Diamonds are Bullsh*t

[rubybeth]

I say this, how many of you have a certified conflict-free diamond (I am told there is such a thing). 

Of course there is such a thing. My diamonds are Australian. Canadian diamonds are also conflict and exploitation free.

I knew we were getting suckered into the expensive results of a very clever marketing campaign when we bought my engagement and wedding rings with diamonds in. I like 'em anyway. Different things are 'worth it' to different people.

I think that's the main point of this thread, is that diamonds just shouldn't even be considered 'worth it' to anyone. I don't agree with it, but there's a lot of judging going on in this forum and that's what it seems to boil down to. There are some things that are simply "not mustachian," and you be be informed of it--sometimes harshly--when you admit to partaking in something un-mustachian.

Value is subjective. I personally wouldn't spend a cent on home brewing or scammy "healthfoods" but that's just me.

I entirely agree, and I wasn't saying otherwise. But not doing active harm to the environment and not buying status goods for the purpose of displaying wealth are core principles of the site, so I think it's reasonable to say that they're things that most on the forums value.

Not really sure how my 100+ year old antique jewelry bought on eBay is doing 'active harm' to the environment, when it's technically recycled goods. *shrug*

[Villanelle]

People like diamonds solely because they are expensive.  As a geologist, I assure you they are neither rare nor valuable.  Just expensive, and that only because of manipulative marketing. 

That's the bullshit part.

+1  This is the bullshit part that some of the diamond lovers are missing.  I admit they are beautiful!  But they are quite literally not worth the current price.  So we're being suckered into thinking they are all because the monopoly has done some great marketing.  Let's be honest, it is a status symbol and that's why we like them (myself included, I don't have one but I like them).  We may think we're not that kind of person and don't care about that but a big part of the reason that we're attracted to them is because we've been conditioned to like them.  As for an engagement ring being special and thoughtful I agree with the person who said that can be achieved with any polished metal band and a cheaper but no less beautiful stone.  In fact, that is much more meaningful since you're not being influenced by the price of the thing.

For those who say "If you don't like diamonds just don't buy them what's the big deal"  I say this, how many of you have a certified conflict-free diamond (I am told there is such a thing).  When entire countries are duped into purchasing something for their special occasions that quite literally fuels war, kills children, and line the pockets of corrupt governments and drug lords, shouldn't we speak out about them?  Frankly, I find it kinder to say to someone that their diamond is bullshit than to say it's actually stained with blood.  But since only one person has brought this up in this whole thread and nobody cared to follow up I thought I would.  This to me is THE issue.  The MMM blog isn't just about frugality for our own sake, it's about living a more responsible and sustainable life.  Even if they were giving away diamonds for free but they still had all the conflict behind them they would not be a mustachian choice.  I know what people are going to say... but aren't there lots of other things in our lives 'stained' with conflict, child labor, etc, etc?  YES!  And we should be actively trying to minimize them as much as possible, as well as publicize them (I can name a few things I've banned from my house for this reason).  But I'm having a hard time thinking of an example less essential to our way of life and more easy to simply do away with than the all mighty diamond.

Me.  Well, it isn't conflict free but I wanted an estate piece in part for this reason (in addition to just aesthetics).  I don't know that the "conflict" side of diamonds was an issue in 1910, when my ring was made, but even if it was, my repurchasing of that ring (and thus those diamonds) didn't put any money in the pockets of the diamond miners or the corrupt governments and drug lords. 

Reduce, reuse, recycle--I did it with my ring/diamond.

I find the sanctimony in this thread a bit hilarious.  It's hipster-cool to proclaim that diamonds are bullshit, fed to us by The Man.  Meanwhile, nearly every one of us, I am quite certain, has something that isn't necessary and that only costs what it does due to perceived value. 

Do you(global) collect anything?  Watch professional sports?  By health food products (which may or may not be bullshit; I'll admit some aren't)?  This list goes on and on.  All of these things are far more expensive than they need to be, and far from necessary.  So they are no less bullshit than buying a diamond. 

[Dr.Vibrissae]

I find the sanctimony in this thread a bit hilarious.  It's hipster-cool to proclaim that diamonds are bullshit, fed to us by The Man.   

1+  The suggestion that a preference for red, blue, green, yellow or pearlescent sparklies over clear sparklies makes you a more profound/more thoughtful/wiser consumer is pretty silly.

