Reasons for NOT ACCEPTING a diamond!

[m8875]

OK, please forgive me in advance, because this is my pet issue for some bizarro reason.

Any purchase of any diamond fuels the diamond supply. The Kimberley process is total crap, and is so easily faked that it's a huge joke. "Canadian" diamonds are also a huge joke. I truly believe that wearing a diamond is morally wrong, and if you want to wear a diamond, fine; however, you must be willing to admit that you are part of the whole "developed" world that feeds off of third world misery and poverty.

Diamond mining has raped the African continent since Cecil Rhodes first got his greedy hands on his first rock. Period. End of story. For someone to legitimately believe that the African diamond trade is any good is total rubbish. That's like when the UN soldiers are accused of sex crimes for having sex with 5 year old prostitutes using the defense of: "well, they were willing, too." Shame on you.

I don't live in a region of Africa where there are diamonds, thank God; however, in all my international studies and travels, this is the one issue I see no grey area in. You buy a diamond, you are on the demand side of the economic equation which continues to foment issurection and violence in the poorest regions of the world.

OK. Rant over. I try to keep this to myself, because my strong views tend to offend people who ignorantly wear diamonds, but the more I live and travel in Africa, the harder it is to just keep my mouth shut.

I'm assuming that you mean that: purchasing a diamond means a participation in the demand of diamond, which fuels the diamond supply.

I will argue this point from an Economics perspective.

If you may recall from ECON 101, demand does not "fuel" supply. They are two separate analysis. Demand is the behavioral analysis of consumers and supply is the behavioral analysis of producers. Supply does not change because demand changes. If one changes because of the other, the theory would not serve its purpose because its purpose is to explain the equilbrium price of an exchanged object in a market. To make this assertion clearer: with a perfectly inelastic supply (where Quantity Supplied does not change with the changes in price), if demand increases, equilibrium price would increase. However, supply will not change due to change in demand. This is the same with an elastic supply, if demand increases, equilibrium price will increase. However, SUPPLY will not change. QUANTITY Supplied will incease depending on the elasticity of supply.

I agree with most ladies here. The issue is not black and white. You cannot say simply that because you buy a diamond, you are a part of its demand, and thus fueling the supply, and thus you are supporting violence. Why are diamonds actually used for those purposes? Why not other things? From an economics perspective, it is due to the high equilibrium price of diamonds. If the equilibrium price of diamonds is low like that of water, for example, it would definitely not even be considered to be used for dirty purposes. So, if the goal is to stop the use of diamonds for such purposes, the key, again from an economics perspective, is to change the equilibrium price of diamonds. How can that be achived? Changing supply, changing demand, change the elasticity of supply or demand. How can these be achieved? Supply: release all the diamond reserves now. Demand: like the one that you said make everyone stop buying diamonds. These would drive equilibrium prices down and diamonds would be worthless for its purposes. However, these would be unrealistic since companies like DeBeers are too greedy and consumers will NOT stop buying diamonds, otherwise, basically a lot of other commodites, would also have no consumers by now. It's like saying that we all need to stop using fossil fuel to stop global warming. Also, how do we know that the supply of diamond is not or close to pefectly elastic, where price will not change even if demand changes drastically.

Let's think about this, how can we say that consumers and not produces are to be blamed for the high equilibrium price of diamonds, which is used for dirty purposes? Answer: you can't! Basic supply and demand will NOT be able to tell you that consumers are to blame and thus consumers cannot be burdened to correct the damages that have been done by boycotting diamonds. It could be demand, supply, or both working together. Thus, how do we know which one needs to change? Or is it both?

Thus, a new model needs to be used for your argument and as another lady pointed out, we would love to see it. Supply and demand is just simply to broad to support this perplexing situation. There are too many possibilities in the diagram that, as I'm sure you've learned, is often the poorest model to explain situations especially with moral concerns.

I don't like arguing unless I can support it well, especially in a public forum. However, I'm fairly certain of what I've written because coincidentally, this topic was a case study in my ECON 101 class

P.S. I probably will read what I've written again tomorrow and find many mistakes because this is written late and I'm quite tired. Thus, I apologize in advance.

 

[m8875]

^^Also, I'm not ignorant about the issue, especially as someone who came from an undeveloped country.

 

[Liberté]

I'm more of a sapphire fan. I love pink sapphires and if I get an engagement ring, I would be perfectly content getting a pink sapphire stainless steel ring from TeNo. I think I like to lean toward the more modern jewelries because their lines are a bit cleaner and I can pull it off better.

