I don't see the difference you are trying to make.

Rarity is a function of a comparison to other objects or locations, and that's it. Diamonds on this planet are certainly rare compared to oxygen, but are positively common compared to say... Ununhexium. Super Bowl tickets are common inside the actual building on the day of the event, but are extremely rare in the Yukon.

I don't give a shit if diamonds are rare or not, anyway; convincing people to purchase a damn rock for thousands of dollars in the name of "love" is one of the biggest hoodwinks ever pulled on the public in the last 150 years.

The difference is which side has the greater effect on the product. If you greatly increased the supply of diamonds, the demand would not also double, so it is a demand driven commodity. If you doubled the volume of Super Bowl tickets, you would still sell them all, so it is a supply side item. They are similar in the way they function, but not identical, since supply and demand related, but not equivilants.

I agree that having diamonds symbolize love or at least marraige proposals is a commercial success for the industry, I don't agree that it's a horrible thing to have happened. Our lives are filled with these, and frankly, it's more a function of extreme amounts of excess income. If you measure wealth as the resources remaining after one addresses food, shelter and clothing, the entire world is richer now than it has even been in it's history. You have to do something with all that extra GNP production, and flowers for Mother's or Valentine's Day along with Christmas gifts (and $4 cards) and every other assorted tradition we have is a part of that commercial machine.

People are also diminishing the value of simply having something to look at. This has a dollar value in many industries. I live in a condo building in center city Philadelphia on a middle floor and have a decent view. People on floors above me have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the same unit I have, but on a higher floor with a better view. It's amazing to me that they will pay that much more, but there is no shortage of people wanting that perfect view. If someone's car is in an accident, they will pay a large portion of the repair bill just to cover repainint the car. The real issue here is some people here don't particularly like diamonds, and therefore you don't see the value to them. That is understandable, but doesn't make diamonds a scam. The Mona Lisa is just oil on canvass, and even if you don't appreciate art, that doesn't make it worth only the $20 of materials that compose it.

I think what Drajeck is saying with regard to availability and rarity is that diamonds are indeed a rare resource, but "available" as in available to purchase. What he's trying to say I think is that it's going to hard to buy them out due to their price, but they are still available. Think of it as 30 time machines are placed in all major cities... but they cost 5 trillion dollars. They are certainly available, but they are also rare. Anyone can buy one, provided they have the cash on hand =p Scale that analogy down for diamonds.

Still, I agree completely it's a waste of money. It also depends on your girlfriend. If she's a braindead bimbo, you should probably go with the diamond. Acting like there is only one way(or a select few ways) to show solid commitment and love is beyond retarded.

Thanks Venen, I like that time machine analogy, and if I had 30 trillion I'd use one and include it in my last post. I don't, however, think you're being very fair to the millions of women who want a diamond engagement ring, unless you think the vast majority of our populace consists of brain dead bimbos that is. Some men may find a wife who cheers their strong anti establishment beliefs and agree that they don't want a "wasteful" ring. I would venture to guess that some of these wives may secretly wish they had a little sparkle on their finger, but that doesn't make them braindead or slaves to corporate America any more than me wanting a shiney jet black Porche instead of my dull pickup truck makes me a servant to the auto makers of the world.

I'm of the opinion that if you can't fit a diamond into your budget in this very specific case, you are trash and have bigger problems than you really let on.

At the Quaker meeting I used to attend, Nibl, couples regularly chose not to do expensive weddings or rings at all. Instead they chose a simple five minute ceremony in front of their peers and family on a Sunday morning at meeting, followed by a dinner afterwards. They simply believed that love didn't need unnecessary material stuff just to prove it was real. Some took it a step further and donated the money others would have spent on a wedding / ring to a worthwhile cause of their choice.

I guess they are trash and have bigger problems than they let on . It's too bad that many of them live together in a meaningful way for the rest of their lives. It must suck to spend so much time with such trash.

Wow, Nibl, so does this proclamation of worthlessness apply to everyone who would rather eat than buy a diamond ring for the person they love?

This is the norm then for Quakers at your meeting, and works for them because that is what they expect. When your expectations are met, you are happy. Neither group is wrong, the majority of women in the country just have different expectations. I know on these boards we're only happy when someone is wrong, but once in a while it's ok for everyone to be right with what makes them happy.

Meeting expectations is what made McDonalds such a giant in the food industry BTW. You can't underestimate how big an effect is achieved by someone knowing what they are going to get, and then getting that exact item or service.

Sure it's a norm, but classifying something as a norm doesn't automatically make it "right" as you imply. What we're talking about in this thread is a comparison of norms. I completely agree that it is a "norm" for people to buy diamond rings in US society, and I'm saying that the norm itself was artificially manufactured and as it currently stands is irrational.

To go to extremes to make my point about the inequality of norms, it is a norm in some societies for girls to undergo vaginal circumcision. Is it right, then, because it's a norm?