As for an engagement ring being special and thoughtful I agree with the person who said that can be achieved with any polished metal band and a cheaper but no less beautiful stone.  In fact, that is much more meaningful since you're not being influenced by the price of the thing.

Engagement rings (or hats or cakes) have value to people because of what they symbolize between the parties involved.  No particular rock or metal or other material is inherently more meaningful, and though it may have been a thoughtless statement on your part, it's insulting and pretty silly to suggest that someone's diamond engagement ring (to which several posters have expressed deep sentimental attachment) would be more meaningful if it were X (less expensive?) stone.

[Mr.Macinstache]

It's hipster-cool to proclaim that diamonds are bullshit, fed to us by The Man.

Cartels and market monopolies do exist. And mass marketing is a very effective tool.

People can try to mock the idea, but to denying those is pretty naive.

[grantmeaname]

Not really sure how my 100+ year old antique jewelry bought on eBay is doing 'active harm' to the environment, when it's technically recycled goods. *shrug*

The paragraph you quoted is in direct response to the discussion about Maseratis. Hence the link to fueleconomy.gov. Vilanelle was arguing that all things that cost a certain amount of money are equally mustachian, and I was disagreeing based on other principles. Way to take it out of context, though!

[Villanelle]

It's hipster-cool to proclaim that diamonds are bullshit, fed to us by The Man.

Cartels and market monopolies do exist. And mass marketing is a very effective tool.

People can try to mock the idea, but to denying those is pretty naive.

And as has been pointed out, there are ways to buy diamonds without supporting those cartels.  This thread doesn't say that blood diamonds are bullshit, or that primary market (as opposed to second hand) diamonds re bullshit.  And the comments, with a few exceptions, don't reflect those distinctions either.  So sorry, no.  This isn't about market monopolies or cartels or suffering mine workers or poor, dead Leonardo DiCaprio.  It's trendeee to turn up one's nose at diamonds.  You are correct that mass marketing is indeed an effective tool, and pop culture is second to none in that game. 

Really, by the definitions used in this thread, all jewelry is bullshit in that it has no real function.  Yet people who use alternative metals and stones somehow get a pass.  Why is that?  If this were really about people spending more than the functional value of an item should demand, or about buying into mass marketing, then a sapphire or a silver band would be equally mocked.  The reason is that the mass marketing you mention has made it The Thing to be oh so above diamonds.  You can try to layer on a veneer of social consciousness by claiming it is about working conditions and monopolies, but that is "bullsh*t", to quote this thread, because even diamonds that circumvent those issues are still scoffed at. 

It makes people feel good to turn up their nose at diamonds and then go buy a sapphire ring, which probably supports many of the same companies that create issues in the diamond industry and which has the same bullshit perceived value that a diamond has. 

[Villanelle]

Not really sure how my 100+ year old antique jewelry bought on eBay is doing 'active harm' to the environment, when it's technically recycled goods. *shrug*

The paragraph you quoted is in direct response to the discussion about Maseratis. Hence the link to fueleconomy.gov. Vilanelle was arguing that all things that cost a certain amount of money are equally mustachian, and I was disagreeing based on other principles. Way to take it out of context, though!

Um, I wasn't arguing that all things that cost a certain amount are equally mustachian.  Not by a long shot.  I was saying that there are plenty of things that no one needs but they decide are worth it to them.  Diamonds, big houses, fancy cars, luxury bicycles--etc.  Buying in line with your own values, in a thoughtful way, is *to me* what mustachianism is about.  It would be unmustachian for me to buy a Maserati, or a McMansion, or a giant sapphire or diamond ring or a boat or many other things.  But there a plenty of people for whom one of those purchases wouldn't be unmustachian, including MMM himself since he owns a large home and openly admits he has plenty of excess in his budget. 

 

[grantmeaname]

So as long as you really say you enjoy it, owning a 36 foot yacht, a Cessna, a Maserati, and a McMansion is a mustachian decision?

You and I have been reading different sites.

[Mr.Macinstache]

It's hipster-cool to proclaim that diamonds are bullshit, fed to us by The Man.

Cartels and market monopolies do exist. And mass marketing is a very effective tool.

People can try to mock the idea, but to denying those is pretty naive.

And as has been pointed out, there are ways to buy diamonds without supporting those cartels.  This thread doesn't say that blood diamonds are bullshit, or that primary market (as opposed to second hand) diamonds re bullshit.  And the comments, with a few exceptions, don't reflect those distinctions either.  So sorry, no.  This isn't about market monopolies or cartels or suffering mine workers or poor, dead Leonardo DiCaprio.  It's trendeee to turn up one's nose at diamonds.  You are correct that mass marketing is indeed an effective tool, and pop culture is second to none in that game. 