As for diamonds, I only like it if it's pink, but I cannot imagine wearing it (now if it's a diamond Hermes bag, that's a different story). Also, aside from the controversy behind diamonds, I prefer sapphire more also because I'm a bit of an astronomy geek. I read that while diamond is rare on Earth, it's abundant in space - I guess I don't want to share the same rock with the extraterrestrials. J/k.

Either way, diamonds are gorgeous though, even though I STILL prefer sapphire more.

I've always liked sapphires and rubies more than diamonds for some reason also. Diamond would be my third "favourite" rock. I like deep blue sapphires the most.

I don't really see what's "wrong" with the marketing scheme of DeBeers, as many other companies use similar tactics. THe problem IMO is the monopoly status.

 

[ShimmaPuff]

...I will argue this point from an Economics perspective...

I don't think you will find many mistakes, if you find any at all, and I agree with you that it is a question of perspective.

I think you have done a very good job of presenting a very fine academic analysis, while others (including myself) may be inclined toward a simpler modality - like wondering, for instance, from the point of view of a producer - what if no one wishes to buy your product?

Now "no one" is taking it to an extreme of oversimplification, but when we contemplate it, it is hard not to return again to DeBeers and their marketing masterwork.

And staying in that simple mode, that marketing mode, if your product is not selling, what do you do? You either change the product - sell something else - or you "encourage" a change in "demand" through the magic of marketing!

The DeBeers achievement is in all the textbooks, but how realistic is it for most producers of any product - to move away from diamonds, let's take someone who makes a good living writing music for movie soundtracks, and ask, what is the likelihood that she will write something that will stand alongside the Brandenburg concertos or La Traviata?

How likely would you be to invest, should a friend approach you with a plan to manufacture lime green polyester leisure suits?

Theoretically, it would be possible that our musician is a genius of the caliber of Bach or Verdi, and if DeBeers teaches us anything, we are obliged to acknowledge that yes, it would be, again, theoretically possible, for a company to mount a campaign of such brilliance that the clothing-buying public, including the tPF Wardrobe Forum posters , would send every fashion house and every retailer scurrying to keep up with the clamoring and insatiable demand for the verdant and unlovely articles, but be patient with me, because I am looking at it in very simple terms - even if for the sake of argument, we agree that it is not a question of "black and white," the simple and practical perspective is still going to see a lot of risk in each shade of gray, if the stakes are to be our money, our company, our livelihood!

How many of us, even those with expertise, academic experience, or both, would be willing to bet the farm that the musician will produce another " Cats," much less another Brandenburg, that our friend with the dream and the plan and the big bolt of blinding double-knit will be able to pull off a DeBeers?

I think that is where some of the difference of opinion occurs. While of course anything can be debated, I don't think that there are many of us here, certainly not I, who are prepared to challenge your arguments from an academic perspective.

But at the same time, I don't think that there are many of us here who would pull out our checkbooks for Leisure Suit Larry.

Sorry, I am rambling. It's one of the things I do best. That, and blame the pills for my ramblings.

My point is that if the public ceased to purchase any product, whether that be diamonds or mp3 players, most companies that are involved in producing those things and bringing them to market would be more likely to divert resources into an existing product that the public did want to buy, and the more daring and the ones with more "riskable" resources might try developing - and marketing - a new product.

Very few would be willing to bet that they could do a DeBeers!

 

[honey52]

so true! ahhh and then today i read this depressing article about how gucci uses cheap "migrant" labor to make their handbags:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aoh_Sy6pJmkY

hm...altho these ppl did escape from their countries to come to Europe....and make it... they will integrate themselves into European society and then because european right? can we be mad at gucci for using migrant labor? when migrant really means some of the time new european with the choice (it IS their choice) to work for gucci? if gucci is given an option i'm sure like any other country the will take it...and it is up to these "migrants" to decide whether they are being underpaid by either continuing the job or quitting.

 

[Charlie]

Thank you for posting this, its good to know and be educated about the source of the "luxury" items we get, such as diamonds and purses. I've read it before and I saw Blood Diamond, very sad movie. Sadly there is many reasons for not buying exotic leather handbags, shoes and more. I did not choose to get a diamond when I got engaged and but I still like it and I did chose my diamond wedding band, guilty of that. It makes me sad but I still own the rock and dont do anything about it, KWIM?? It makes me feel good that DH made sure it came from a NON conflict zone, at least that what everyone is told.

