Live data from Hacker News

Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

theatlantic.com

21–30 of 239 posts

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#21
post #20

It's a fascinating piece, for a number of reasons. The first, and perhaps most interesting, is that the story behind the De Beers cartel is well known . Perhaps not in this depth, but still, it's no secret. Pretty much everyone knows they exercise a monopoly on diamond production and distribution, artificially keeping prices high. And yet, nobody takes the red pill and opts out of the illusion. Call it the power of t…

the story behind the De Beers cartel is well known. Is it really? Or are you assuming that because you and your friends know about it that you think that everyone knows about it? (not an attack, just a easy trap to fall into). players in the market -- seem to be acting in concert I think that whenever a new participant enters the market they find that the most profitable path is to collude with the existing cartels.…

It's really well known. There are articles written up about it every few years. It gets the occasional pop culture shout out.

We could split hairs for awhile and debate about how well known it is, or whether "Joe Sixpack" in Des Moines knows about it. But it's far from obscure.

I'll grant you that a lot of the major demand drivers (young couples, new money, etc.) probably don't know, or at least don't care. And that might make all the difference.

EDIT: Seems we both edited our posts at the same time. I think the Asian theory is interesting, and it might be the most savory / least fishy driver of price increases. Perhaps the "Joe Sixpack" of Shanghai, newly monied and with very few reasonable investment options in his home country, is buying diamonds left and right. Wouldn't surprise me. Either way, it seems odd that the cartels wouldn't go head to head in Asia for the big prize here, unless they reached a gentleman's agreement on territories.

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#22

It's a fascinating piece, for a number of reasons. The first, and perhaps most interesting, is that the story behind the De Beers cartel is well known . Perhaps not in this depth, but still, it's no secret. Pretty much everyone knows they exercise a monopoly on diamond production and distribution, artificially keeping prices high. And yet, nobody takes the red pill and opts out of the illusion. Call it the power of t…

I agree with you in that the story of De Beers is pretty well known. But - for reasons outlined in the article - the intrinsic linking of diamonds to the act of romance and marriage is well embedded in society. So even if people know it is essentially meaningless (in the true sense of rarity) as far as society goes, they have a social status.

Any society is full of irrational practices and purchases. Throwing rice at a wedding? What's that about? $5 cards to wish someone well? What on earth? Yet these are all accepted by society as societal norms, and even when the companies have conspired to create them (or at least magnify their importance) it is what it is. In a form of social proof, nobody wants to be the first to break with the tradition, which is how most tradition stays. Same goes for Christmas - which is nominally a Christian religious festival, but, at least in the USA, widely adopted by people of all religious and aetheist beliefs. Because nobody wants to be the grouch who doesn't hand out presents.

Interestingly the article mentions the introduction of Argyle diamonds - a friend of mine, while travelling in remote WA bought a large diamond at a fraction of the retail cost, direct from either the mine itself or a local retailer. He kept this for 15 years, which was the time period between purchase and eventually finding someone to marry (and getting it put into a ring).

But as to why the introduction of new sources hasn't drastically affected prices, I think that any new cartel or operator entering the market is just as likely to free-ride the hard work of De Beers. If De Beers spends significant money and influence maintaining a monopoly, and therefore creating monopoly pricing, any new entrant rationally would be well served to restrict supply so that they can free-ride on the monopoly prices without any of the costs of maintaining the monopoly.

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#23
post #19
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is just you. That article is a classic in long-form investigative journalism.

That's how I started figuring out it wasn't a recent article. I ran into this link from the G+ HN circle and didn't see a mention of the date. Then about 1/3 of the way through I started thinking "what the hell, no article can be this long", then I looked at the date. A great read though, it does a lot to remind us how articles used to be back in the day before our current attention spans.

Atlantic articles that get upvoted on hn are generally pretty long.