Really, by the definitions used in this thread, all jewelry is bullshit in that it has no real function.  Yet people who use alternative metals and stones somehow get a pass.  Why is that?  If this were really about people spending more than the functional value of an item should demand, or about buying into mass marketing, then a sapphire or a silver band would be equally mocked.  The reason is that the mass marketing you mention has made it The Thing to be oh so above diamonds.  You can try to layer on a veneer of social consciousness by claiming it is about working conditions and monopolies, but that is "bullsh*t", to quote this thread, because even diamonds that circumvent those issues are still scoffed at. 

It makes people feel good to turn up their nose at diamonds and then go buy a sapphire ring, which probably supports many of the same companies that create issues in the diamond industry and which has the same bullshit perceived value that a diamond has.

I agree with you on that.

My main reason for calling BS on diamonds is because they represent the industry and are the standard status symbol for marriages, etc. You can substitute any pet rock in there.

THAT is why I call BS. Mass marketing and the resulting over valuation of it. It's all contrived. And who gets suckered? Consumers.

However, I can certainly appreciate sentimental value of a family heirloom, or an artistic creation. That is what holds the value. Not life imitating marketing by spending 1000's of dollars on a socially engineered act.

[limeandpepper]

This article from 1982 is interesting reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/?single_page=true

[Mr.Macinstache]

This article from 1982 is interesting reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/?single_page=true

Bingo.

"A Diamond Is Forever," which was scrawled on the bottom of a picture of two young lovers on a honeymoon. Even though diamonds can in fact be shattered, chipped, discolored, or incinerated to ash,

[Roses]

The response that it is trendy to eschew diamonds or sanctimonious to speak against them seems to be a last line of defense in these discussions where people have very strong feelings about something that they just don't want to give up.  I get it, you feel attacked.  I'm sure there are plenty of things we could attack each other about.  What really gets my hackles up is not when you make a silly financial decision (I don't love the 'wall of shame' threads, for instance) but when your decision is such an egregious example of unsustainable, irresponsible practices.  Of course there is hypocrisy in many things we do (I used to drive an SUV!) but once we know about it shouldn't we at least try to remedy it?  To everyone who said their diamond is conflict-free, heirloom, recycled, whatever - that's wonderful.  It sounds like you considered the issue and made the least impactful choice.  I wish everyone would do that.  Heck, I wish I remembered to do that in every aspect of my life (For the record I don't own a diamond, sapphire or any other stone).  But it reminds me a little bit of the fur controversy in the 90's.  Faux fur was gaining traction and people thought that was a great alternative to the real thing.  Soon people (probably peta) started saying 'well, yes that's better but you're still supporting the look'.  I know it sounds a bit extreme but it's interesting that soon after that the whole fur trend diminished quite a bit.  It still comes and goes in fashion cycles but hasn't regained nearly the popularity it once had.

[Dr.Vibrissae]

I don't really have a strong opinion about diamonds in general, actually I agree they're mostly bullshit.  The unsustainable part seems more relatable to pricing, since according to the article we're awash in the things. I was trying to point out what I see as the absurdity in claiming sapphires as a moral or financial high ground.  I thought it was funny.

I didn't mean to hurt feelings, or to personally attack you Roses. I agree with much of the sentiment. Your quote was just handy, and I thought a good example of the value judgement, since it is basically just an inverse of "anything other than a diamond is not a worthy engagement ring." 

[dragoncar]

The response that it is trendy to eschew diamonds or sanctimonious to speak against them seems to be a last line of defense in these discussions where people have very strong feelings about something that they just don't want to give up.  I get it, you feel attacked.  I'm sure there are plenty of things we could attack each other about.  What really gets my hackles up is not when you make a silly financial decision (I don't love the 'wall of shame' threads, for instance) but when your decision is such an egregious example of unsustainable, irresponsible practices.  Of course there is hypocrisy in many things we do (I used to drive an SUV!) but once we know about it shouldn't we at least try to remedy it?  To everyone who said their diamond is conflict-free, heirloom, recycled, whatever - that's wonderful.  It sounds like you considered the issue and made the least impactful choice.  I wish everyone would do that.  Heck, I wish I remembered to do that in every aspect of my life (For the record I don't own a diamond, sapphire or any other stone).  But it reminds me a little bit of the fur controversy in the 90's.  Faux fur was gaining traction and people thought that was a great alternative to the real thing.  Soon people (probably peta) started saying 'well, yes that's better but you're still supporting the look'.  I know it sounds a bit extreme but it's interesting that soon after that the whole fur trend diminished quite a bit.  It still comes and goes in fashion cycles but hasn't regained nearly the popularity it once had.

