Submitted by bsfootprint on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 00:03
Here's an interesting article written in 1982, in the Atlantic magazine. "Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?"
It describes the De Beers diamond cartel, and the ways in which we've been convinced of the "value" of diamonds. Hint: They aren't all that rare or inherently valuable...
The diamond invention—the creation of the idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteem—is a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade. Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. In 1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. The financiers feared that when new mines were developed in South Africa, diamonds would become at best only semiprecious gems.
Submitted by bsfootprint on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 05:58
It's official. Google is Microsoft evil.
Brian S. Hall, writing in a recent BusinessInsider.com editorial, enumerates Google's many transgressions. Go there and RTWT.
My main quibble: Hall describes Google as a monopoly. It's not. It's very successful. While it dominates several markets, Google enjoys no legal protections that prevent competitors trying to take market share away.
Google has a variety of "unfair advantages", and can exploit those advantages to... well... Google's advantage. So it does. It has a responsibility to its shareholders to exploit those advantages, maximize profits and expand into new markets, in every legally permissible way. Hall describes some ethically questionable business practices, but nothing overtly illegal.
Regarding Google's propaganda, I've held the cynical view that:
Their motto could be paraphrased as: Don't be evil -- until you're too powerful for anyone to do anything about it. Google's there now.
Google will do 'evil' because it's big, successful, powerful, and a business. In today's popular culture, big, successful businesses are inherently evil. Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
As one commenter to the New York Magazine article points out, today the college degree is not irrelevant, rather, it has become a commodity, but a commodity required to get "any kind of job".
But what does that mean? Is the college degree really a requirement for a decent job, without which one is doomed to a life of menial work?
I think not. I think that this trend has made the college degree the new seal of conformity. The new high school diploma. This excerpt is telling:
As for college being a good investment, Thiel believes the 74 percent wage-premium figure to be as inflated as tuition prices. A Clarium report Thiel commissioned in 2009 analyzed government data to argue that, while the return on a college diploma indeed increased markedly between 1978 and 2000, that’s only because the return on a high-school diploma decreased markedly during that same period.
If a majority of kids now get college degrees, then it becomes the expected level of education you must attain in order to get an average job. It's another form of inflation. The average job may be slightly more challenging today than it was a generation ago, but it's still just an average job. Only now lots of young people are going deeply into debt in order to get and hold the average job. If they can get a job at all.Continue reading or add a comment»