patrick.net

That is, unless your boyfriend likes diamonds!!!

Ah, a homophobic remark from a low-life scumbag. I assure you that if I were gay, my boyfriend would be a far better man than you are.

6

zzyzzx 2015 May 18, 10:30am

Because of the steep markup on diamonds, individuals who buy retail and in effect sell wholesale often suffer enormous losses. For example, Brod estimates that a half-carat diamond ring, which might cost $2,000 at a retail jewelry store, could be sold for only $600 at Empire.

In all fairness, the article needs to try buying and selling diamonds on the secondary market (I.E. - craigslist, etc.).

When thieves bring diamonds to underworld "fences," they usually get only a pittance for them. In 1979, for example, New York City police recover stolen diamonds with an insured value of $50,000 which had been sold to a 'fence' for only $200. According to the assistant district attorney who handled the case, the fence was unable to dispose of the diamonds on 47th Street, and he was eventually turned in by one of the diamond dealers he contacted.

7

zzyzzx 2015 May 18, 10:31am

It demonstrates that capitalism does not result in efficient allocation of resources and that the so-called free market isn't free and doesn't reach the ideal price points for products and services.

Just like medical services covered by insurance...

8

Dan8267 2015 May 18, 12:21pm

Dan8267 says

I assure you that if I were gay, my boyfriend would be a far better man than you are.

Sure, being the pussy that you are, you would be wearing the skirt in the relationship!

CIC, you ignorant slut. In a homosexual relationship between two men, both are men. Neither wears a skirt unless he wants to. And if they get married, both are called husband.

Again you demonstrate your vile ignorance and bigotry. You do a fine job representing conservatives for what they are: petty, vindictive, unintelligent parasites who contribute nothing to mankind or our nation.

9

New Renter 2015 May 18, 1:07pm

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

CaptainShuddup says

I've heard that if every diamond mined was put on the market, they would be worth karat by the pennies.

As they should be. It's just carbon arranged in a common form.

True but too simplistic an argument. You yourself are made up of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, phosphorous, nitrogen, sulfur and various trace elements all available at any chemical supply store for a few cents.

How much do you think it will take to turn those little piles of elements into Dan8267x2? I promise you it won't be cheap.

Same is true for diamonds. The cost of turning a pile of coal into a diamond remains expensive. A synthetic diamond will run 70-80% the cost of an equivalent mined diamond. Granted this is much better than the last time I looked several years ago when the synthetics cost 90% of an equivalent mined diamond. With time and more manufacturers getting into the game we can hope for even lower prices.

There are also good reasons to like diamond. Diamond has one of the highest refractive indices of all transparent stones - lots of bling. Diamond is damn hard which means that unless it happens to get hit along a line of fracture it will look as good 50 years from now as it does today. Keep in mind a wedding ring is worn 24/7/365 by most women. Cubic Zirconia and softer rocks do get beat up with time so a CZ wedding ring will probably look rather worn within a few years.

One can also buy another synthetic stone - moissanite which is gem grade silicon carbide. Its almost as hard as diamond (although not as transparent) and even more blingy. Unfortunately its also costs almost as much as a "real" diamond.

Transparent (white) sapphire? Not a bad option, especially with cost factored in. Go to ebay and you can find these for sale for a few bucks per carat. While this will not have the same blingy refractive index as diamond it will still look pretty good, especially when cut properly (e.g. not cut as a diamond). This stone is more susceptible to scratches than diamond but for a few bucks/carat who cares? Same is true for a lesser degree for CZ. The truth is there are lots of diamond stimulants available for the budget minded:

My take is this. There are some good reasons to want a diamond on a ring (e.g. toughness) but economics isn't one of them. Diamonds on anything other than a ring are a complete waste.

If your betrothed pressures you into spending a significant portion of your wealth on a shiny rock just so she can impress her friends then she is probably not "the one" for you.

If however she is truly happy even with the knowledge that the stone on her finger is a cheap lookalike then she is far more precious than that damn diamond!

10

Shaman 2015 May 18, 1:13pm

As a symbol of wealth, diamonds still work somehow, mostly because of careful advertising by the diamond cartel. However, as a hedge against poverty, you'd be much better off with gold chains than shiny lumps of carbon. It's very hard to resell diamonds for any significant fraction of their retail value.
My dad owns a pawn and gun shop, and he usually writes pretty small loans against them. They're just too hard to move unless you have a fancy name brand storefront with lots of advertising. $200-$300 for a 1-2 carat ring is normal. Pawns are loans after all, so if the lendee isn't planning to return to claim it, it will have to be sold to reclaim the value of the loan.