Even secondhand diamond sales support the cartels.  Diamonds are close enough to fungible that it doesn't really matter who you buy from.

[Undecided]

So as long as you really say you enjoy it, owning a 36 foot yacht, a Cessna, a Maserati, and a McMansion is a mustachian decision?

You and I have been reading different sites.

What about owning a 36 foot yacht, a Cessna, a Maserati or a McMansion? It may not be a perfect and complete embodiment of the developing MMM philosophy, but to the extent it reflects a careful and considered decision to purchase something that is genuinely "worth it" to the purchaser, understanding all that they are giving up in making that purchase of the thing they enjoy (which is, I know, different from "say[ing] you enjoy it") (and, depending on the extent to which it's a part of a "mustachian decision," understanding its impact on others), is there a price above which some item becomes conceptually different from any other purchase that isn't essential for survival? What is that price?   

[grantmeaname]

As I've tried to explain at least three times in this thread, value for money is only one of the Mustachian principles, as I see it. If you get a lot of value for the money out of shooting endangered wildlife with a .22 or burning dollar bills in front of poor people, the fact that your entire Saturday morning of recreation only costs $6 does not make it Mustachian. The site is also about environmental conscience and the intentional avoidance of conspicuous consumption, and all those things violate one if not both of the other two principles.

See:

Vilanelle was arguing that all things that cost a certain amount of money are equally mustachian, and I was disagreeing based on other principles.

not doing active harm to the environment and not buying status goods for the purpose of displaying wealth are core principles of the site, so I think it's reasonable to say that they're things that most on the forums value.

Opposition to unthinking or conspicuous consumerism is pretty much the central message of the site

They are the epitome of consumerism, which is something we oppose here.

Now that I've quoted it can you see how it's something I've mentioned in literally every single post in this thread?

[Undecided]

As I've tried to explain at least three times in this thread, value for money is only one of the Mustachian principles, as I see it. If you get a lot of value for the money out of shooting endangered wildlife with a .22 or burning dollar bills in front of poor people, the fact that your entire Saturday morning of recreation only costs $6 does not make it Mustachian. The site is also about environmental conscience and the intentional avoidance of conspicuous consumption, and all those things violate one if not both of the other two principles.

See:

Vilanelle was arguing that all things that cost a certain amount of money are equally mustachian, and I was disagreeing based on other principles.

not doing active harm to the environment and not buying status goods for the purpose of displaying wealth are core principles of the site, so I think it's reasonable to say that they're things that most on the forums value.

Opposition to unthinking or conspicuous consumerism is pretty much the central message of the site

They are the epitome of consumerism, which is something we oppose here.

Now that I've quoted it can you see how it's something I've mentioned in literally every single post in this thread?

Leaving aside  "value for money" and accepting that many or most decisions involve some impact on others or the environment (which doesn't necessarily rule out a reasonable decision to make such a decision, although I think that one should be aware of that impact), your assumption that some things can only be purchased as a result of unthinking or conspicuous consumerism (while seemingly not arguing against buying some items that are not strictly necessities) seems to me to reflect a presumption that others can't have decision-making processes or priorities sufficiently different from yours to arrive at the conclusion to purchase some exotic item except as a consequence of consumerism. Is that right? If you wouldn't buy it and someone else would, it must be because of "consumerism"? 

[James]

When the time comes, I'm just gonna get a tattoo on my ring finger.

My brother did this, he and his wife really like it. I would probably do this also, but it takes time and money that I'd rather not spend right now.

I think it's great that diamonds and rings are fading out of fashion, but I can't much get into the "white men caused our problem" meme. The problem is the dupes that fell for it, not the men, or women, of any race who have tried repeatedly throughout time to separate others from their money. Fashions change and some are better left behind than others.

Edited to add: I should mention that I consider myself to be one of those dupes... :)  Just part of human nature.

[dweebyhawkeyes]

[...] I can't much get into the "white men caused our problem" meme. The problem is the dupes that fell for it, not the men, or women, of any race who have tried repeatedly throughout time to separate others from their money.

Victim-blaming. Awesome.

