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

91–100 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#91

Post by auganov »

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.

It's a valid point but diamonds are definitely a bit different. Luxury fashion items are differentiated. Most of the time they don't have identical substitutes. And when they do they might be hard to get and illegal.

Diamonds are much more pure in how few effects make for its value.

The point is - I don't think anti-diamond crusaders are being randomly selective.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#92

Post by forkLding »

I've always found it fascinating how powerful DeBeers' marketing is, considering that in nature gems like rubies and sapphires are much rarer than diamonds yet are worth considerably less.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#93

Post by lucideer »

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?

They're technically equivalent, but not equal.

Both are artificially scarce, don't have a high intrinsic or practical value relative to other products that serve equivalent practical purposes. Both are produced by very large, sometimes monopolistic entities.

Diamonds are different because:

1. Normal fashion -vs- concerted De Beers ad campaign

Demand for bags is largely governed by fashion, which—while it may confound some, and is certainly artificially controlled/steered by large commercial entities—is at least a somewhat organic thing that:

- (a) has a long human tradition

- (b) has some variance over time

- (c) at least slightly various across the general mainstream population according to personal taste

Demand for diamonds on the other hand is a recent, deliberate invention by a single entity and is quite consistent across the relative diversity of individuals in (western) mainstream populations.

2. Scale of external social pressure

Social pressure to have a fashionable, authentic, labelled bag is relatively high for a certain subset of the population, it pales in comparison to multiple generations of family members relentlessly obsession over the most important day of your life on your behalf.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#94

Post by dalbasal »

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.

No difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag, inherently. Diamonds are just a very illustrative & extreme example of that.

For example, engagement rings. The custom puts an alarming number of people into financial bother for no "real" reason. The fact that both the custom and the value of the gem are "fake" or at least fictional is easier to demonstrate for diamonds than it is with gold, Gucci handbags or Harvard education.

Gold is at least valuable in the money sense. It has a market price. Diamond pricing is much more opaque. The custom was also invented in recent memory, unlike the custom of costly weddings which can also be an unreasonably burdensome but non-negotiable bit of culture. Both are customs. Both are invented. Both can be bad. Both (as industries) have a get-in-debt economic norm fattening it. But the diamond example is just more illustrative. More fake.

Lots of industries have horrible labour practices in countries where they can, but diamonds are an illustrative case for this too..

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#95

Post by known »

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.

Resale value?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#96

Post by FrozenVoid »

xstartup wrote: post #86

Yes, this post missing the point that I as a diamond buyer already know this but it will not stop me from purchasing more diamonds. In a hypothetical world, if a diamond could be bought for $10K and sold for $10K, where is the risk? Then it's no longer for only rich, others can take a loan from a bank and purchase diamonds. When I pay for a diamond, I don't pay for its intrinsic value. I pay for diamonds because othe…

No you purchase the diamond because of De Beers marketing techniques influencing people around and peer pressure. Its manufactured status symbol for the purpose of enriching exploitative diamond industry that strives to maintain its monopoly at all cost. The reality of diamond industry is far less polished than their PR material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_the_diamond_in...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#97

Post by Guest9812398 »

tzaman wrote: post #26
mysterydip wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume peer pressure of some sort. When my now wife was telling all her friends she was engaged, the first thing they all asked was "let me see the ring!"

Must be cultural differences then - nobody around here (Central Europe) cares or asks about rings.

I'm in Poland, and I know three couples that got engaged the past year. All of them have diamond engagement rings. It's a small reference point, but clearly some people care in Central Europe, and they all seemed excited to "see the ring".

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#98

Post by Oras »

I know I will get a hell of downvotes for this, but "Brainwashed" term can also be applied to people trading Bitcoins? Some people agreed that it is valuable and gave some tokens a huge value and its a market now.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#99

Post by mlrtime »

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.

At least with a Chanel bag you can often sell it for the price you paid (with inflation) if you keep good care of it for years. I know this anecdotally. Since there is no scarcity in diamonds you are lucky if you get 50% back.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#100

Post by wybiral »

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…

Status symbols are always an unspoken tax on the people who want them.

Weddings could be casual ordeals without frills and rigid formalities but they function as a status symbol of sorts.

Post reply on HN