I don't want to get pulled into discussing norms that involve medical proceedures, but I will go so far as to say all the gift giving norms I can think of are ok for each culture. I'm sure someone would be able to find an exception, there always is one, so I'll just say right now the vast majority of gifts that are norms are ok in my book, whether I understand the culture or not.

The weakest arguement I've seen repeated here is (paraphrased), "I'd rather eat than spend thousands on a diamond". Well, no shit. All material oriented gift giving revolves around disposable income, if you can't provide the basics, then don't buy the luxuries. That's just common sense.

It should be obvious Syuni.

http://www.ruralhealth.utas.edu.au/comm ... iagram.htm

Nice Maslow diagram.

Also a nice avoidance of the question.

Is it your claim that anyone who is below the pinnacle of Maslow's hierarchy therefore, to use your word, "trash"? It certainly seems that you have a rather negative view of anyone who may struggle to make ends meet.

You seem to be pointing out the obvious, when is it ever rational to buy something considered a luxury good? Is such a scenario even possible given the definition of luxury?

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

If I were ever to be certain of anything in life, it's that I am positive Nibl has not reached the point of self-actualization. (Nor will he ever.)

It's apparently not obvious to a lot of people in this thread. I'm glad to see you agree with me, though .

Would he have to change his name to Byte then?

Naruto is the worst series ever made.

/spit

A couple people I know IRL love Naruto, but I could never dig it. I am glad I'm not the only one. I understand that Naruto is an insanely popular anime/manga. /Shrug.

I was only referring to people's inability to budget. I feel very strongly about people throwing pity parties when they put themselves in dire straights. QQing about the costs of things they robbed themselves of.

two words describe how I feel about your question: apples, oranges.

Hmmmm...I know several couples who could not afford a diamond when they got married, but eventually bought one for an anniversary down the road. They built their lives together. I seriously doubt that you even approach their financial or emotional fulfillment.

I also know a number of single parents who find that spending their money taking care of their children trumps buying any baubles.

I also must say that I don't think much of any woman who, after reading your "trash" comment, would still accept a diamond from you.

By the way...my husband went to a big jewelry store and bought a nice sparkly engagement ring that he could afford. He knows that if he bought something that would put us in debt, I would kill him. I also would have taken any ring he gave me cause after 5 years together, who cares? People seem to forget that the point of the wedding is the M.A.R.R.I.A.G.E. I have him and he's the prize...the diamond is just gravy.

A synthetic diamond is perfectly OK...anything shiny pretty much works for me.

My husband had his grandmother's diamond reset for me when we were engaged. He once admitted to me that he worried that I wouldn't accept it because it was old. Um, yeah, it's a family heriloom, which means a lot to him, and means even more to me because he entrusted it into my care....and he worried I wouldn't want it? When he proposed I would have accepted a twist-tie and a promise, if that's all he had to offer, and it would have meant just as much or more. The combined cost of our wedding rings was less than fifty dollars, but I would rather gnaw off my own leg rather than let anyone take it from me. Or depending on the situation, I might try to gnaw off your leg if you tried to take my ring.

I would hope that for most, it's not the stone, or the size or even the price, but the sentiment and meaning behind the gift and all that it stands for.

hottt

It's easy to say you wouldn't buy an engagement ring over putting food on the table, and just as easy to say it isn't a waste for Bill Gates to spend 5k on a ring when he is worth billions. The only interesting discussion is whether it's appropriate for a couple who can afford it without giving up basic needs or going into massive debt, but not so wealthy that the purchase is significant for them. Extremes add little to the discussion because the points are obvious.

What if I think Bill Gates is still wasting his money?

What if I think the dollar amount of the purchase should have nothing to do with the "significance" of the item in question?

What if I think the item itself, whatever it is, is superfluous?

Then you missed the point of my post. You feel the same way regardless of the financial situation the buyer is in, and that's fine (we disagree, but that's what makes the world go round). What I'm talking about are people who are saying how bad diamonds are and then giving examples of people who can barely feed their families. There is a HUGE middle class in America than can afford 2k for a luxury item, be it a diamond ring, a big screen TV, or a 5 day cruise. The question is whether they feel that this middle class is being hood winked by choosing to purchase a diamond.

I say who is anyone to judge what luxury item is a good buy, and what is a bad one. It's an individual decision based on how much joy it brings you, because that is the only function luxury items serve in the 1st place. Since the industry is so huge, I can only speculate that many, many women enjoy getting engagement rings. Of course for that to be true, every woman who gets engaged would have to show everyone her ring right away...oh wait...

Now if you happen to marry a woman who doesn't like diamonds for whatever reason, why on earth would you think that invalidates opinions of other women who do want one? That's like marrying a vegetarian and deciding all supermarkets should stop selling meat.