As someone who's been keeping up with, but not really participating in this debate: I feel as though most attitudes in this thread have been thoroughly explained and discussed and now it's become too circular for any real progress. The same players are having to repeat their views over and over again (see: grantmeaname) and all that happening is increased aggression. Obviously diamonds are a more controversial topic than maybe any of us were expecting, but please can we just be civil with each other? Please read through the entire debate before posting. It's definitely a worthwhile topic, but we still have to treat each other like human beings.

[nsarwark]

This article from 1982 is interesting reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/?single_page=true

That article is the reason that I bought a sapphire engagement ring when I proposed to my wife.

-Nick

[grantmeaname]

Victim-blaming. Awesome.

Do you have anything more than dismissive buzzwords? Really engage with his point- diamonds aren't addictive or hard to understand, and there's only so much regulators can (or should) do to protect people from themselves. Ultimately the buyers have to step up and take the responsibility to act as real members of the marketplace in any setting, and there's a lot more nuance in the middle than flippant phrases would suggest.

Undecided: the entire point of some luxury goods is that they outwardly display value. Take Volkswagen's Routan, thousands more than the identical Grand Caravan. Take red wine, which is the economist's classic example of a credence good because people understand it so poorly. Take a Maserati, which ultimately does the same things as a Hyundai with identical leather seats. That is exactly conspicuous consumption, and without it few or no individuals would consume those specific luxury goods. It's not a question of differing uses- at some point a hardwood dresser is just a hardwood dresser, and if someone is willing to spend thirteen thousand dollars for an endangered hardwood inlay, that person is just signalling wealth.

[dweebyhawkeyes]

Victim-blaming. Awesome.

Do you have anything more than dismissive buzzwords? Really engage with his point-

Alright then. I think it's much more constructive to ask people to consider their consumer choices and show them what's possible (like hey, the Mr. Money Mustache blog does that! Cool.) than to attack people based on specific items and past decisions. There are a million ways that people can be destructive towards themselves and their environment using money- but at a certain point it's just cutting a person down to point out each individual "flaw" that you perceive. I'm a Christian and a vegan, two groups with awesome intentions that are known for cutting down people based on individual flaws- just generally being obnoxious and oppressive. The aggressive people stand out a lot more than the meek. You assume I know nothing because I use "dismissive buzzwords"? I feel I have a pretty good idea of what's going on here. You murder people's spirit by vilifying them for things they have done- how is that supposed to produce any positive change? No, you create a learning environment where a person feels he or she is loved and accepted. We want the best for the world at MMM. Optimism. Maybe read the Badass Utopia article again and let the love sink in. Once a person learns about and accepts a worldview, this dialogue will happen naturally within and he or she will really think over the consequences of each purchase- diamonds included. But retroactively beating someone up for a decision they made and now are trying to defend because they feel cornered and hated- sorry, but I don't see the value in that. And I'm seeing both sides of this argument doing the same.

grantmeaname, you are a valuable person with opinions that deserve to be heard. It's frustrating seeing people reading and disregarding everything you are saying, which causes you to repeat. Sorry if that's  what's causing your anger. If I'm making unfair assumptions here, feel free to say so.

[Undecided]

Victim-blaming. Awesome.

Do you have anything more than dismissive buzzwords? Really engage with his point- diamonds aren't addictive or hard to understand, and there's only so much regulators can (or should) do to protect people from themselves. Ultimately the buyers have to step up and take the responsibility to act as real members of the marketplace in any setting, and there's a lot more nuance in the middle than flippant phrases would suggest.

Undecided: the entire point of some luxury goods is that they outwardly display value. Take Volkswagen's Routan, thousands more than the identical Grand Caravan. Take red wine, which is the economist's classic example of a credence good because people understand it so poorly. Take a Maserati, which ultimately does the same things as a Hyundai with identical leather seats. That is exactly conspicuous consumption, and without it few or no individuals would consume those specific luxury goods. It's not a question of differing uses- at some point a hardwood dresser is just a hardwood dresser, and if someone is willing to spend thirteen thousand dollars for an endangered hardwood inlay, that person is just signalling wealth.

Even if nobody else sees their dresser?

You've continued to suggest that if you can't see any superiority in one item vs. another, than nobody else could either, and so could only be buying it to signal wealth or from "consumerism," so I'll assume that's what you mean.

