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

The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 619 posts

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#571

Post by [deleted] »

iancmceachern wrote: post #569
atleastoptimal wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't marry anyone whose happiness is dependent on a artificially expensive hard and shiny rock whose prestige was inflated for years by an industry built on slave labor, especially when far less expensive alternatives exist. If she is apprised of the alternatives and still demands "No I want EXPENSIVE shiny thing" then it's cultural shaming factoring into the decision making. You have to reevaluate what she see…

It's not about that man. It's about the sacrifice, and what that represents. It's about the tradition. I would do (just about) anything for my wife, up to and including working arbitrarily hard for an arbitrary rock that she arbitrarily thinks is meaningful and awesome. I don't care about any of those details, and neither should any partner. You should be caring about what she wants. If your partner wanted a diamond…

[deleted]

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#572

Post by rexpop »

iancmceachern wrote: post #569
atleastoptimal wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't marry anyone whose happiness is dependent on a artificially expensive hard and shiny rock whose prestige was inflated for years by an industry built on slave labor, especially when far less expensive alternatives exist. If she is apprised of the alternatives and still demands "No I want EXPENSIVE shiny thing" then it's cultural shaming factoring into the decision making. You have to reevaluate what she see…

It's not about that man. It's about the sacrifice, and what that represents. It's about the tradition. I would do (just about) anything for my wife, up to and including working arbitrarily hard for an arbitrary rock that she arbitrarily thinks is meaningful and awesome. I don't care about any of those details, and neither should any partner. You should be caring about what she wants. If your partner wanted a diamond…

> It's about the sacrifice, and what that represents. It's about the tradition.

Diamond wedding rings have only been en vogue since De Beers' 1946 marketing campaign. It's a garish facet of soulless modernity masquerading as classical. Even the notion of pampering one's wife is a way of maintaining the patriarchal division of labor by keeping women in a dependent role.

In a world where money talks, insisting that men afford diamonds while women only receive them is tantamount to disenfranchisement and an abridgement of women's free expression. Are we equal partners, or is she your domestic servant? Are you the gatekeeper of her wealth and, therefore, speech and agency?

What a man buying a diamond ring "represents" is his agreement to financially provide, while the woman’s acceptance of the ring "represents" her agreement not to pursue financial independence.

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#573

Post by defrost »

amrocha wrote: post #479
defrost wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The marine mining ships I linked work in Africa, I've worked in several types of mines, I've had a career as an exploration geophysicist, and I worked on a resource intelligence mapping project that took me to mines across the globe. There are mines I wouldn't work in, there are many mines I'd have no issue working in. Which mines have you you worked in and what was your role?

The article you linked literally criticizes the Namibia mine for causing ecological damage to the marine ecosystem from repeated trawling. All that for superfluous rocks we can make synthetically. Granted, maybe there are good mines out there, but I still think commercial extraction of resources is almost surely damaging to its surrounding environment. You can justify that for some useful material, but it's hard to j…

Here at least we can agree, I view the bulk of diamond and gold mining as a waste of energy for "pretty things" to prop up a value growth mindset that is neccesary neither economically nor to advance quality of life.

Mining in general I view as a somewhat neccesary evil that needs to made humane for workers and as something driven by unthinking consumption, the remedy lies upstream from mines in the mindsets of populations that demand resources.

Resource extraction can't be eliminated but it can be reduced, as should population numbers.

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#574

Post by wolverine876 »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #268
wolverine876 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you apprise your fiancé of the alternatives / opp costs What a romantic! I recommend not apprising your fiance of anything, but working to understand them and make your engagement as joyful and loving as possible. > I made it clear though that if I got this, she is not getting a new one for a long time (she has a tendency to want to rent / sample / change things up). Is she 12 years old? Is it legal to marry som…

She can have a preference, and he can preference on whether or not he buys it for her. A purchase that is solely ceremonial and build on outdated cultural mores does merit a rational discussion about expenses and alternatives. To entertain the notion that such things shouldn't even be discussed because engagements are "oh so special" is silly. Cultural shaming shouldn't keep people from having reasonable discussions,…

> A purchase that is solely ceremonial and build on outdated cultural mores does merit a rational discussion about expenses and alternatives. To entertain the notion that such things shouldn't even be discussed because engagements are "oh so special" is silly.

You're asking the wrong questions and giving the wrong answers to them.

Wrong questions: Those things don't matter in a serious, mature relationship, or are a low priority. The question is, what does your partner think? If it's important to them, then it's important. QED. That's because you care about your partner infinitely more and everything else is bullshit.

Wrong answers: If it's not important to your partner, then you discuss it. But you're still wrong: The correct answer is not to bother with the discussion, but to make sure your partner feels listened to, respected, and supported. Make sure you feel that way too, or your relationship will eventually bomb.

More wrong answers: If all of the above is done, and there's still room to discuss it, go for it. But you are still wrong: My impression is that you and the GGP seem to think that your opinions (and the grand HN consensus) are truths. Your opinion is just one limited take on reality.; your partner will have their own take, and, crucially: it's completely independent of you and your judgment; you have no business evaluating it; you just accept it. You listen, be curious about their take - give them space and time, because when you cut people off with your opinion, you actually never hear theirs (a widespread mistake of the arrogant, trapping them in ignorance). You take it in, challenge your own ideas. Then, finally, you are right to express yourself.

