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

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

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 239 posts

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

#211

Post by pbhjpbhj »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #205
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All things you think you know are ultimately founded on axioms, beliefs. Why do you trust sense-data to be real? Brains in vats, holosuites, yada-yada ...

Reality is that which is practical for us to concern ourselves with. When there is an indication that such a notion might be practical knowledge, then I'll give it some consideration.

>Reality is that which is practical for us to concern ourselves with. //

By that definition reality is completely subjective which rather plays towards my point.

You find the axiomatic basis of scientific understanding to not belong to "practical knowledge". Or that the axiomatic nature of standard logics is not practical? So basically all of physical science, mathematics, logic, ... understanding the epistemological basis of these things is impractical? Because? On such a position theoretical physics would seem to be 'impractical' and not something to concern ourselves [humankind] with - the advances in theoretical physics in the last century or so have worked themselves in to almost all areas of modern 'Western' life.

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

#212

Post by WiseWeasel »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #211
WiseWeasel wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality is that which is practical for us to concern ourselves with. When there is an indication that such a notion might be practical knowledge, then I'll give it some consideration.

> Reality is that which is practical for us to concern ourselves with. // By that definition reality is completely subjective which rather plays towards my point. You find the axiomatic basis of scientific understanding to not belong to "practical knowledge". Or that the axiomatic nature of standard logics is not practical? So basically all of physical science, mathematics, logic, ... understanding the epistemologica…

Until work in theoretical physics yields practical or verifiable results, I am content to consider it fantasy rather than reality. Not to denigrate those who spend their time on such matters, and the social considerations those people have for their peers might make such pursuits somewhat practical for them, but you cannot expect a randomly selected person to consider such knowledge a part of their reality until it has substantial implications for them.

And we do agree that reality is subjective; it's just that if a facet of reality is only perceived by a small fraction of the population, its value is insignificant to most. The value of reality is in its adoption as a foundation for communication.

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

#213

Post by theorique »

Tichy wrote: post #195
theorique wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it possible to love someone because they are the kind of person who is considered economically valuable by society? Such a person is romantically desirable because they offer more resources and their offspring are more likely to survive to adulthood. (sort of an evolutionary biology / Ayn Rand-ian concept, of course, but I see this kind of reverence for 'the best' coming from some people)

That's what usually happens, I guess. I remember from an old Steven Pinker book that there is a theory that love is a necessary craziness, because without it we would constantly be looking for better mates (the rational thing to do). That would explain why falling in love makes people do silly things, because they demonstrate "I am crazy, therefore you can trust that I will stay with you".

Yes, a person who approaches matters of the heart with the brain of an economist is generally considered pretty cold-blooded.

Not to say that 'normal' people don't ever do such things, but they are often confined to desperate situations (war zones, disaster zones, economic depression, etc).

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

#214

Post by jonnathanson »

Symmetry wrote: post #209
andyjsong wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And when I think of successful cartels in history I think of DeBeers and OPEC and... well, those are the only two I could name that lasted longer than a few years. Another would be drug cartels. They keep prices artificially high so that everyone gets a share of the profits. But cartels in general always have players that "cheat" by independently lowering/raising the price. If a player is caught cheating, the carte…

Nah, the problem with drug cartels is that they aren't cartels, as can be seen by the body count they're racking up against each other south of the border. They aren't cartels at all in the economic sense of the term, but rather firms competing against each other.

The term "cartel" arguably did apply up until around the death of Pablo Escobar, and the subsequent usurpation of power from the Colombian producers by the Mexican distributors. For the most part, the drug trade really was a single, multinational, price-fixing monopoly (or at least a cooperative oligopoly) under Pablo's reign.

[I'm not trying to give the guy any credit or praise for his actions, though.]