There are relatively few categories of things about which I am sufficiently discerning (and with which I am sufficiently expert) to have a strong preference for particular types or degrees of "quality," but when it comes to those, I have strong preferences, even in the face of suspicion from others who are not as particular about those things. But, to your point, within those very few categories, I know that particular items exist as wealth signifiers. But I only feel equipped to make that judgment within a very limited scope of categories, and it just strikes me as presumptuous to cast that net as widely as you have. 

[grantmeaname]

grantmeaname, you are a valuable person with opinions that deserve to be heard. It's frustrating seeing people reading and disregarding everything you are saying, which causes you to repeat. Sorry if that's  what's causing your anger. If I'm making unfair assumptions here, feel free to say so.

That's not it at all. I just wanted to point out that you were unintentionally talking past someone else in the breath before you pled for a more productive discussion, and seeing that the could come across as nasty tried to explain what I thought he might be getting at. James isn't exactly known for a "fuck-em-all" mindset - he does pro bono medical work overseas, even - and knowing that, I figured the way I read his post might be different than the way you were reading it.

[grantmeaname]

You've continued to suggest that if you can't see any superiority in one item vs. another, than nobody else could either, and so could only be buying it to signal wealth or from "consumerism," so I'll assume that's what you mean.

No, I'm saying that there's no magic secret sauce and that value or priciness in the eyes of others is an attribute for some items that explains much of the reason that they're purchased. That's commonly accepted economic reality.

[Russ]

Victim-blaming. Awesome.

Do you have anything more than dismissive buzzwords? Really engage with his point-

Alright then. I think it's much more constructive to ask people to consider their consumer choices and show them what's possible (like hey, the Mr. Money Mustache blog does that! Cool.) than to attack people based on specific items and past decisions. There are a million ways that people can be destructive towards themselves and their environment using money- but at a certain point it's just cutting a person down to point out each individual "flaw" that you perceive. I'm a Christian and a vegan, two groups with awesome intentions that are known for cutting down people based on individual flaws- just generally being obnoxious and oppressive. The aggressive people stand out a lot more than the meek. You assume I know nothing because I use "dismissive buzzwords"? I feel I have a pretty good idea of what's going on here. You murder people's spirit by vilifying them for things they have done- how is that supposed to produce any positive change? No, you create a learning environment where a person feels he or she is loved and accepted. We want the best for the world at MMM. Optimism. Maybe read the Badass Utopia article again and let the love sink in. Once a person learns about and accepts a worldview, this dialogue will happen naturally within and he or she will really think over the consequences of each purchase- diamonds included. But retroactively beating someone up for a decision they made and now are trying to defend because they feel cornered and hated- sorry, but I don't see the value in that. And I'm seeing both sides of this argument doing the same.

grantmeaname, you are a valuable person with opinions that deserve to be heard. It's frustrating seeing people reading and disregarding everything you are saying, which causes you to repeat. Sorry if that's  what's causing your anger. If I'm making unfair assumptions here, feel free to say so.

I think I agree with what you're saying here, which I read as it's more productive to help people moving forward than to dwell on things they've done in the past. What I disagree with is calling it "victim-blaming". Blaming, sure. But "victim" to me implies that you absolve the decision-maker of all past responsibility.

Is this also what you're suggesting? If so, I'd be interested as to why.

[Russ]

Pure curiosity, for those who are in the conspicuous consumption discussion: At what point does the purchase of art become conspicuous consumption?

[dweebyhawkeyes]

I think I agree with what you're saying here, which I read as it's more productive to help people moving forward than to dwell on things they've done in the past. What I disagree with is calling it "victim-blaming". Blaming, sure. But "victim" to me implies that you absolve the decision-maker of all past responsibility.

Is this also what you're suggesting? If so, I'd be interested as to why.

It's funny, because I didn't think through the word choice very well and yet you just explained it in a way that pleases me. I just try to be as ridiculously merciful and understanding as I can in everyday life. It's hard, but it's worth trying out. There's a lot of spiritual reasons, and if anyone here is Christian, you'll know what I mean. Anyway I have no problem lifting past responsibility. As to why, it's because I've only seen positive change happen in others' or even my own life because we've been completely forgiven and given the tools to move on in a healthy way. I work at a preschool- I know that treating a child as though he's a "bad child" only gives him more reason to be bad. Let him know he's loved and has the power to change how he treats others and boom- he knows his potential and acts for the better. Bullying kids only creates more bullies. So I try to treat adults the same way, hopefully without being condescending.

