Diamonds That Make the World a Better Place - Interview with Martin Rapaport

[pricescope]

Watch Martin Rapaport talking about conflict diamonds, Kimberly Process and Diamond Fair Trade initiative - "Diamonds that make the world a better place".

Those who cannot play the video in your browsers, try this link to play all the clips in your standalone player

 

[belle]

thanks to all who took the time to put together this interview. it was interesting to see mr. rapaports initiatives and his view of giving the gift of a diamond.

 

[strmrdr]

sounds kewl but im not too keen on the premium.

Its kinda sad that it takes that much effort to make sure the miners are getting a fair slice of the pie instead of getting exploited.
The more things change the more they stay the same....
Diamonds haven''t been a way to transfer wealth from the richest to the poorest it has been about exploitation on both ends of the deal.
Pay the miners next to nothing on one end and hoard to create artificial scarcity on the other to jack prices up.
With DeBeers getting rich in the middle......

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

That is a rather naive view Storm? I thought you might get down a bit deeper than the usual trite journalistic blah blah.

This is a real problem and real problems are rarely black and white (definitely no pun intended).

If you want to point fingers at the top, you could also ask why a few thousand cotton farmers in USA, or olive subsidizing collectors in Europe. get money from taxpayers at the expense of people living on a dollar a day in many 3rd world countries.

People who want to pay a little more for fair trade coffee will pay a little more quite happily.

It remains to be seen how the same idea will work with diamonds, but I for one will give it a try.
If the people come, then they come. If not, then I loose a little and learn a little.

But i think I have plenty of clients who will pay a little more - maybe 1 in 10?

 

[kenny]

Wow
Wonderful

The opposite of WalMart''s philosophy, which is "I don''t care what you have to do, just sell it as cheaply as possible and they will come."

 

[strmrdr]

A student of history wouldnt call it naive its how the world works......

Id be shocked if it was 1 in 10 most feel-goodism stops once it hits the pocketbook.
Its only cool if its other peoples money being spent.

As for subsidies they aren't kewl in my book either unless the product is a war time necessity which is where the cotton subsidies came from originally but once you get people sponging off the government its hard to kick em off.
Its no longer a vital part of the war machine so it should be dropped and the money put into r&d or better yet returned to the people in the form of lower taxes.

imho any country should tax the tar out of natural resources being exported from that country and spend the money for the good of that country not making foreign companies rich.

 

[Kaleigh]

I enjoyed the video, and applaud the efforts that Mr. Rapaport is making. Better late than never. I think what he is trying to do is great. We all need to be aware and be mindful of the plight of the diggers, and if money can be given back to them and free them from their plight, and can pursue other venues of income, that''s awesome. Would I pay a premuim to have a stone that is documented to be conflict free?? Yes I would. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Awareness is key, the video did that for me. Thanks PS for taking the time to share it with us.

 

[whatmeworry]

Thanks for sharing the video. Please keep us informed of the progress of the initiative.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/6/2006 1:25:59 AM
Author: Kaleigh
I enjoyed the video, and applaud the efforts that Mr. Rapaport is making. Better late than never. I think what he is trying to do is great. We all need to be aware and be mindful of the plight of the diggers, and if money can be given back to them and free them from their plight, and can pursue other venues of income, that''s awesome. Would I pay a premuim to have a stone that is documented to be conflict free?? Yes I would. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Awareness is key, the video did that for me. Thanks PS for taking the time to share it with us.

Thanks for your lovely sentiments Kaleigh. But if i may - it is easy to document that a diamond comes from Australia, or Canada, or South Africa etc - but that does nothing to help the people who most need help.

I have been arguing for some time that we should not pay a premium for conflict free diamonds (which 99% are anyway - wether documented individually or not). Buying a conflict free diamond from a rich country does nothing to support poor artisanal diggers.

Hopefully within a year we will be able to offer diamonds that do help with development.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/6/2006 12:48:26 AM
Author: strmrdr
A student of history wouldnt call it naive its how the world works......

