Taxes durring shut down?

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

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.

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

[radditsu]

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.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

very true. most diamonds are found in extinct volcanoes or around active ones, and they are pretty common. had a geology prof rant for 15 minutes on how stupid people were for buying diamonds. one of my favorite classes ever.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

I said..
"Cars are the same in regards to their structure of value."

And that is still true. In that one respect, it's a perfectly fine analogy.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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).

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?

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

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.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

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...

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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...

it did. gotta step back and get some context sometimes. that's why i asked what you were talking about earlier in the thread. anything can be used as a currency as long as enough humans are willing to use it, shells for an example. and that stuff about de beers is true, sadly. carbon isn't that rare.

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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?

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

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Diamonds are a terrible example for making the point that diamonds wouldn't make a very good currency? That's an odd position to take.