 

[Charlie]

hm...altho these ppl did escape from their countries to come to Europe....and make it... they will integrate themselves into European society and then because european right? can we be mad at gucci for using migrant labor? when migrant really means some of the time new european with the choice (it IS their choice) to work for gucci? if gucci is given an option i'm sure like any other country the will take it...and it is up to these "migrants" to decide whether they are being underpaid by either continuing the job or quitting.

The pay rate might seem low for very "non migrants" or legal citizens, but for people that have left their own country trying to provide a better life for themselves and their families is way more that they would ever make in the country they escaped from.

And YES, You should be mad at Gucci for using ilegal labor to make their products. Its the same as buying a FAKE bag, hiring ilegal inmigrants is as ILEGAL as selling fakes purses.

 

[risingsun]

Look, you can request primary authority from me to challenge my opinions on this subject, but I'm not going to waste my time. If you took Econ 101, then you can see my point. Period. It's a simple argument based on suppy and demand.

If you want to wear diamonds, then you have blood on your hands. It's pretty black and white to me; however, I also respect your opinion to put value on something that is otherwise totally worthless. And let's face it, no one has ever really cared about poor people of color in developing countries anyway.

Or else we'd be pissed about what happened in Guatemala, Iran, Angola, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Congo, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Iraq ... do I need to list more, because I've got more examples.

You stated that "If you wear diamonds, then you have blood on your hands." How is that not meant to be offensive? You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to tell me what I should think or how I should behave. You are making statements based upon your belief system. Belief systems are subject to bias. Your feelings are not facts, just because you say they are.

 

[MomofQtees]

You stated that "If you wear diamonds, then you have blood on your hands." How is that not meant to be offensive? You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to tell me what I should think or how I should behave. You are making statements based upon your belief system. Belief systems are subject to bias. Your feelings are not facts, just because you say they are.

ITA! Totally uncalled for!

 

[ive_flipped]

hm...altho these ppl did escape from their countries to come to Europe....and make it... they will integrate themselves into European society and then because european right? can we be mad at gucci for using migrant labor? when migrant really means some of the time new european with the choice (it IS their choice) to work for gucci? if gucci is given an option i'm sure like any other country the will take it...and it is up to these "migrants" to decide whether they are being underpaid by either continuing the job or quitting.

When people make comments about child labor, migrant labor etc you have to realize that the other option for them is not working and having no means to feed their families or selling themselves in the sex trade. It is very unfortunate that there are places in the world that are so corrupt that their people live like that. These companies do offer employment of some kind it doesn't pay great but again if they all pulled out and stopped making things in third world etc they would have no jobs or means of income.
I don't agree with it but I don't disagree either. It all has to be looked at in the big picture. My fiance is from a developing country and if it weren't for some of these factories that are in his home country some of his relatives that chose to remain there would not have jobs.

 

[LaBoheme]

So, buying that counterfeit, 'limited edition' LV Murakami-patterned, diamond-studded espresso/cocoa machine might not be such a hot idea after all? j/k

 

[ShimmaPuff]

When people make comments about child labor, migrant labor etc you have to realize that the other option for them is not working and having no means to feed their families or selling themselves in the sex trade. It is very unfortunate that there are places in the world that are so corrupt that their people live like that. These companies...if they all pulled out and stopped making things in third world etc they would have no jobs or means of income...

This essential argument, that whatever exploitation or mistreatment the poor may be suffering, at least the rich allow them to live at all, has a long, near-universal history, in all its permutations and variations, from the maquiladoras of Meso-America to Wal-Marts in small US towns.

Since ancient times, richer and more powerful entities have sought to fill their coffers by assuming ownership of the resources of the "weak", including the "weak" themselves, and this practice has, and continues today, to work out very well for a few, and not so well for the many, and and invariably there are almost as many who receive little or no benefit from the spoils, yet pay the same price as those who do for their hopeful complicity when the inevitable occurs, and the cycle begins again.

Certainly, being allowed half a cup of rice water is better than being given nothing at all, but history indicates that that half cup is accepted with perhaps somewhat less gratitude as primary motivator than the rich might hope, even assume.

The "bread and circuses" strategy of Rome, like its precursors and descendants, cannot shake off the vulnerability that is both its father and its Achilles heel: greed.

