Years ago when I was living in Luanda I noticed, for instance, how cleverly South Africa intervened in Angola. The South Africans prevented massive quantities of Angolan diamonds from having any free access to the market, and they were pretty successful at it.
I could only agree with the premises of market manipulation in the case of diamonds, which, by the way, also occurs in other fields (arts, oil, stock market etc etc) although it's highly debatable up to which degree and by which means this also happens elsewhere.
As for marketing, yeah, sure, one of its pillars is all about creating value and consumption needs that previously didn't exist.
But the point I was trying to make is that even if the prices of diamonds are subject to distortions and may fluctuate, they will still be sought after as a strategic emergency asset by a segment of people in the world (I'm not counting here those just willing to avoid taxation).
And this was overlooked in the article. Perhaps because the author is American and not, say, from Venezuela or Yemen.
I know a few people who fled their countries and a great deal of the capital they managed to smuggle out was in the form of diamonds: Ceaucescu's Romania, Nicaragua after the socialist revolution, Venezuela today...
You can't carry your house or your confiscated rural properties with you (100% loss in many cases), it's also hard to carry your works of art (90% loss?), damn, it can be impossible to transfer hard currency or move money from your frozen bank account too.
As bad of a deal as it may be, in the short or in the long run, diamonds are a feasible last resort to save something in case of emergency. I wasn't talking about investing in diamonds for profit, I personally wouldn't, I was talking about the importance diamonds have in many troubled places as a means of trying to save (at least some of) your financial ass.
And this is a particular characteristic of diamonds, feeding demand, which I believe will persist, even if a theoretical significant drop in prices indeed occurs.
Anyway, please accept my sincere apologies if you have the impression I've derailed the thread. Back to engagement rings.
I could only agree with the premises of market manipulation in the case of diamonds, which, by the way, also occurs in other fields (arts, oil, stock market etc etc) although it's highly debatable up to which degree and by which means this also happens elsewhere.
As for marketing, yeah, sure, one of its pillars is all about creating value and consumption needs that previously didn't exist.
But the point I was trying to make is that even if the prices of diamonds are subject to distortions and may fluctuate, they will still be sought after as a strategic emergency asset by a segment of people in the world (I'm not counting here those just willing to avoid taxation).
And this was overlooked in the article. Perhaps because the author is American and not, say, from Venezuela or Yemen.
I know a few people who fled their countries and a great deal of the capital they managed to smuggle out was in the form of diamonds: Ceaucescu's Romania, Nicaragua after the socialist revolution, Venezuela today...
You can't carry your house or your confiscated rural properties with you (100% loss in many cases), it's also hard to carry your works of art (90% loss?), damn, it can be impossible to transfer hard currency or move money from your frozen bank account too.
As bad of a deal as it may be, in the short or in the long run, diamonds are a feasible last resort to save something in case of emergency. I wasn't talking about investing in diamonds for profit, I personally wouldn't, I was talking about the importance diamonds have in many troubled places as a means of trying to save (at least some of) your financial ass.
And this is a particular characteristic of diamonds, feeding demand, which I believe will persist, even if a theoretical significant drop in prices indeed occurs.
Anyway, please accept my sincere apologies if you have the impression I've derailed the thread. Back to engagement rings.