Now I feel really preachy and uncomfortable haha but hopefully that answered your question. None of this is new, I've just known and worked with some really amazing people in my life and try to pass it on.

[Undecided]

You've continued to suggest that if you can't see any superiority in one item vs. another, than nobody else could either, and so could only be buying it to signal wealth or from "consumerism," so I'll assume that's what you mean.

No, I'm saying that there's no magic secret sauce and that value or priciness in the eyes of others is an attribute for some items that explains much of the reason that they're purchased. That's commonly accepted economic reality.

Before it was "the entire point" of those goods, and now it "explains much of the reason," which I take as at least a potentially more realistic view. And although it's never been my area, at one point I was sufficiently familiar with the divergent views offered up by behavioral economists, marketers and psychologists to be very skeptical that you're fairly portraying "commonly accepted economic realty" (unless you mean commonly accepted on these boards).

[grantmeaname]

So what in specific are you disputing? You've sequentially built three straw men now without seriously engaging what I'm saying!

[Undecided]

So what in specific are you disputing? You've sequentially built three straw men now without seriously engaging what I'm saying!

My point is that one has to have some level of familiarity or knowledge about a category of things in order to offer a meaningful opinion on what represents primarily a signifier of wealth. While most people may have a sufficient general familiarity with, e.g., cars, to feel comfortable offering that judgment regarding a Maserati, I don't buy the idea that most people are in a position to validly make that characterization without restraint. You seem quite comfortable doing so, as you seem to have concluded that certain purchases *cannot* be mustachian because they necessarily represent consumerist or wealth-signifying decisions. I think it's absurd that you think you can make that judgment in any abstract situation.

[grantmeaname]

you seem to have concluded that certain purchases *cannot* be mustachian because they necessarily represent consumerist or wealth-signifying decisions. I think it's absurd that you think you can make that judgment in any abstract situation.

I think it's absurd that Mustachianism is so exactly defined to you that there's any precision to it at all. Really, all any of us has is a fuzzy idea of what the concept means - it's not the Internal Revenue Code. Given that, it's impossible to go any deeper than generalities, and it's impossible for one of us to have the "right" fuzzy idea if the two of them don't match up exactly.

So yes, I do think that I can judge that owning a Maserati is unmustachian in any abstract situation. You're welcome to think otherwise, based on your differing understanding of the concept. I've explained my view in every different way I know how, appealing to half a dozen different concepts and examples.

[Undecided]

you seem to have concluded that certain purchases *cannot* be mustachian because they necessarily represent consumerist or wealth-signifying decisions. I think it's absurd that you think you can make that judgment in any abstract situation.

I think it's absurd that Mustachianism is so exactly defined to you that there's any precision to it at all. Really, all any of us has is a fuzzy idea of what the concept means - it's not the Internal Revenue Code. Given that, it's impossible to go any deeper than generalities, and it's impossible for one of us to have the "right" fuzzy idea if the two of them don't match up exactly.

So yes, I do think that I can judge that owning a Maserati is unmustachian in any abstract situation. You're welcome to think otherwise, based on your differing understanding of the concept. I've explained my view in every different way I know how, appealing to half a dozen different concepts and examples.

No, you've suggested that you have a far more precise picture of it than I think I have. I don't think it's really anything like a system in the first place, more like a number of gut reactions some or most of which are shared by most of the people on these boards. You've been the one to assert effectively categorical incompatibilities between "mustachian" and "unmustachian" behavior; I'm just asking you how you've drawn any lines and why you're confident in where you've drawn them, and I haven't seen a single explanation, concept or example in response to that. If you know it when you see it, that's a fine response.

[grantmeaname]

Not categories, but opposite poles on spectra. I think the larger concept we've all been getting at, finding a balance between the competing demands of frugality, value, and considering the effects on others, is a valid one. I don't think there's a single right answer to whether or not one should spend more for cage-free eggs, for example - you've got a decrease in value on one hand and an increase in the welfare of the birds on the other. You and I should both weigh those factors against each other, and in the end we may come to different conclusions.

But I also think there are certain examples that lay so far at the Antimustachian end of some dimensions that they cannot possibly be Mustachian. That was the point of the eagle example: even if it's really frugal and you get an awful lot of joy out of it, I can't consider shooting critically endangered animals for fun Mustachian.

[EMP]

Pure curiosity, for those who are in the conspicuous consumption discussion: At what point does the purchase of art become conspicuous consumption?

When you're the embarrassed dad of the pre-teen sitting front in center at the VMA's.