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#24
post #22

It's a fascinating piece, for a number of reasons. The first, and perhaps most interesting, is that the story behind the De Beers cartel is well known . Perhaps not in this depth, but still, it's no secret. Pretty much everyone knows they exercise a monopoly on diamond production and distribution, artificially keeping prices high. And yet, nobody takes the red pill and opts out of the illusion. Call it the power of t…

I agree with you in that the story of De Beers is pretty well known. But - for reasons outlined in the article - the intrinsic linking of diamonds to the act of romance and marriage is well embedded in society. So even if people know it is essentially meaningless (in the true sense of rarity) as far as society goes, they have a social status. Any society is full of irrational practices and purchases. Throwing rice at…

"But as to why the introduction of new sources hasn't drastically affected prices, I think that any new cartel or operator entering the market is just as likely to free-ride the hard work of De Beers. If De Beers spends significant money and influence maintaining a monopoly, and therefore creating monopoly pricing, any new entrant rationally would be well served to restrict supply so that they can free-ride on the monopoly prices without any of the costs of maintaining the monopoly."

Perhaps, but it's extremely hard (and not very lucrative) to follow the leader when the leader exercises such dramatic buyer and seller power in a marketplace -- unless you plan to compete on price, or to compete by tapping an entirely different market segment. Perhaps prices are much lower in certain markets, but if that were the case, we probably would have heard about the arbitrage opportunities by now, and commodities traders would have closed that gap in a heartbeat.

The different-segment theory is interesting, but it seems very hard to fathom without some sort of non-compete arrangement in place -- be it in X or Y geography, or for Z consumer segment, etc.

My best guess is that this is a two-sided story. There's a major demand factor involved (perhaps in Asia), coupled with the likelihood that the two cartels aren't directly competing. B has to go along with A if there's a price increase, because we know that the supply isn't actually low. There are enough diamonds to keep up with surging demand.

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#25
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the story behind the De Beers cartel is well known. Is it really? Or are you assuming that because you and your friends know about it that you think that everyone knows about it? (not an attack, just a easy trap to fall into). players in the market -- seem to be acting in concert I think that whenever a new participant enters the market they find that the most profitable path is to collude with the existing cartels.…

It's really well known. There are articles written up about it every few years. It gets the occasional pop culture shout out. We could split hairs for awhile and debate about how well known it is, or whether "Joe Sixpack" in Des Moines knows about it. But it's far from obscure. I'll grant you that a lot of the major demand drivers (young couples, new money, etc.) probably don't know, or at least don't care. And that…

EDIT: Seems we both edited our posts at the same time

An edit-off at 10 paces. Draw!

I think the whole thing is fascinating. From a marketing perspective it's amazing how De Beers manufactured demand for diamonds out of near nothingness.

it seems odd that the cartels wouldn't go head to head

This is an example of mutually assured destruction at play. The big players can't go head-to-head selling what is essentially a commodity good, without price cutting which would eventually lead to diamonds being sold for their true value. None of the players are interested in that.

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#26
Wow, absolutely brilliant. I can't believe this article popped up on HN's front page tonight. I just got back from looking at engagement rings with my girlfriend.

I've known about this monopoly for a while, and so has she. Heck, one of the first movies we watched together when we first started dating 7 years ago was Blood Diamond. Here's the conversation we had while in the jewellery store tonight.

Me: "Sweety, I really don't want to buy you a diamond. I really would rather buy you something that at least has some more value associated with it, like a sapphire."

Her: "Well, I've always pictured a diamond ring. That's what everyone gets."

Me: "Well, what do you like about the diamond that the sapphire doesn't give you?"

Her: "I like the sparkle."

Me: "Ok, that's fair. What about moissanite? (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite) It's supposedly even more sparkly and brilliant than diamonds."

Her: "What's it made of?"

Me: "You know how diamond is just carbon? Moissanite is silicon and carbon in the same type of crystal structure."

Her: "And it's natural?"

Me: "Well, it can occur naturally, but it's extremely rare. So the ones you buy are usually created in a lab, but are more brilliant than a diamond, but actually cost less. I can apparently get a 1.5 carat stone for $800."