The temptation to "adjust," gradually or not, that delicate balance between bread and circuses, in order to squeeze just a few more golden eggs from the goose is as irresistible as the resolve to take that half-cup of rice water, not that one might have the strength to serve and profit the hand that gives it, but with the pragmatic opposite of the romantic ideal of "better to die than be a slave," - the dead may be praised by their fellows as heroes and martyrs, but it is the living who will once again fill the blackboard of history with the lesson that choices have consequences, and that which seems free for the taking often comes with a multi-page statement of charges, fees and, human nature being what it is, usurious interests.

As individuals, most of learn early on in life that those offers of 12 free CDs for 99 cents include fine print that obliges us to make additional purchases at above retail price for a period of years, thus costing us far more than we would pay if we simply bought the CDs at a discount outlet, or even a full-price music store.

But as societies, we have not yet caught onto the old adages about no free lunch and if it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

We are, the ologists tell us, the only species that does not learn from our mistakes.

Beware the weapons of the weak.
The strong have no defence against them.

T.S. Eliot

 

[ive_flipped]

This essential argument, that whatever exploitation or mistreatment the poor may be suffering, at least the rich allow them to live at all, has a long, near-universal history, in all its permutations and variations, from the maquiladoras of Meso-America to Wal-Marts in small US towns.

Since ancient times, richer and more powerful entities have sought to fill their coffers by assuming ownership of the resources of the "weak", including the "weak" themselves, and this practice has, and continues today, to work out very well for a few, and not so well for the many, and and invariably there are almost as many who receive little or no benefit from the spoils, yet pay the same price as those who do for their hopeful complicity when the inevitable occurs, and the cycle begins again.

Certainly, being allowed half a cup of rice water is better than being given nothing at all, but history indicates that that half cup is accepted with perhaps somewhat less gratitude as primary motivator than the rich might hope, even assume.

The "bread and circuses" strategy of Rome, like its precursors and descendants, cannot shake off the vulnerability that is both its father and its Achilles heel: greed.

The temptation to "adjust," gradually or not, that delicate balance between bread and circuses, in order to squeeze just a few more golden eggs from the goose is as irresistible as the resolve to take that half-cup of rice water, not that one might have the strength to serve and profit the hand that gives it, but with the pragmatic opposite of the romantic ideal of "better to die than be a slave," - the dead may be praised by their fellows as heroes and martyrs, but it is the living who will once again fill the blackboard of history with the lesson that choices have consequences, and that which seems free for the taking often comes with a multi-page statement of charges, fees and, human nature being what it is, usurious interests.

As individuals, most of learn early on in life that those offers of 12 free CDs for 99 cents include fine print that obliges us to make additional purchases at above retail price for a period of years, thus costing us far more than we would pay if we simply bought the CDs at a discount outlet, or even a full-price music store.

But as societies, we have not yet caught onto the old adages about no free lunch and if it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

We are, the ologists tell us, the only species that does not learn from our mistakes.

Just a question for you...do you buy designer purses? Buy things not made in North America?

 

[ShimmaPuff]

Just a question for you...do you buy designer purses? Buy things not made in North America?

I don't buy designer purses, or designer anything, I couldn't even if I wanted them - I'm Your Friendly Resident Poor Person!

It is almost impossible, in fact, I will say it IS impossible to buy things only made in North America. As you know, the US is transitioning to a more service-focused economy, and there are simply not as many things made in North America today.

If you don't mind, I'll quote from a post I recently made in a different thread.

Originally Posted by mmc24
..it's ridiculous to think that many coveted designers don't have their products made in sweat shops. They do. Period. It's a fact. It's not just companies that produce fakes that take part in these kind of horrific practices...

ysl1983 also echoes this, putting, as you do, an uncomfortable truth about the way the world does business today rather, um, plainly:

Originally Posted by ysl1983
...You support sweatshops and child labor EVERYDAY by using the simplest, most common, everyday items that you're accustomed to...

At least once a week, I gently suggest that looking into the journey of just about anything we buy, from raw material to our shopping basket, might not be for everyone.

And at least once a week, I somewhat less gently point out that societies, just like individuals, make choices, and choices have consequences. Everything is about trade-offs, and we do not always read, or want to read, the fine print on all the purchases we collectively make, as a society...

Hope the above helps to answer your questions.

 

[tasche13]

Canadian diamonds are no better as they are strip mining the land and telling the tribal elders that it will eventually become a lake.