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

Diamonds Are Bullshit

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 774 posts

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#171

Post by lotyrin »

rayiner wrote: post #115
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #17

Maybe I'm spoiled as a nerdy (and interested in nerdy) gay guy, but I pity those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about this. It slays me that "tradition" is so important to people that they will waste such vast amounts of money and prop up such a gross, violent industry in the face of reason.

It irks me a little bit that the issue is painted as one of "reason" versus lack thereof. There is a rationality in adhering to social convention. My wife is a diamond nerd, as well as one of the most rational people you'll ever meet, and she'd explain it this way: the diamond is a test that serves various useful purposes from the perspective of the woman: 1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demons…

Just in case this hasn't already been driven home: what you've demonstrated here is absolutely disgusting to a growing number of people.

1. Adherence to social convention for its own sake

2. Submission to a multinational construed as something positive

3. Imbalanced monogamous relationships based on opportunity cost and trading status for reproductive capacity

4. Spending money and life on creating more humans

Probably a few more but I don't really want to dig through it any more.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#172

Post by logn »

evilduck wrote: post #95
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #17

Maybe I'm spoiled as a nerdy (and interested in nerdy) gay guy, but I pity those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about this. It slays me that "tradition" is so important to people that they will waste such vast amounts of money and prop up such a gross, violent industry in the face of reason.

I short circuited this and married a geologist. She picked out a cheap diamond ring because diamonds are still "what goes on your wedding ring" but we only spent about $200 on it. Now, the misstep in marrying a geologist is that she owns many other rocks worth much more.

If your wife could choose any rock for a ring (cultural expectations aside), which would it be?

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#174

Post by jpdoctor »

arbuge wrote: post #130
jpdoctor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The carbon is a proxy (which is missed in the article, among other things.) It's social signaling. Or to put it another way: How many $$ can your man throw away without incurring pauperhood?

I agree with this. My wife wanted a ruby ring, not diamond, for our engagement. The expectation clearly was that it would still be expensive though! The marketing campaigns by jewelers have first and foremost been successful at setting an expectation of big spending. The stone type itself might be somewhat negotiable.

> My wife wanted a ruby ring, not diamond, for our engagement.

I consider this an amazing social signal: She is verifying that you have a proper amount of resources to burn, but does not want her girlfriends to easily calibrate how many you have. Therefore, she leaves them a little bit in the dark about what a great catch you are (because most women can't calibrate ruby pricing by just looking.)

My compliments to you sir. Simultaneously, my condolences to your bank balance.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#175

Post by Justonius »

rayiner wrote: post #133
clicks wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift for her that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's social standing. To play devil's advocate here: If you substitute 'ring' with 'a $3k donation to redcross' you could still potentially qualify all of th…

It doesn't qualify (3), which is a very important one. I've got a daughter. She's only 4 months old, but I've had occasion to think a bit about this. I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring? Why? Reasons (1) and (2) I mentioned, sure, but also reason (3). It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him. People who buck social conventions sometimes b…

I'm really sorry to tell you this, but you are deluded, no question. Spend more time thinking about "real" things, you'll be happier for it I promise.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#176

Post by thejsjunky »

rayiner wrote: post #115
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #17

Maybe I'm spoiled as a nerdy (and interested in nerdy) gay guy, but I pity those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about this. It slays me that "tradition" is so important to people that they will waste such vast amounts of money and prop up such a gross, violent industry in the face of reason.

It irks me a little bit that the issue is painted as one of "reason" versus lack thereof. There is a rationality in adhering to social convention. My wife is a diamond nerd, as well as one of the most rational people you'll ever meet, and she'd explain it this way: the diamond is a test that serves various useful purposes from the perspective of the woman: 1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demons…

Just because you can provide some flimsy after-the-fact-rationalizations* doesn't mean that it's reasonable.

That's ok though, desires/hobbies/cultural practices/etc are generally not based in reason.

/* For example, it's very doubtful that today you would gain any real insight into a persons ability to "provide" from them giving you a diamond...in fact it's more likely to deceive you (they could purchase on credit, buy a stolen/fake one, etc). You'd learn much more about that from simply dating/courting them - knowing about their spending/saving habits, profession, etc.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#177

Post by shocks »

riffraff wrote: post #168
shocks wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a house? All three covered.

I am not sure what you guys buy in the US as engaging rings, but I think one can safely assume a ring is not worth even a tenth of an house?

I am from the UK. :P

"We" spend on average three months worth of salary. Around £5k I guess. Certainly not enough for a house, but a good amount of money to put towards your first family home when you get married. Houses need furniture and all that fancy stuff. :)

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#178

Post by guylhem »

I see people talking about various things like the (1) (2) (3) arguments for a women to evaluate a man : (1) is the ability to provide; 2) is the willingness to forgo other things (opportunity costs to talk economics) (3) "is demonstrating to the woman's peers her husband's social standing." (signalling)

Raynier posted this deep down in a reply which might be lost to you if you don't read all the comments. It would be a shame to miss it. Read it, along with the reasoning where he says such criterias would be perfectly valid for his own daughter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404423

It seems perfectly valid, yet I could not disagree more. We are forgetting a important (4) : you fund atrocious wars and dictatorships. That's a strong negative externality.

When you see a diamonds, instead of seeing a shiny rock, you should see part of a human soul instead, a fraction of a person who died in vain for this worthless piece of rock you want for your wives or daughters to "sustain the tradition".

If social convention required 1 pound of flesh taken by the knife on a living human, would you insist on it, for the sake of the tradition? (I fear many would - after all, it matches the 1,2,3 requirements)

If social convention requires a diamond, which you know very well will cause war, death and misery, and if you did not say yes to the previous question, why are you insisting on it?

It strikes me as illogical, inconsistent. Either you believe that human life is more important than tradition, or you don't. I can understand diverging opinions, I can hardly understand inconsistency in a system of belief, so I'm very sad to see intelligent replies advocating this 1,2,3 argument while missing the huge downside #4 is.

Maybe someday the sale of things containing "natural diamonds" will be banned - just like the sale of things containing bald eagles feathers.

IHMO, it should: as much as I love the market and freedom, sometimes externalities are just too big to be ignored - especially when there is also a monopolist in action, and perfect substitutes like man made diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#179

Post by JulianMorrison »

Skoofoo wrote: post #74

What are some cool alternatives to a diamond ring? I want to get a ring with a carbon nanotube "gem", but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to acquire that.

Amber with fossilized critters. It's lifeforms, and they're extinct. Even when we have nanotech, nobody is going to be making new ones.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#180

Post by Centigonal »

maratd wrote: post #166
kyrra wrote: post #132

(person I know) worked for GE (General Electric) on their industrial diamond production process back in the 90's, and I got to hear lots of fun stories from this. Diamonds that are man-made[1] are stronger (fewer imperfections) than those that are mined from the earth. Because of this, industrial diamonds tend to be man-made. (for reference, industrial diamonds when cutting hard materials, such as metals). While work…

> so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging consumers That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women would no longer be interested in receiving rings bejeweled by them. A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point.

That wasn't the point of the article -- you introduced it right after telling him (s)he's missing the point.

It's a valid point, yes -- but kyrra couldn't have missed it, because no one had made it before you did.

Post reply on HN