11

Dan8267 2015 May 18, 1:16pm

Dan8267 says

Again you demonstrate..

... you missed the important part of my post, here I'll repeat it, or should I type it slower so you can keep up?

The point you were trying to make is that homosexual men are not masculine (a stupid opinion), that I am homosexual (an incorrect statement), and therefore I am not masculine (an incorrect conclusion). Furthermore, your insult is predicated on the assumption that women are inherently inferior and less respectable then men. Way to go insulting half the world's population.

Please continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself, dumbass.

12

Dan8267 2015 May 18, 1:25pm

As they should be. It's just carbon arranged in a common form.

True but too simplistic an argument. You yourself are made up of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, phosphorous, nitrogen, sulfur and various trace elements all available at any chemical supply store for a few cents.

True, the value of a human comes not from its components, a few elements, but rather from what it is (a sentient being) and what it can do (a lot of creative work). However, neither of these things apply to diamonds. The market price of diamonds is entirely due to a false scarcity. There is nothing spectacular about the arrangement of those carbon atoms that imparts a greater intrinsic worth. Sure, diamonds may be beautiful, but so is cubic zirconia, and most people cannot tell the difference. So why then should carbon atoms producing the exact same aesthetic image as zirconium dioxide be worth so much more? One's a bunch of element 6 and the other is a bunch of element 40 with two element 8 each. If anything, zirconium is much rarer than diamonds and should be valued more.

Once again, it shows that the so-called free market does not produce any rational price point. Humans are too easily manipulated by marketing.

13

Dan8267 2015 May 18, 1:36pm

You're such a fucking narcissistic psychopath, that even gay dudes wouldn't put up with you ...

That's why you spend all day wacking off to Youtube videos in your apartment...

Translation: I tried to insult Dan, but ended up showing what a despicable person I am and insulting over half the world's population. To save face, I'm going to hurl more of my poop at Dan and hope nobody notices that I'm a monkey throwing poop because that's the limit of my intellectual level.

14

MisdemeanorRebel 2015 May 18, 1:52pm

Diamond prices are proof that markets are irrational, with people irrationally buying worthless stones due to a Monopoly using the Media to convince them to act irrationally.

Market Failure.

15

Dan8267 2015 May 18, 2:05pm

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fnFnWWAnlkw

It wasn't a "try"... I know, facts are a bitch...

You don't even know what the word "fact" means. Here's the difference between facts and opinion on a level you might be able to understand.

Let's apply what you learned in that video to your statements.

Whether or not a person is "a fucking narcissistic psychopath" is an opinion, not a fact.

Your assertion that "even gay dudes wouldn't put up with you (Dan)" is an empirically false statement and therefore not a fact in the sense of a true statement. It is a falsehood, as is the statement that I "spend all day wacking off to Youtube videos in your apartment". In fact there are four clear falsehoods in that statement. So you are either a liar or an idiot, or both.

Yes, facts are a bitch for low-life conservative scum like you. What makes them a bitch is that they are verifiable, and that's the enemy of all conservatives. Verifiable truth makes lying much more difficult, and lying is the basis of all conservative arguments.

16

New Renter 2015 May 18, 2:28pm

New Renter says

As they should be. It's just carbon arranged in a common form.

True but too simplistic an argument. You yourself are made up of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, phosphorous, nitrogen, sulfur and various trace elements all available at any chemical supply store for a few cents.

True, the value of a human comes not from its components, a few elements, but rather from what it is (a sentient being) and what it can do (a lot of creative work). However, neither of these things apply to diamonds. The market price of diamonds is entirely due to a false scarcity. There is nothing spectacular about the arrangement of those carbon atoms that imparts a greater intrinsic worth. Sure, diamonds may be beautiful, but so is cubic zirconia, and most people cannot tell the difference. So why then should carbon atoms producing the exact same aesthetic image as zirconium dioxide be worth so much more? One's a bunch of element 6 and the other is a bunch of element 40 with two element 8 each. If anything, zirconium is much rarer than diamonds and should be valued more.

Once again, it shows that the so-called free market does not produce any rational price point. Humans are too easily manipulated by marketing.

