Does it stand to reason that the first buyer may pay a premium for that efficacy and likely gets some period lock in for that premium?
You think the jewellers want to prevent the price paid to mines from falling? Well, I guess we just disagree on this, without non-anecdotal data I think we're stuck 
-
-
No, the miners do. Jewelers would like to control prices in their own markets not their suppliers (miners). In other words they want to pay little and sell for high. Miners retain control by creating scarcity and demand. They loose control of either and their business collapses.
-
I asked what would happen if a major diamond buyer goes out of business - who buys the bankrupt buyer to prevent prevent prices from falling - the miners?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There isn't good pricing data but at least there's a little bit of collision data
-
Not really sure that would help, we would need to see the effect on pricing of a major purchaser exiting a market.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
He’s got you on the diamond market thing. He picked a non-hypothetical well studied perverse market.
-
But while we’ve addressed the economic questions, I still have seen nothing to suggest the gov would make this deal and further nothing to suggest they would keep their end. Why would they keep that bargain? It’s literally against their intelligence interests.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.