3 ms·

Here's an alternative (and actually academic) look at it. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf

Here's an alternative (and actually academic) look at it. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/rings.pdf TL;DR, the data doesn't back up the advertising thesis.

RodericDay 11y ago
Dude, come on. That's from George Mason University- basically a libertarian think-tank.
- pionar 11y ago
  I wouldn't exactly call the author a libertarian mouthpiece[0]. But I wouldn't call her an economist, either. However, if this was truly a libertarian talking point, I would posit that libertarians would see the topic "Diamonds are expensive because of marketing, not inherent value." and think, "So what?" That's the free market. If the diamond has no value to you, don't buy the diamond. It's not a necessity. Note that I'm not an economist and definitely not a libertarian. 0 - http://law.nd.edu/directory/margaret-brinig/ http://law.nd.edu/directory/margaret-brinig/
pionar 11y ago
The change in demand for diamond engagement rings may therefore be explained by an increase in need for such a bond because of the abolition of a cause of action for breach of marriage promise. My guess, having apparently found a reason for the change in demand for diamond engagement rings, is that many other mysterious demand changes could be accounted for as well, given some though as to what the commodity might mean to consumers and some exploration of the legal or other changes of the time during which the demand change occurred. Interesting, indeed. Thanks for the read!
mcv 11y ago
Is this something that units the US, Japan and China, and distinguishes them from Europe? I have my doubts. Also, I don't understand the supposed logic behind a change in marriage law and a rising demand for diamonds.
- mseebach 11y ago
  So, let's rewind to a world of significantly more socially conservative attitudes to sex, partly driven by patriarchy, but also very much driven by the absence of easy-to-access, reliable contraception. Two young love-birds are getting frisky, guy says "don't worry, I'll marry you", they get down to business, and then he bails. Poor young girl is now damaged goods. She's plausibly even pregnant, but even if she's not, her marriage prospects are down. She can sue the guy for breach of marriage promise. Then the law changes, breaching a marriage promise is no longer something you can sue for. In the same situation, the guy's promise to marry the girl no longer hold the same weight because she can't sue -- so they come up with a bond instead: An expensive gift that is forfeited if the guy doesn't keep up his promise to marry.
  - mcv 11y ago
    Interesting theory, however, as far as I know, you can't sue for damages for a broken engagement in Netherland, yet diamond engagement rings have never taken off here. Besides, if you need that kind of collateral before you can trust a guy, maybe you should be looking for another guy in the first place. It also doesn't explain why people who don't have premarital sex still want diamond rings. So all in all, not a great theory.

RodericDay 11y ago

Dude, come on. That's from George Mason University- basically a libertarian think-tank.

pionar 11y ago
I wouldn't exactly call the author a libertarian mouthpiece[0]. But I wouldn't call her an economist, either. However, if this was truly a libertarian talking point, I would posit that libertarians would see the topic "Diamonds are expensive because of marketing, not inherent value." and think, "So what?" That's the free market. If the diamond has no value to you, don't buy the diamond. It's not a necessity. Note that I'm not an economist and definitely not a libertarian. 0 - http://law.nd.edu/directory/margaret-brinig/ http://law.nd.edu/directory/margaret-brinig/

pionar 11y ago

The change in demand for diamond engagement rings may therefore be explained by an increase in need for such a bond because of the abolition of a cause of action for breach of marriage promise. My guess, having apparently found a reason for the change in demand for diamond engagement rings, is that many other mysterious demand changes could be accounted for as well, given some though as to what the commodity might mean to consumers and some exploration of the legal or other changes of the time during which the demand change occurred. Interesting, indeed. Thanks for the read!

mcv 11y ago

Is this something that units the US, Japan and China, and distinguishes them from Europe? I have my doubts. Also, I don't understand the supposed logic behind a change in marriage law and a rising demand for diamonds.

mseebach 11y ago
So, let's rewind to a world of significantly more socially conservative attitudes to sex, partly driven by patriarchy, but also very much driven by the absence of easy-to-access, reliable contraception. Two young love-birds are getting frisky, guy says "don't worry, I'll marry you", they get down to business, and then he bails. Poor young girl is now damaged goods. She's plausibly even pregnant, but even if she's not, her marriage prospects are down. She can sue the guy for breach of marriage promise. Then the law changes, breaching a marriage promise is no longer something you can sue for. In the same situation, the guy's promise to marry the girl no longer hold the same weight because she can't sue -- so they come up with a bond instead: An expensive gift that is forfeited if the guy doesn't keep up his promise to marry.
- mcv 11y ago
  Interesting theory, however, as far as I know, you can't sue for damages for a broken engagement in Netherland, yet diamond engagement rings have never taken off here. Besides, if you need that kind of collateral before you can trust a guy, maybe you should be looking for another guy in the first place. It also doesn't explain why people who don't have premarital sex still want diamond rings. So all in all, not a great theory.