Originally Posted by Orruar (Post 1150259)

I wasn't debating the notion of where value comes from. You went off on quite a tangent to attack that straw man. I was pointing out the reason why the value structure of diamonds is the way that it is, and that changing the value structure in a world where the production of diamonds is unchanged is probably impossible. Yes, diamonds by themselves only have value because we as people perceive them to have value. But the structure of value is mostly independent of our value judgments and primarily rooted in the physical properties (non-fusability, variability of size) of diamonds.

Take an analogy: Cars are the same in regards to their structure of value. You'll have a hell of a time selling a left half of a car for half the price of a whole car. And just saying "we could change our values so that isn't so" isn't likely to change that fact.

Originally Posted by radditsu (Post 1150509)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

The only reason diamonds are expensive is due to a monopoly by one company artificially inflating prices. It's literally criminal in the US for them to run their company in this manner.

Also of note, glasses/sunglasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica) and Cheerleading gear(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Spirit) are all ran in the same manner. Although in less of a scale to keep them out of the spotlight.

At least Monsanto fucks your mouth while you are looking at them. Not your ass while you aren't.


So please if you will make an argument using an item of value. Please do not use something that can be made, in a lab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond).


Sorry for the wiki references. It's my bedtime and I didn't want to do a ton of real research.

Originally Posted by Ahldagor (Post 1150458)

i get that. and that doesn't take away from the behavior of value being attached via a human or humans. this isn't dueling banjos, but a material notion being argued against a behavioral.

Originally Posted by Ahldagor (Post 1150458)

that's a bad analogy though because a car is, at base, a tool with a desired function.

Originally Posted by radditsu (Post 1150509)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

The only reason diamonds are expensive is due to a monopoly by one company artificially inflating prices. It's literally criminal in the US for them to run their company in this manner.

So please if you will make an argument using an item of value. Please do not use something that can be made, in a lab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond).

Originally Posted by Orruar (Post 1150722)

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point.

Originally Posted by Ahldagor (Post 1151109)

mainly that you're caught up in specificity and hammering away on your point without regarding what has been previously said by me or anyone else in the thread. the whole thing about the value structure of diamonds isn't even relevant to how a default on u.s. debt would effect the value of the u.s. dollar. i brought up carbon to show how three different forms of it have different values which are dependent upon how people wish to utilize that carbon, which as it stands as is has no value (value is a subjective word) much like u.s. currency.

Originally Posted by Orruar (Post 1151234)

We're just talking past each other then. I wasn't making any statement regarding US debt or the dollar. I was only making a specific point about the possibility of the use of diamonds as money. Considering much of this thread changed into a discussion on what makes a good money, it didn't seem like much of a derailment...

Originally Posted by Orruar (Post 1150735)

The price structure of diamonds would still be the same even if DeBeers wasn't restricting the supply. Prices would be lower overall, but the fact that one diamond of size 2 would be more valuable than 2 diamonds of size 1 would not be changed.

And are you suggesting that because people can produce something, suddenly it has no value?

Originally Posted by radditsu (Post 1151622)

I am saying that diamonds are a terrible exwmple for making making your point