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#575

Post by iancmceachern »

rexpop wrote: post #572
iancmceachern wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about that man. It's about the sacrifice, and what that represents. It's about the tradition. I would do (just about) anything for my wife, up to and including working arbitrarily hard for an arbitrary rock that she arbitrarily thinks is meaningful and awesome. I don't care about any of those details, and neither should any partner. You should be caring about what she wants. If your partner wanted a diamond…

> It's about the sacrifice, and what that represents. It's about the tradition. Diamond wedding rings have only been en vogue since De Beers' 1946 marketing campaign. It's a garish facet of soulless modernity masquerading as classical. Even the notion of pampering one's wife is a way of maintaining the patriarchal division of labor by keeping women in a dependent role. In a world where money talks, insisting that men…

It doesn't represent either of those things to us, and to many.

Ultimately it's about tradition. I wear the ring my father (a master jeweler) made for my grandfather who wore it as his favorite ring for most of his life before passing it on to me when he passed. My wife's ring was hand made by my father, with a diamond which sat in his safe for years prior waiting for me.

It's not about the things. It's about the people.

In your rush to make these little trinkets spin a whole tale about broader humanity, you're missing the humanity right in front of you.

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#576

Post by datatrashfire »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #261
xivzgrev wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guys, buying diamonds, can complain all day about what a rip off it is (it is). But if you apprise your fiancé of the alternatives / opp costs (moissanite, man made, second hand, etc) and she still wants a new diamond, just get her a new diamond. It will make her happy for years. My wife had her heart set on a pink diamond, so that’s what I got her. I made it clear though that if I got this, she is not getting a new…

I wouldn't marry anyone whose happiness is dependent on a artificially expensive hard and shiny rock whose prestige was inflated for years by an industry built on slave labor, especially when far less expensive alternatives exist. If she is apprised of the alternatives and still demands "No I want EXPENSIVE shiny thing" then it's cultural shaming factoring into the decision making. You have to reevaluate what she see…

> I wouldn't marry anyone whose happiness is dependent on a artificially expensive hard and shiny rock whose prestige was inflated for years by an industry built on slave labor, especially when far less expensive alternatives exist.

One woman's diamond is another engineer's MacBook.

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#578

Post by rexpop »

iancmceachern wrote: post #575
rexpop wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's about the sacrifice, and what that represents. It's about the tradition. Diamond wedding rings have only been en vogue since De Beers' 1946 marketing campaign. It's a garish facet of soulless modernity masquerading as classical. Even the notion of pampering one's wife is a way of maintaining the patriarchal division of labor by keeping women in a dependent role. In a world where money talks, insisting that men…

It doesn't represent either of those things to us, and to many. Ultimately it's about tradition. I wear the ring my father (a master jeweler) made for my grandfather who wore it as his favorite ring for most of his life before passing it on to me when he passed. My wife's ring was hand made by my father, with a diamond which sat in his safe for years prior waiting for me. It's not about the things. It's about the peo…

I will admit that, as I was writing my little tirade, I was thinking "damn, though, if that ring is passed down even one generation, it gathers enough meaning to invalidate my claim."

I won't begrudge anyone their personal family heirlooms. I completely understand your perspective, because it's a nice story.

That being said, you've shifted the goalposts with your anecdata. Familial inheritance is an exception which preuves the rule. And, furthermore, jewelry being your family business, I suspect you've a misunderstanding essential to your paycheck. My words are pearls before oysters.

You may yet understand the harm of patriarchal heteronormativity (heck, The Feminine Mystique came out in 1963, and the Cult of Domesticity is far from abolished) but probably the subject of engagement rings is not the radicalizing grain of sand for you.

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#579

Post by fsflover »

Retric wrote: post #562
fsflover wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you here.

I did not state a definite answer, they did. So they should be able to back it up. Also, it’s possible to prove some negatives. Mostly though the definitions of terms.

If the good and the evil are encoded in human genes, then we should kill all bad people and all problems in the world will be solved.

Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge

#580

Post by lelanthran »

gnicholas wrote: post #531
lelanthran wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would someone's friends figure out that it's not a natural diamond? I would think the only way the wife would know is if she asked about the diamond's papers, if she was going to get an insurance policy for it or something. It actually doesn't matter how she finds out that you lied to her about the biggest life change she will ever experience for the rest of her life. What matters is that lying to a person you…

> Arguing that it's okay because you will never be found out isn't relevant. I didn't argue this at all, and in a reply to another comment below, 3 hours before your comment, I made it clear that all I was saying was that it's a bit farfetched to say someone is going to be embarrassed in front of her friends because of the ring.

>> Arguing that it's okay because you will never be found out isn't relevant.

> I didn't argue this at all,

I apologise. In the bit that I quoted, specifically this sentence:

>>>> I would think the only way the wife would know is [...]

it appeared to me that you were arguing that the wife would never know unless [...] happened. To me, that sentence implies deceiving the wife.

Post reply on HN