[Jimmie]

Diamonds would be a good example too, right? Platinum would be even better in this situation, I think, because it has more practical uses than diamonds.

[colechristensen]

Diamonds aren't worth very much. Try reselling a diamond to find out how little they're really worth.

[jquery]

Computers aren't worth very much. Try reselling a computer to find out how little they're really worth.

Cars aren't worth very much. Try reselling a car to find out how little they're really worth.

Shoes aren't worth very much. Try reselling a shoe to find out how little they're really worth.

[jquery]

I love how HN is some bastion of free-market thinking, but when it comes to items of fashion (aka items that females tend to desire), suddenly supply and demand go out the window, and the pricing of diamonds (and other fashion items) is a vast conspiracy. Horseshit. De Beers monopoly died a long time ago. Diamonds are no more overpriced than any other item of fashion. If you want to buy diamonds at "wholesale" prices there is nothing stopping you.

[iwwr]

Diamonds are not an investment vehicle, but rather a consumer item. They carry high markups and have a limited resale market.

[jdale27]

Cars and shoes depreciate because they wear out. Computers depreciate for the same reason, and more so for the fact that the price/performance ratio of computing technology improves so rapidly. Neither of those apply to diamonds.

[talentdeficit]

diamonds aren't artificially scarce to control demand, they're artificially scarce due to low demand. bringing a gigantic chunk of platinum to earth isn't going to increase the utility of platinum, although if prices fall far enough it may increase the utilization