Her: (annoyed) "I don't want something fake!"

Me: "Oh, so it's not about the sparkle then?"

I swear, De Beers has probably pulled off the greatest marketing stunt in the history of humanity. The fact that it's so ingrained in our minds, to the point where a smart, educated, and informed person like my girlfriend still wants a diamond even after knowing all the issues with them, is fascinating.

Honestly, as a community of people in the startup ecosystem, we could stand to learn a thing or two here.

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#27
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in that the story of De Beers is pretty well known. But - for reasons outlined in the article - the intrinsic linking of diamonds to the act of romance and marriage is well embedded in society. So even if people know it is essentially meaningless (in the true sense of rarity) as far as society goes, they have a social status. Any society is full of irrational practices and purchases. Throwing rice at…

"But as to why the introduction of new sources hasn't drastically affected prices, I think that any new cartel or operator entering the market is just as likely to free-ride the hard work of De Beers. If De Beers spends significant money and influence maintaining a monopoly, and therefore creating monopoly pricing, any new entrant rationally would be well served to restrict supply so that they can free-ride on the mo…

Well, we don't know what the cost-structure of the other market entrants are. Perhaps they have a much higher cost structure than De Beers, and thus there is no point in starting a price war as it not only destroys the long-term market for the gems, but the newer entrants might get wiped out.

I think Game Theory is the right way to look at this - who really gains from a drop in prices? Sure, the new consumer wins - but at the cost of destroying a societal norm. The new entrant might gain short-term profits but at the expense of their long term market and possibly their very existence.

The opportunities for diamond arbitrage are very small, both because there aren't large organised exchanges (no diamond futures contract I'm aware of) and because the retail market is controlled by the suppliers, removing the possibility of 'black market' arbitrage.

Many, many companies would love to exert control over their market in the same way. I just think that new entrants want a piece of the monopoly pie rather than disrupting the entire industry.

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#28
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really well known. There are articles written up about it every few years. It gets the occasional pop culture shout out. We could split hairs for awhile and debate about how well known it is, or whether "Joe Sixpack" in Des Moines knows about it. But it's far from obscure. I'll grant you that a lot of the major demand drivers (young couples, new money, etc.) probably don't know, or at least don't care. And that…

EDIT: Seems we both edited our posts at the same time An edit-off at 10 paces. Draw! I think the whole thing is fascinating. From a marketing perspective it's amazing how De Beers manufactured demand for diamonds out of near nothingness. it seems odd that the cartels wouldn't go head to head This is an example of mutually assured destruction at play. The big players can't go head-to-head selling what is essentially a…

[deleted]

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#29

Wow, absolutely brilliant. I can't believe this article popped up on HN's front page tonight. I just got back from looking at engagement rings with my girlfriend. I've known about this monopoly for a while, and so has she. Heck, one of the first movies we watched together when we first started dating 7 years ago was Blood Diamond. Here's the conversation we had while in the jewellery store tonight. Me: "Sweety, I rea…

There are a lot of irrational things that smart, educated, and informed people believe in. Not to start a flamewar, but God is a great example of this.

Re: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)

#30

It's a fascinating piece, for a number of reasons. The first, and perhaps most interesting, is that the story behind the De Beers cartel is well known . Perhaps not in this depth, but still, it's no secret. Pretty much everyone knows they exercise a monopoly on diamond production and distribution, artificially keeping prices high. And yet, nobody takes the red pill and opts out of the illusion. Call it the power of t…

Well, please correct me if I'm wrong - I am not an expert on this, but the people who run the Diamond District in New York have been shown, genetically, as an ethnic group, to have some of the highest IQ's on the planet. Couple that with notoriously a fierce worth ethic and super strong values. This is just my opinion, but I don't think these guys are going to fail in what they do. Ever. And diamonds is the business they choose to be in.

It certainly makes for an interesting story.

Post reply on HN