leap[1].—68.7.95.95 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Again this article is trying to be used to auto promotion, Venus Project is not the source. The evidence: http://trademarks.breanlaw.com/77829193-resource-based-economy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enano Humano (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote, again

Enano Humano has repeatedly removed the hatnote with links to "the economical ideas proposed by The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project". That link is there to comply with Wikipedia:Hatnote since it "help readers locate a different article they might be seeking". The phrase "resource-based economy" is used by both The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project and it's very likely that someone entering the phrase in Wikipedia's search field is looking for information about one of those. We should help that person find the article they are looking for. That has nothing to do with promotion, but everything to do with building an encyclopedia. Please note that any argument to remove the hatnote must be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and so far I haven't seen any of that. Removing the hatnote without a valid reason is in my opinion vandalism that can lead to loss of editing privileges. Sjö (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You are ignoring complety the sources about the manipulation from venus project and his fans in this article ( they don´t have a economic model o theory, please visit the website of venus project and read ), you can block me if you wish, I don't care if the proposition from venus project is ok or not, I am scared because they are trying to fool us, trying to be the principal source about RBE! Wikipedia must be impartial . . . you are making a mistake! :/

See more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resource-based_economy#Auto_promotion_to_TVP_in_this_article

Please check, Again the sources:

- Response from Patent Office of USA to venus project over RBE: https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP (RBE can´t have owner)

- Legal process about rejection RBE patent: http://trademarks.breanlaw.com/77829193-resource-based-economy.html ( venus project can´t prove the authority over RBE)

- Article. Debunked the venus project: http://theoverthinker.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/8.-Spirit-Of-The-Times-2012_issue8_web.pdf (venus project get money from activists to make a movie but they never made this movie and the money is lost)

- Real Bibliography from academic books:

* Barry C.Field (2000), Natural Resource Economics, McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-231677-2.

* Thomas H. Tietenberg (1988), Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, Scott-Foresman. ISBN 0-673-18945-7.

* Philip A. Neher (1990), Natural Resource Economics: Conservation and Exploitation, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-31174-8.

* Steven C. Hackett (2001), Environmental and Natural Resources Economics: Theory, Policy, and the Sustainable Society, M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-0682-8.

* Erhun Kula (1992), Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Springer. ISBN 0-412-36330-5.

* Juan C. Suris Regueiro, Manuel M. Varela Lafuente (1995), Introducción a la economía de los recursos naturales, Civitas. ISBN 84-470-0613-1.

* Pere Riera (2005), Manual de economía ambiental y de los recursos naturales, Thomson. ISBN 84-9732-369-6.

* Carlos Romero(1994), Economía de los recursos ambientales y naturales, Alianza Editorial. ISBN 84-206-6811-7.

* Alan Randall, Ricardo Calvet Perez (1985), Economía de los recursos naturales y política ambiental, Limusa. ISBN 968-18-1727-3.

* Roxana Barrantes (1997), Hacia un nuevo dorado: Economía de los recursos naturales, Consorcio de Investigación Económica. ISBN 9972-670-00-7.

-

Everybody review all "debate" here and the arguments of Earl Jr. King and now Sjö: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resource-based_economy#Auto_promotion_to_TVP_in_this_article

PD: Like say the USA paten office: "RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY" for services incorrectly set forth as "Association services, namely, promoting the interests of alternative social sustainability and design." However, it appears that the proposed mark "RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY" is a pre-existing phrase in the socio-economic literature discussing economic models, a pre-existing phrase with a fairly widely known meaning." see more: https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP PLEASE Don`t ignore this source Sjö and everybody!

If somebody needs to corroborate this source please check with the serial number (77829193) onto the last doc shared in this web site: http://trademarks.breanlaw.com/77829193-resource-based-economy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enano Humano (talk • contribs)

What you write has absolutely no bearing on whether there should be a hatnote in the article. Linking to another article about a concept wit a similar name is an important service to the reader. Sjö (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Putting things in their right places

I have looked through the history of this page and would like to propose the following:

• Moving the current content of the page to "Natural Resource Economy". That is the term that the sources use and is more appropriate.
• Writing an article on the ideas proposed by Jacque Fresco, which was the subject that the page was created to cover.
• Removing the protection now that both topics are covered on their respective pages, so there should be no fight over what goes where.

Please let me know what you think. DSDeniso (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you are wrong on both the first and the second bullet points. Second one first: the page wasn't created to cover Frescos ideas. As a quick check of the history will show, it was created as a redirect to Post-scarcity, then changed to a fork that covered the current content and mentioned that the term is also used by The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.

As to the first point: there is Natural resource economics and the phrase "natural resource economy" is sometime used, but that is in the sense of the supply and demand of natural resources. This article is about countries (or similar) that depend heavily on natural resources for their economy. I didn't find any WP:RS that used the term "natural resource economy" in that sense. Also, the ideas put forward by the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement are not notable by Wikipedia standards, which means that even if this article is moved a new article about those ideas will very likely be deleted. Sjö (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect definition.

Definition of resource based economy in this article is highly unlogical. Why? Because if u use money to manage resources, then it is not resource based, but money based economy. What if there is a resource based economy that doesn't use money and hence gdp? So you can't say that current wiki definition is correct. 2001:1530:1007:F9E5:3464:9BE3:7438:F44D (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Language has its own logic and you can not determine the true meaning of a phrase by taking the individual words and piecing their individual meaning together. Doing this is related to the Etymological fallacy in that you look at the origin of a phrase to determine its meaning. (There is probably an article about the concept, but I do not know where and it is not that important.) Point is, "resource-based economy" is a phrase that is used in English with a specific meaning, and this article should describe that meaning as described in reliable sources, not what some individual editor here thinks the meaning should be. 17:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)