Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

The article spins a yarn about DeBeers single-handedly inventing the tradition of giving expensive engagement gifts, but stumbles when it gets to talking about India, where it has to clumsily avoid mentioning that Indians have been spending huge amounts of resources on (gold) jewelry for marriages since time immemorial.

I find a lot of anti-diamond talk hypocritical. Folks who will drop a ton of money on a fast car that spends 99.9% of its life sitting in traffic suddenly becoming ascetics when talking about buying diamond jewelry.

View on HN

It feels like the value of a fast car lies in human effort (a previous manager made a point of showing us a film about McLaren's approach to small-run production that he felt had lessons for the software industry), which feels more authentic than cartel-controlled scarcity (particularly when there are cheaper synthetics of objectively higher quality - no doubt brands like Ferrari have some premium that's not grounded in their product's technical merit, but it's never quite so in your face). And I'm not aware of fast-car smuggling funding wars, or a fast-car-manufacturer cartel sending thugs to intimidate journalists. (Maybe those things are happening and I'm just unaware - if so I'd be fascinated to read about them)

Sports cars have terrible fuel efficiency and are a crime against the climate. Electronics create massive toxic pollution in third world countries. A nice seafood dinner is the product of deforestation and overfishing.

Almost all the luxuries you enjoy in the first world are paid for by pillaging the earth and poisoning children in China and Bangladesh.

So what, all things you can buy for $x00 must necessarily be equally criminal?

You might find this article by Chris Harris a few years ago interesting. It describes the journalism environment of Ferrari back then. I believe he was banned from driving their cars for three years due to this article.

http://jalopnik.com/5760248/how-ferrari-spins

Yeah, that aligns with what I've read elsewhere. Not a good look to be sure, but a long way away from physical violence.

Compared to diamonds, gold is a very good store of value, especially when paper currency and governments aren't reliable, as it was in relatively recent Indian history.

If that was the justification, people would be giving gold bars, not gold jewelry.

I initially came here to disagree. My argument was that if someone was going to give something "pretty and shiny" to someone, at least gold holds its value second hand over diamonds. However, I think of the Cash4Gold type scams out there and cant help but think that selling jewelry of any type second hand is going to get you screwed.

Depending on the legal system that one finds oneself subject to, jewelry is often considered a "personal effect" rather than an asset to be seized, such as gold bars, coins, or currency - and is therefore not subject to forfeiture.

I'm from India and let me tell you that gold jewellery is primarily viewed as a store of value and not as a romantic gesture.

Buying gold is the main way that Indians save.

Who says there's a single justification? And how would you carry a gold bar about on your person? Part of the security of gold jewelry is arguably that you will have it with you in an emergency, or if you have to flee quickly. The gold bars sitting in your vault will be much harder to access quickly.

How is gold superior to diamonds really? Both are stores of value, but their value based only on others' willingness to trade for them. No real intrinsic value. Granted a fiat dollar is less reliable as there is truly a limited supply of the metals, but that's true of diamonds as well.

I would think Gold jewelery is superior to a gold bar - it has decorative utility a gold bar doesn't have - but look at how gold jewelery is valued - at the current gold price and no more.

Can a diamond be sold for what one paid for it? Gold has no concept of retail price as it's a commodity.

> No real intrinsic value.

Not necessarily true. Gold is an excellent conductor of electricity and resists oxidation. Diamonds are good at cutting stone and concrete.

> How is gold superior to diamonds really? Both are stores of value, but their value based only on others' willingness to trade for them.

Because gold is (relatively) easy to sell but "Selling individual diamonds at a profit, even those held over long periods of time, can be surprisingly difficult"[1]

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/82feb/8202diamond2.ht...

> How is gold superior to diamonds really?

Copied from an article [1] on why diamonds aren't worth the cost:

  A diamond is a depreciating asset masquerading as an investment. There is a
  common misconception that jewelry and precious metals are assets that can store
  value, appreciate, and hedge against inflation. That’s not wholly untrue.

  Gold and silver are commodities that can be purchased on financial markets. They
  can appreciate and hold value in times of inflation. You can even hoard gold
  under your bed and buy gold coins and bullion (albeit at a ~10% premium to
  market rates). If you want to hoard gold jewelry however, there is  typically a
  100-400% retail markup so that’s probably not a wise investment. 

  But with that caveat in mind, the market for gold is fairly liquid and gold is
  fungible - you can trade one large piece of gold for ten smalls ones like you can a ten
  dollar bill for a ten one dollar bills. These characteristics make it a feasible
  potential investment.

  Diamonds, however, are not an investment. The market for them is neither liquid
  nor are they fungible.

Also, despite thousands of years of attempted alchemy, no one has ever made gold. Carbon, on the other hand, is incredibly common and there are companies that have figured out how to make diamonds that are more flawless than naturally occurring diamonds. They've even figured out how to mimic the impurities after it was suggested that they were somehow not "real."

[1] http://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullsh...

I don't spend a ton on a fast car. I'd rather spend my money on a big car with decent fuel efficiency to take my family on vacation. I don't see the point in spending ludicrous amounts of money on useless status symbols like diamonds and sports cars.

Some people enjoy sports cars the way you enjoy a family vacation.

And some people enjoy their shiny diamond engagement ring the way you enjoy your sports car.

That's a fair comment. I think there are some people for whom the aesthetics, production, and history of a diamond are very meaningful. My guess is that those people know more about diamonds than average.

Here's my favourite answer to why women love diamonds: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-women-desire-diamonds/answer/In...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com