Diamonds Are Bullshit

No matter how nice a car is, the large-scale social consequences of flashing a status symbol should be considered before purchasing a brand associated with that, especially for a daily driver.

It is true that of the three aspects that originally made diamonds "above the rest" and therefore desirable, i.e., their rarity, unparalleled hardness, and beauty, the first two don't really apply anymore and the third is increasingly iffy as technology marches on -- but the same could be said of other objects to which we ascribe great value, i.e., "fine" art, which began as sublime and evocative interpretation of life, divinity and transcendence, but which these days more often than not is just a hodgepodge of "Emperor has no clothes" random splotches, un-made beds and (literally) piles of shit, but to which we nevertheless still ascribe great value. So go know.

In any case, the "death" of diamonds has been predicted before, and by better writers and more thorough reporters than Mr. Dhar, here, c.f.: Edward Jay Epstein "The Rise And Fall Of Diamonds", 1982, -- and yet Cecil Rhodes' babies are still going, stronger and more lucrative than ever.

There is certainly nothing intrinsically valuable about diamonds -- but then what does have "intrinsic" value? Even gold is largely "valuable" because of a near-universal belief and agreement that it should have value, and has done so since the dawn of recorded time. If everyone in the world suddenly decided that gold (or diamonds, come to that), no longer had any value, well, that "value" would certainly disappear -- it has happened before, to other "valuable" commodities, such as tulips in the early 17th century and other evanescent enthusiasms throughout history. But some consensuses seem to be more permanent and on solid ground than others -- and I suspect that diamonds and other precious stones are more in the "gold" class than in the "tulip" and "piles of arty shit" class....

So are diamonds really "forever"? Maybe not, but probably so. They've survived the emergence of synthetics without so much as a hiccup, and they've even survived the disappearance of DeBeers as a controlling agent (DeBeers, although still an important factor, no longer has anything like any monopolistic control -- it is just one of 4 or 5 other "important players" in the business), and the diamond industry even laughed off (with my, ahem, small contribution) the "blood diamond" non-scandal, so I'm pretty confident that they (diamonds) will carry on through such iconoclastic pinpricks and nitpicks as may appear on W's "Interwebs".

So, "bullshit" diamonds well may be, but tell me -- when did being "bullshit" ever stop (or even slow down) anybody or anything, especially in these days of ascendancy of the likes of Justin Bieber and Dennis Rodman? Nevah hotchee, GI -- in fact, I'd say that bullshit is one of our great growth industries as we move heedlessly into the 21st Century, so if diamonds really are "bullshit", then this article can only constitute yet another boost for the industry.'

My wife and I have been married 4 years now and gone primarily without rings. No negative consequences so far, and I'm definitely glad I didn't dedicate 20%+ of my income to a valueless trinket. We have objects that signify our relationship, but they're cheap or free, and imbued primarily with sentimental value only. This is, in my estimation, much better than propping up the diamond myth and cartel.

Spending a hundred bucks on something useful is not a signal showing wealth; but lighting a cigar with a hundred dollar bill is such a signal.

Being seen with, say, an expensive computer is less powerful wealth signal than being seen with an exactly equally expensive ring; the computer might be (even if it isn't) practical, but the ring states "hey, I can afford to waste money, so if you don't then obviously I'm of a higher social status/pecking order than you".