Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#51

Post by stfwn »

maaaats wrote: post #5

What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory? If a thing is worth what people pay, how come diamonds are a scam and other items not? I have a hard time grasping this everytime an anti-diamond article pops up. I can see the logic in not using that kind of money on a ring, but not what's so special about the price/scarcity/fashion of diamonds compared to other luxury goods.

There is no difference. This article might as well be about expensive handbags or colleges, but it so happens it's not. The underlying idea is to rethink what you spend your money (i.e. your time) on so that you get the most out of it for you.

For me the underlying principles boil down to two main ideas:

* Priorities. I personally value a great laptop over a great rug and a nice piano over a nice couch, so I will adjust my spending accordingly. This works within categories as well; I would value what the stone is/does materially over what the stone is/does culturally.

* Consider diminishing returns. When making a buying decision I look at what is available in the category and what the value for money curve looks like. A phone that costs 400 bucks is a significant upgrade over one that is 200, but adding another 200 won't bump the specs as much. This is not to say I'd never buy the more expensive stuff, but only if I prioritize it accordingly.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#52

Post by baud147258 »

realusername wrote: post #37
eindbaas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are wedding bands. Engagement rings more often feature diamonds or other gems. Wedding bands rarely do indeed (in Western Europe anyway).

I can't speak of Germany but in France engagement rings are very rare and more something of the upper class, out of all the weddings I've done, none of them did that.

I wouldn't say that engagement rings are upper class, but it's true it's only in certain groups. In my peer group, it's common, for example my brother bought one for his fiancée and my mom has one. But in all case they were gifted at the time of the engagement, not at the wedding.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#53

Post by arethuza »

lostcolony wrote: post #24
isostatic wrote: post #4

> If I can prevent a single reader from needlessly dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring, this site will be a success. Financial worries are the #1 cause of stress in a married relationship - there is absolutely NO excuse to start your married life by taking on that level of debt. Average U.S. wedding cost $30k in 2014, while the average engagement ring was $5600, or 19% of the cost [0] https://www.val…

Some aspects of a wedding are unnecessary inflated...others aren't or don't have to be. The engagement ring is one that is. It's totally worth diving into what is and isn't a sensible expense, but diamonds are unique in that you can get substitutes or alternatives for far cheaper, far more humanely, and in the case of a synthetic, at least, aren't even visibly different.

A couple of years back my wife (of 27 years) bought a ring for herself with a conspicuous "diamond" on it - I think it cost about £30. Anyone who noticed thought it must have cost tens of thousands and how generous I was.... even though it was fake and she bought it for herself on a whim!

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#54

Post by danielbarla »

maaaats wrote: post #5

What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory? If a thing is worth what people pay, how come diamonds are a scam and other items not? I have a hard time grasping this everytime an anti-diamond article pops up. I can see the logic in not using that kind of money on a ring, but not what's so special about the price/scarcity/fashion of diamonds compared to other luxury goods.

One difference is that nobody thinks that they should invest vast amounts of money in handbags, with the explicit promise that handbags are eternal and an implied promise that you will be able to convert it back to money at a trade in of roughly 1 to 1, if you need to.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#56

Post by scandox »

mijamo wrote: post #35
scandox wrote: post #20

People who buy engagements rings are simply spending lots of money as an expression of love and providing visible proof of that to other people. I don't think that's a great idea but everybody's different. So the value of diamonds is somewhat irrelevant.

You could do that without mined diamonds and all its negative consequences.

Yeah big time. But you can say that about a lot of things. Point I'm making is that if people want to consume ridiculous things the current system we live under kind of favours that. If it isn't diamonds then it's going to be some other crap that requires other people to live lives of utter drudgery. That's kind of the point. If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a Jimmy Choo stamping on a human face forever.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#57

Post by coldtea »

maaaats wrote: post #5

What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory? If a thing is worth what people pay, how come diamonds are a scam and other items not? I have a hard time grasping this everytime an anti-diamond article pops up. I can see the logic in not using that kind of money on a ring, but not what's so special about the price/scarcity/fashion of diamonds compared to other luxury goods.

>What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory?

Usually there's way less war, slave and child labor involved in the making of a handbag.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#58

Post by jdietrich »

maaaats wrote: post #5

What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory? If a thing is worth what people pay, how come diamonds are a scam and other items not? I have a hard time grasping this everytime an anti-diamond article pops up. I can see the logic in not using that kind of money on a ring, but not what's so special about the price/scarcity/fashion of diamonds compared to other luxury goods.

De Beers have spent most of a century convincing people that a large diamond is a mandatory part of an engagement proposal. You mightn't be affected by this propaganda campaign, but a lot of people are.

Lots of other luxury goods are bullshit, but none of them are marketed as an essential part of a normal life. Nobody feels under pressure to buy a Louis Vuitton handbag or a Rolex watch just to get engaged. De Beers have effectively re-invented the dowry, with the significant difference that unlike diamonds, cattle or gold keep their resale value.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#59

Post by baud147258 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #10

People who are against diamonds seem extremely aggressive about making sure other people agree with them and validate their opinions. I can't imagine making a website about any of my jewellery preferences (short of ethical, which isn't mentioned prominently here).

Well it's like vegans. Except here instead of animal suffering, it's human suffering; which can give a greater sense of importance to the cause. And in turn, it would make people against diamonds feels justified to be more aggressive.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#60

Post by harrumph »

chrisseaton wrote: post #10

People who are against diamonds seem extremely aggressive about making sure other people agree with them and validate their opinions. I can't imagine making a website about any of my jewellery preferences (short of ethical, which isn't mentioned prominently here).

>People who are against diamonds seem extremely aggressive about making sure other people agree with them and validate their opinions.

People who profit obscenely from false scarcity, public relations manipulation and civil war seem way, way, way more aggressive about making sure the profits keep flowing.

Post reply on HN