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

#215

Post by rubberbandage »

humbledrone wrote: post #41
HorizonXP wrote: post #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 rea…

If you end up going with a diamond, you might consider a company like Brilliant Earth [1], which offers "conflict free" diamonds (and other gems), and recycled precious metals. Their gems come from mines that employ adults at reasonable wages. I'm not associated with the company, but they made my fiance's engagement ring and we're very happy with it. [1] http://www.brilliantearth.com/conflict-free-diamonds/

My wife and I got our wedding rings here (we also have the luxury of living in the Bay Area, so we got to meet with them in person). They also have a truly astonishing array of vintage rings with stunning stones and settings. If your fiancé(e) is into that style, they have the added benefit of being both glamourous and unusually inexpensive for the quality (and it’s definitely not a “fake”)!

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

#216

Post by liber8 »

rmc wrote: post #210
liber8 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, if you do ever want to sell, the setting is essentially worthless. Almost all of the cost of the setting is in the labor, and, as the article explains, those who buy "used" jewelry are almost certainly going to part it out and melt it down. (That is, unless you're talking about really high end estate jewelery.) So, for the $3-10k you'll spend for a nice setting, you'll probably get back 20-50% of the p…

Do engagement rings have a large resale value anyway? This is a whole article about the marketing push for diamonds. I can't imagine what "second hand ring" would say....

That's sort of the point. The ring itself is only really worth whatever the metal weighs because nobody wants a "used" ring. So if you sell the ring to a jeweler, he is almost certain to melt it down and recast it. Whatever you paid for the craftsmanship/design of the ring is literally melted away.

The stone is another story. It's very easy to resell/reuse good stones, although as the article indicates, the value you'll be able to recoup isn't exactly great.

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

#217

Post by theorique »

HorizonXP wrote: post #189
cabalamat wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Does she still want the diamond after being shown the article? Most people don't like being manipulated.

I sent it to her, and it's a long article. I'm hoping she reads most of it. We went out for coffee after shopping. She knows I'm right about diamonds. Her issue is a) she has difficulty listening to me about these things because she's stubborn and feels like I'm manipulating her b) she doesn't want to buck the trend, be different, and have to explain things to her friends and family. She hates being different, and sh…

Anyway, it's not criticism of her. I love her dearly, I just need her to see the light.

It kind of sounds like criticism of her. And it reads like you love her conditionally.

And you "need her to see the light", is that true? What happens if she doesn't come around to your point of view?

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

#218

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Bud wrote: post #206
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, most consumer buy without knowing any of that, or even trying the phone out.

You think (based on nothing) that "most" consumers have never tried an iPhone? You might want to think different (sic) about that for a moment, given that there are hundreds of millions of iOS devices out there in use right now. Virtually everyone who can afford an iPhone either has one already, or has at least tried one out a bit.

YOu could try to claim 400M. But each quarter, half the sales are upgrades. So maybe, what, 100M? Which is 1/4 of America. But all the sales aren't America.

Maybe 25% market penetration? Not small potatoes, but still, Most people haven't bought one.

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

#219

Post by KingMob »

beedogs wrote: post #186
Kadin wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or "super-premium" vodka. That's an entire product that didn't even exist until someone decided to create it, largely as a way for people to demonstrate to others that they're well-off enough to purchase super-premium vodka. If you can get yourself into a "value through market position" opportunity early on, it seems like a license to print money.

There are even weirder examples of this in the alcohol market. Jeroboam and methuselah bottles of champagne are easily 200-400% more expensive than the equivalent amount of alcohol packaged in normal-sized bottles. I always found this amusing, like a tax on ostentatiousness.

In China, there's a version of PBR that costs $44 per bottle.

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

#220

Post by KingMob »

rmc wrote: post #208
infinite8s wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all the groups of people you listed, it's interesting that only feminists are described with an adjective (and 'hairy' at that).

Hehe, I suppose I was trying to allude to more extreme feminist leaning people. (Pedantically, I could claim we are all feminists, after all, nearly everyone here thinks women should be able to vote. But that wasn't the meaning I had in mind initally)

Pedantically? Pedantically, feminism encompasses much more than the right to vote, which is why not all people are feminists. Having the right to vote would be suffragism. :)
Post reply on HN