[Roses]

So yes, I do think that I can judge that owning a Maserati is unmustachian in any abstract situation. You're welcome to think otherwise, based on your differing understanding of the concept. I've explained my view in every different way I know how, appealing to half a dozen different concepts and examples.

Don't forget that one of the questions when you sign up for this forum is "Cadillac Escalade: Mustachian or Unmustachian?"  I don't know much about cars but I assume an Escalade and a Maserati are similarly expensive symbols of wealth and consumption.  And I believe the question is asked in an abstract sense.

[Roses]

I don't really have a strong opinion about diamonds in general, actually I agree they're mostly bullshit.  The unsustainable part seems more relatable to pricing, since according to the article we're awash in the things. I was trying to point out what I see as the absurdity in claiming sapphires as a moral or financial high ground.  I thought it was funny.

I didn't mean to hurt feelings, or to personally attack you Roses. I agree with much of the sentiment. Your quote was just handy, and I thought a good example of the value judgement, since it is basically just an inverse of "anything other than a diamond is not a worthy engagement ring."

No worries.  Your comment was fine.  I wasn't the one who said sapphires were superior.  I was thinking of really cheap rings.  None of us can really help being swayed by something we believe to be expensive (blind wine tastings come to mind) so I was saying that if you know your ring is made of stainless steel and a cubic zirconia but you're still swept off your feet and gaze at it every chance you get then you know you're really not influenced by price.  I'm not saying I'm one of those people.  I just aspire to be. 

[Roses]

Even secondhand diamond sales support the cartels.  Diamonds are close enough to fungible that it doesn't really matter who you buy from.

Interesting.  Thanks, Dragoncar.  I didn't realize that.

Pure curiosity, for those who are in the conspicuous consumption discussion: At what point does the purchase of art become conspicuous consumption?

It depends on your circle.  If your friends and family know a lot about art they can probably guess what you spent on it.  I like art but I really have no idea what something is 'worth' when I see it hanging on a wall.  I just know what pleases me.  I think art should be purchased based on whether you enjoy looking at it or not.  I've heard people say they buy art as an investment but I don't know much about that.

But I think the other purchases being discussed here - diamonds, cars, mansions - are a bit easier for most people to asses and therefore either judge or be impressed.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Pure curiosity, for those who are in the conspicuous consumption discussion: At what point does the purchase of art become conspicuous consumption?

This is a very valid question.

I would say when you are over spending or under saving, then that 'art' becomes conspicuous consumption.

Edit to add, I like what James said. We aren't victims here. We are the consumers who a choice to buy that which is placed before us.

[jiggy-z]

I have an old engagement ring that I got back when I divorced years ago.  Where would be the best place to unload this thing?  Its about 1.5K I paid $2,800 for it about 20 years ago and it was appraised at that time for $5,000 ish.  Not really interested in Craigslist based on preconceived notions, but I am open if anyone has had a good experience with this type of stuff or a better means of sale.  Thanks.

[DoubleDown]

I have an old engagement ring that I got back when I divorced years ago.  Where would be the best place to unload this thing?  Its about 1.5K I paid $2,800 for it about 20 years ago and it was appraised at that time for $5,000 ish.  Not really interested in Craigslist based on preconceived notions, but I am open if anyone has had a good experience with this type of stuff or a better means of sale.  Thanks.

I think Craigslist or another online buying/selling site like eBay will definitely be your best bet for getting the most money for your ring. Going to a jeweler or anywhere else will get you considerably less money, though perhaps less hassle. You may already know this, but the price you will get anywhere will be nowhere the appraisal value, which does not really reflect retail value.

I've used Craigslist as both a buyer and a seller, and overall I like it. You get the the bad with the good, but despite the occasional negative experiences (buyers who flake out, etc.) it's still vastly worth it to me.

Best of luck!

[chasesfish]

I paid $475 on eBay 10 yrs ago.  Wife still wears it every day

[rubybeth]

I have an old engagement ring that I got back when I divorced years ago.  Where would be the best place to unload this thing?  Its about 1.5K I paid $2,800 for it about 20 years ago and it was appraised at that time for $5,000 ish.  Not really interested in Craigslist based on preconceived notions, but I am open if anyone has had a good experience with this type of stuff or a better means of sale.  Thanks.

Try www.diamondbistro.com or www.loupetroop.com and study what other listings are like before making your own. Use PayPal for payment.

[EMP]

http://www.idonowidont.com

Seems right up your alley.