Not quite true. As I said the "worth" of a diamond to some is its combination of bling and toughness. CZ is nice but as I pointed out earlier it will get beat up with time on a ring. Diamonds won't. Granted from an economics standpoint its is MUCH cheaper to replace a CZ stone every 5-10 years or so than to buy a diamond.

And women aren't alone in this madness. How many men have paid thousands of dollars for super high end fancy speakers where a cheap pair of Pyramids would have done just as well in the real world? Or worse bought Monster cables? Or probably the ultimate waste of money - overgauged silver speaker cable for hundreds of dollars a foot rather than good quality, correctly gauged oxygen free copper cable for pennies a foot? The marketing bullshit for these moneypits put DeBeers to shame!

How about anyone who bought a Lexus when a Toyota with a nice trim package would have been the exact same car for thousands less just without the fancy badge? Or anyone who buys Dansi water for a few dollars when the drinking fountain next door gives the exact same municipal water for free?

At least overspending in real estate has some tangible advantages if it reduces your commute or keeps crime from your door.

17

New Renter 2015 May 18, 2:44pm

The market price of diamonds is entirely due to a false scarcity.

Now if you really want to get into a tizzy try pricing a wedding dress. THOSE can cost as much as a diamond ring, are worn once and then cost a few hundred more to have cleaned and packaged for storage never to be ~~fit in~~ er seen again.

At least the men have the good sense to rent the tux.

18 Reality 2015 May 18, 3:18pm

How about anyone who bought a Lexus when a Toyota with a nice trim package would have been the exact same car for thousands less

Sure, I'd buy a Camry instead of an ES, a Highlander instead of an RX (actually did that a decade ago); however, there are some models like the LS, GS and IS that have no comparable Toyota models in the US market. I'm currently driving an Acura MDX because the new generation Pilot sharing the platform was/is not out yet, and I was in an urgent need to replace a car last summer. Lexus and Acura do still deliver decent value. For example, the MDX I have corners like the latest Porsche SUV the Maccan, both capable of pulling close to 0.9G in flat corners, better than the new Mustang! which is the most popular sportscar in the US. The trick is Torque-Vectoring AWD. 7 passenger SUV, 5000lb towing capacity, handling like a newly introduced Porsche (weighs less than the 5 seat small ute Maccan while riding on wider track and comparable wheel base) and handles better than mainstream spor coupes; yet still getting 27mpg. That is a value proposition hard to beat for those who shop without any particular budget constraint and not obsessed with brand cachet.

Lexus and Acura do deliver special value propositions from time to time that go far beyond their competition. Lexus did that back at the beginning with the original LS400, which was far better than anything the Germans offered at the time. OTOH, they do go through periods of funks, like Lexus is doing recently, and Acura was doing perhaps a few years ago, when there was nothing ground-breaking. The German carmakers are better at small incremental improvements in technology as they gradually cascade new technology from the top of their model range to the lower end models; however, when either Lexus or Acura has something new to bring to the table, watch out! They are outstanding products delivering compelling value, unlike the Germans charging ridiculous amount for cutting edge technology; e.g. Porsche Cayenne and BMW X6M equipped with Torque-Vectoring AWD were priced close to $100k!

19 Reality 2015 May 18, 3:23pm

thunderlips11 says

Diamond prices are proof that markets are irrational, with people irrationally buying worthless stones due to a Monopoly using the Media to convince them to act irrationally.

Market Failure.

LOL. Market is a price discovery process. What De Beers pulled was something akin to what governments usually do: monopoly and propaganda.

20 Reality 2015 May 18, 3:27pm

There are some good reasons to want a diamond on a ring (e.g. toughness) but economics isn't one of them. Diamonds on anything other than a ring are a complete waste.

If your betrothed pressures you into spending a significant portion of your wealth on a shiny rock just so she can impress her friends then she is probably not "the one" for you.

If however she is truly happy even with the knowledge that the stone on her finger is a cheap lookalike then she is far more precious than that damn diamond!

The last line is well said.

Diamonds do make for decent glass cutter. The limiting factor on a ring is usually the metal setting, which is far more deformable than just about any precious and semi-precious stone.

21

New Renter 2015 May 18, 3:39pm

New Renter says

How about anyone who bought a Lexus when a Toyota with a nice trim package would have been the exact same car for thousands less

Sure, I'd buy a Camry instead of an ES, a Highlander instead of an RX (actually did that a decade ago); however, there are some models like the LS, GS and IS that have no comparable Toyota models in the US market. I'm currently driving an Acura MDX because the new generation Pilot sharing the platform was/is not out yet, and I was in an urgent need to replace a car last summer. Lexus and Acura do still deliver decent value.

