you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -15 points 1 year ago (22 children)

1300 diamonds in Eugénie‘s crown? That shoulda been sold and given to the people long time ago. Take a pic and move on.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    They were in a museum, they belonged to the people there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Liquidate some old rich people’s assets to benefit the people of France, or keep them in a box to stare at and remember how much wealthier they all were than you? “Belonged to the people” is a very loose description since they have no control over what the Louvre does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Sales tax on the tickets alone more than makes up for the value of the item itself though. 8.7 million visitors a year results in a shitton of tax money which benefits the people of France.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Totally, but people would still line up to see Mona Lisa. Not saying to get rid of the museum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Sure, though it could be less people for the same ticket price.

    If we look at the extreme case, removing every item from the Louvre but the Mona Lisa would result in significantly less tax income because there's no way millions would spend [insert Louvre ticket price I am too lazy to research]€ for looking at a single painting for 5 minutes.

    Museums with more items generally result in more money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who said to make the Louvre just the Mona Lisa?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is your brain on workerism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    These are beautiful impressive works of art and craftsmanship and you want to sell them off for like 8 hours of government budget so they can sit in one of those rich guys collections.

    You arent just going on about lame ass workerist platitudes about "benefiting the people" its not even a coherent position once you step back even a little.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Wow you love the crown. You’re unable to even think of ways to spend the money outside of government. This mentality is exactly that of Empress Eugénie’s and why the Second Empire was easily overthrown. Valuing jewels over people is astonishingly dystopian.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Diamonds are worthless. Shiny coal. Some interesting industries applications, but you can get much better quality ones for much cheaper, if you're looking for that kind of thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Diamonds are worthless is a crazy statement. Tell that to every person who has ever had to buy a diamond engagement ring.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Falling for a well known scam doesn't make the crap you bought any less worthless.

    Buy a moissanite, if you want a shiny rock. It's prettier, almost as hard, cheaper than the overpriced cartel shit, and you won't be financing said cartels.

    (And if you just want something particularly hard or good at heat transfer, industrial diamonds are quite inexpensive.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Just because you think something is worthless doesn’t mean you can afford to buy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's fucking carbon.

    It's one of the most common gems on Earth.

    The only reason jewelry diamonds are expensive (industrial ones are cheap) is the artificial scarcity enforced by the criminal cartels controlling their monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    If it’s up then it’s up. You’re opinion clearly has no effect on the market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    You’re opinion clearly has no effect on the market.

    Of course not. De Beers' does. That's the point.

    Do try to resell a jewelry diamond, though, and tell me how much profit you made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The point is that Empress Eugénie’s crown alone could fetch tens of millions for the people of France, whether you like it or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The point is that 99% of the value of the crown jewels is in their historical and cultural significance, 99% of the rest of the value is on the design and craftsmanship, 99% of the remaining value is on the metals and jewels excluding the diamonds, and the remaining one millionth is on the diamonds themselves.

    And that's probably exaggerating the value of the diamonds.

    Focusing on the diamonds is like looking at a famous painting and deciding it must be valuable because the nail it's hanged on is particularly shiny.

    When it comes to the value of the crown, the diamonds are less relevant than the dust it's covered on (which at least has historical significance).

  • source
  • parent