> While the idea of a cartel controlling diamond production and pricing is a very bad thing, I don't see how it is so wrong to show your partner your affection with an expensive present
There's nothing wrong with the present. What's wrong is the use of diamonds. Diamonds are clearly inferior to other signals. To take an example from another comment: a trip to Europe of equivalent cost has the same 'social signal' strength as do diamonds; but it also has tremendous utility for the woman (educational, memorable, enjoyable, etc.). Diamonds have no utility in jewelry form. So: signal+utility > signal.
As well, the high margins on jewelry means that prices are pushed up for the useful uses of diamonds, like drills or anvils or bearings. (About 20% of mined diamonds, WP says, go to jewelry. A 1/5 price cut is nothing to sneeze at either.)
There's nothing wrong with the present. What's wrong is the use of diamonds. Diamonds are clearly inferior to other signals. To take an example from another comment: a trip to Europe of equivalent cost has the same 'social signal' strength as do diamonds; but it also has tremendous utility for the woman (educational, memorable, enjoyable, etc.). Diamonds have no utility in jewelry form. So: signal+utility > signal.
The utility opportunity costs are staggering; >30 billion in the US alone. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15842529/ns/world_news/) That would pay for a lot of vacations and more desirable things.
As well, the high margins on jewelry means that prices are pushed up for the useful uses of diamonds, like drills or anvils or bearings. (About 20% of mined diamonds, WP says, go to jewelry. A 1/5 price cut is nothing to sneeze at either.)