Yet you can still get 90% of your daily needs out of a $1500 used Subaru, or 99% out of a $4000 used WRX. Both will have the AWD you probably don't really need (I've known plenty of Swedes who did just fine with sub 100 HP RWD Volvos) and the WRX will have far more power than you can possibly use on a day to day basis.

22 Reality 2015 May 18, 3:48pm

That 0.1% to 0.01% of the driving time when collision avoidance and crash worthiness are put to use, that's when I'd regret not putting in the other $53,000. Torque-Vectoring AWD is quite a step beyond conventional AWD. It makes vehicle much more stable in rapid turns, a very helpful technology when driving an SUV. Unlike conventional cars relying on the suspension to generate the centripetal force (hence leaning to the outside in a turn), Torque-Vectoring drives individual wheels at different speeds and give outside rear wheel extra acceleration force to turn the car! The result is a completely flat cornering! Completely eliminating roll-overs. That's why the SUV's equipped with it can corner like sportscars, actually staying more flat and level than even sportscars during the turns.

Besides, I can't fit 7 people in the used Subaru or tow 5000lbs with WRX. Also, about $12k of that $57k was put into the autonomous driving tech and audio/visual entertainment for the kids; at the time of purchase, the two could not be separately purchased on the MDX, and MDX was the only vehicle that delivered convincingly functional automatic lane keeping and radar cruise control (automatic following of the car ahead, keeping distance and speed). Now these are available as separate options on more and more cars. Clearly these autonomous driving technologies are highly sought after. It's just a matter of when it is affordable for the particular buyer. For me, I had to replace a car at that time, and there was no point waiting while depreciating a different new car without it.

23

New Renter 2015 May 18, 4:10pm

That 0.1% to 0.01% of the driving time when collision avoidance and crash worthiness are put to use, that's when I'd regret not putting in the other $53,000. Torque-Vectoring AWD is quite a step beyond conventional AWD. It makes vehicle much more stable in rapid turns, a very helpful technology when driving an SUV. Unlike conventional cars relying on the suspension to generate the centripetal force, Torque-Vectoring drives individual wheels at different speed and use the outside rear wheel's extra accelearation to turn the car! The result is a completely flat cornering! No roll-overs.

Wow, did you memorize the entire brochure? How about not driving like an ass? That'll turn that 0.1%-0.01% to damn unlikely, if ever. Or how about not buying an SUV with an inherently high center of mass?

Besides, I can't fit 7 people in the used Subaru or tow 5000lbs with WRX.

How often are you hauling 7 people? If that's the case just buy a used delivery van and spend 1/10th the extra money soundproofing the front compartment to keep out the whining.

Also, about $12k of that $57k was put into the autonomous driving tech and audio/visual entertainment for the kids

autonomous driving tech just another incentive to nod off behind the wheel. Unless that tech is good enough to safely take over completely after the driver chugs a six pack its just an expensive toy.

audio/visual entertainment for the kids Get a kindle for $80 bucks and tether it to your cellphones data line. Or better yet just tell the kids to quiet down or else.

There, I just saved you $12k.

24 Reality 2015 May 18, 4:25pm

1. I did not read the brochure at all. The SUV is a requirement because towing requirement and I often have 6-7 people in my car, 1-2 days every other week. Keeping another dedicated car for each purpose wouldn't make any sense: 3 cars (a daily driving sedan, a minivan and a pickup) would cost far more, plus parking and insurance costs. A used passenger van would be getting 9-10mpg instead of the 27mpg that I'm getting with the MDX.

2. Given SUV is a requirement due to towing and passenger count, having Torque-Vectoring AWD is a huge plus. It turns out to be able to corner with much less lean than conventional sedans. Also, given the rapid growth of CUV sales at the expense of coupes and sedans, riding in a sedan may not be a wise choice in the near future due to risk posed by other drivers and their higher riding vehicles.

3. "Driving like an ass" sometimes is a necessity due to the need to avoid people suddenly cutting into your lane. I considered the Toyota Land Cruiser, but it was crossed off the list precisely because the risk of roll-over in collision avoidance situations.

4. Autonomous driving techs are helpful for reducing driver fatigue during long distance driving. I have been able to stay alert for about 3x longer driving the MDX on long distance trips compared to previous cars.

