Diamonds are popular gemstones surrounded by popular misconceptions. We'll tell you how they became so prized and debunk some of those diamond myths, too.
On the contrary, the diamond supply is artificially limited by debeer and their cartel. The mines are producing way below capacity to keep prices high.
That doesn’t refute my statement in any way. We’re talking about diamonds vs other gemstones. Had you said “gemstone X is valued more than diamonds both in monetary and world-wide cultural sense, here is a source”, I might agree, but all you’re saying is “we are mining more diamonds than other gemstones, and we could be mining even more but aren’t”. That says nothing about whether the are more gemstones out there than diamonds or not.
Imagine we had 1 billion gemstone X , 10 billion gemstone Y, and 100 billion gemstone Z, but gemstone X was the most culturally and monetarily valuable gemstone and the others were worth a fraction thereof. Gemstone X would naturally be mined more and thus be more prevalent. If you mined 1k of gemstone X and held back others from mining to control the number on the market, sure, you could say “we could mine much more, therefore it is incredibly abundant”, but that would be false because Y and Z actually are the more abundant gemstones.
The article doesn’t reveal any numbers whatsoever, so simply saying “it’s the most abundant gemstone out there” is a valueless statement.
YOUR assertion was that they’re more common because they’re mined more. By definition that means we’re talking about gems that have been mined and are floating around aboveground. So why are you moving the goalposts now by bringing up the total number underground?
My statement was just addressing your assertion that diamonds are prevalent because they’re mined more due to their value, by pointing out that on the contrary they’re actually being artificially supply constrained to keep that value high. I make no claims about other gemstones.
The article makes the claim but doesn’t back it up with anything. I could also write an article and say “although many people wear diamonds, the most abundant gemstone on the planet is rutile” without providing a single source.
This is what it says:
However, diamonds actually number among the most common gems. Ask yourself this: “How many people do you know who own at least one diamond?” Now, ask this question about other gems, like rubies, sapphires, or emeralds.
While we have much to learn about the Earth’s interior, our current knowledge of gem formation indicates that diamonds are likely the most common gem in nature.
Surely that’s because we value them more and they are thus mined more.
On the contrary, the diamond supply is artificially limited by debeer and their cartel. The mines are producing way below capacity to keep prices high.
That doesn’t refute my statement in any way. We’re talking about diamonds vs other gemstones. Had you said “gemstone X is valued more than diamonds both in monetary and world-wide cultural sense, here is a source”, I might agree, but all you’re saying is “we are mining more diamonds than other gemstones, and we could be mining even more but aren’t”. That says nothing about whether the are more gemstones out there than diamonds or not.
Imagine we had 1 billion gemstone X , 10 billion gemstone Y, and 100 billion gemstone Z, but gemstone X was the most culturally and monetarily valuable gemstone and the others were worth a fraction thereof. Gemstone X would naturally be mined more and thus be more prevalent. If you mined 1k of gemstone X and held back others from mining to control the number on the market, sure, you could say “we could mine much more, therefore it is incredibly abundant”, but that would be false because Y and Z actually are the more abundant gemstones.
The article doesn’t reveal any numbers whatsoever, so simply saying “it’s the most abundant gemstone out there” is a valueless statement.
YOUR assertion was that they’re more common because they’re mined more. By definition that means we’re talking about gems that have been mined and are floating around aboveground. So why are you moving the goalposts now by bringing up the total number underground?
My statement was just addressing your assertion that diamonds are prevalent because they’re mined more due to their value, by pointing out that on the contrary they’re actually being artificially supply constrained to keep that value high. I make no claims about other gemstones.
What do you think the article is about? Read the headline.
No, they are just more abundant.
The article makes the claim but doesn’t back it up with anything. I could also write an article and say “although many people wear diamonds, the most abundant gemstone on the planet is rutile” without providing a single source.
This is what it says:
That’s it.