5. The rear seat entertainment package was a mandatory combination at the time when the full autonomous driving suite was selected. I would not have otherwise bought the rear entertainment. However, it turned out to be very popular with the kids, along with the rear shades, extra thick acoustic glass, etc. That mandatory combination was actually the biggest hold-back for me during the purchase. However, considering the economy of scale Acura was achieving by making all the "Advance" packages alike, the overall combination was a good deal, probably cost a lot less than would have been if production had to be carried out separately for individual custom orders. I'd probably have lost the rear entertainment system and then some, and still pay the same if not more at the BMW or Porsche dealers with their individual options; that is, hypotehtically they had a comparable car to sell.

25

zzyzzx 2015 May 18, 4:40pm

CIC, you ignorant slut. In a homosexual relationship between two men, both are men. Neither wears a skirt unless he wants to. And if they get married, both are called husband.

More important to this thread, if two men marry each other, is a diamond ring involved?

26

New Renter 2015 May 18, 5:01pm

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

CIC, you ignorant slut. In a homosexual relationship between two men, both are men. Neither wears a skirt unless he wants to. And if they get married, both are called husband.

More important to this thread, if two men marry each other, is a diamond ring involved?

Apparently yes:

27

New Renter 2015 May 18, 5:07pm

1. I did not read the brochure at all. The SUV is a requirement because towing requirement and I often have 6-7 people in my car, 1-2 days every other week. Keeping another dedicated car for each purpose wouldn't make any sense: 3 cars (a daily driving sedan, a minivan and a pickup) would cost far more, plus parking and insurance costs. A used passenger van would be getting 9-10mpg instead of the 27mpg that I'm getting with the MDX.
2. Given SUV is a requirement due to towing and passenger count, having Torque-Vectoring AWD is a huge plus. It turns out to be able to corner with much less lean than conventional sedans. Also, given the rapid growth of CUV sales at the expense of coupes and sedans, riding in a sedan may not be a wise choice in the near future due to risk posed by other drivers and their higher riding vehicles.

3. "Driving like an ass" sometimes is a necessity due to the need to avoid people suddenly cutting into your lane. I considered the Toyota Land Cruiser, but it was crossed off the list precisely because the risk of roll-over in collision avoidance situations.

4. Autonomous driving techs are helpful for reducing driver fatigue during long distance driving. I have been able to stay alert for about 3x longer driving the MDX on long distance trips compared to previous cars.

5. The rear seat entertainment package was a mandatory combination at the time when the full autonomous driving suite was selected. I would not have otherwise bought the rear entertainment. However, it turned out to be very popular with the kids, along with the rear shades, extra thick acoustic glass, etc. That mandatory combination was actually the biggest hold-back for me during the purchase. However, considering the economy of scale Acura was achieving by making all the "Advance" packages alike, the overall combination was a good deal, probably cost a lot less than would have been if production had to be carried out separately for individual custom orders. I'd probably have lost the rear entertainment system and then some, and still pay the same if not more at the BMW or Porsche dealers with their individual options; that is, hypotehtically they had a comparable car to sell.

I dunno, still seems like a lot of overkill. At least your not here trying to rationalize a corvette Z06 as a daily commuter.

sbh says

New Renter says

How about not driving like an ass?

THIS is AMERICA, dude, DON'T YOU DARE!

Dude I live in California. Driving like an ass is a way of life here.

28 Reality 2015 May 18, 5:28pm

I dunno, still seems like a lot of overkill. At least your not here trying to rationalize a corvette Z06 as a daily commuter.

THIS is AMERICA, dude, DON'T YOU DARE!

Dude I live in California. Driving like an ass is a way of life here.

LOL. Exactly, that's why I can't justify a low riding Z06 or WRX. Teenagers driving like an ass in their CUV's pose great danger to everything riding lower than them. OTOH, a trucky truck like the Land Cruiser or Range Rover would also be hard to justify due to roll over risk when trying to avoid the ass-like drivers.

29 Reality 2015 May 18, 5:44pm

Dan8267 says

CIC, you ignorant slut. In a homosexual relationship between two men, both are men. Neither wears a skirt unless he wants to. And if they get married, both are called husband.

More important to this thread, if two men marry each other, is a diamond ring involved?

Apparently yes:

LOL. Finally there is a market for the giant carbon rocks from Zaire.

30

MisdemeanorRebel 2015 May 18, 6:52pm