Id be shocked if it was 1 in 10 most feel-goodism stops once it hits the pocketbook.
Its only cool if its other peoples money being spent.

As for subsidies they aren''t kewl in my book either unless the product is a war time necessity which is where the cotton subsidies came from originally but once you get people sponging off the government its hard to kick em off.
Its no longer a vital part of the war machine so it should be dropped and the money put into r&d or better yet returned to the people in the form of lower taxes.

imho any country should tax the tar out of natural resources being exported from that country and spend the money for the good of that country not making foreign companies rich.

Agreed

Now how do we move the thinking away from defense and where else the US should spend its money - to the damage that is being unleashed on African and Indian families trying to make a living growing and value adding cotton when the price is forced down by grossly subsidized US farmers who maybe should be encouraged to grow other crops (oil and gas replacing?).

 

[Serg]

Re: But i think I have plenty of clients who will pay a little more - maybe 1 in 10?

Garry,
what is real percentage of conflict diamonds? How can 10% clients change the market of conflict diamonds? Even 50% clients can not do it because % conflict diamonds is too small.
And I do not believe what additional money can back to miners.
DO you know who and why pick up discussion about conflict diamonds several years ( more then 5 years ago) ?
What was real motive of this company?

 

[Regular Guy]

Serg,

I understand that the topic is not conflict diamonds, but rather the diamond fair trade initiative. Consequently, what''s effected is not the sub 1% of diamonds that are still conflict, but instead, virtually 100% of all diamonds still, where the conditions for the miners continues to be deplorable.

Getting the money to the miners? I think it''s good Rappaport''s background is in economics, because imputing a system, which will be necessary, would be the strategy necessary, I''m sure. It sounds like he''s already done a test run, and knows set ups. He even mentions having $3K worth of diamonds for sale now, I think. And re motive, I take him at his word, that this is a genuine endeavor, not driven by profit making incentives, but still, seeking where options for profit may be available.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/6/2006 7:40:21 AM
Author: Regular Guy
Serg,

I understand that the topic is not conflict diamonds, but rather the diamond fair trade initiative. Consequently, what''s effected is not the sub 1% of diamonds that are still conflict, but instead, virtually 100% of all diamonds still, where the conditions for the miners continues to be deplorable. Infact most diamonds are mined in very good conditions with huge trucks and earth moving equipment by well paid miners. And these diamonds can only become Development diamonds when countries like Namibia and Botswana make export taxes and then move to sort and then cut and polish the diamonds in their own country. These things are happening right now. and thse diamonds could and should be marketed as development diamonds too.
Just as Indian polished diamonds could have an opportunity to showcase the huge improvements in living standards and working and education etc that the people who work for many diamond companies there. I personally know the heads of companies there who operate private schools for the childeren of their staff.

Getting the money to the miners? I think it''s good Rappaport''s background is in economics, because imputing a system, which will be necessary, would be the strategy necessary, I''m sure. It sounds like he''s already done a test run, and knows set ups. He even mentions having $3K worth of diamonds for sale now, I think. And re motive, I take him at his word, that this is a genuine endeavor, not driven by profit making incentives, but still, seeking where options for profit may be available.
Yes Martin is genuine about this. He came to Australia on one of the longest flights he ever suffered to give a key note speech to Aussie jewellers at the trade fair - about 2000 or 2001.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s168965.htm

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/6/2006 8:31:33 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Infact most diamonds are mined in very good conditions with huge trucks and earth moving equipment by well paid miners. And these diamonds can only become Development diamonds when countries like Namibia and Botswana make export taxes and then move to sort and then cut and polish the diamonds in their own country. These things are happening right now. and thse diamonds could and should be marketed as development diamonds too.

Why associate good mining conditions with bad?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/6/2006 8:47:36 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/6/2006 8:31:33 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Infact most diamonds are mined in very good conditions with huge trucks and earth moving equipment by well paid miners. And these diamonds can only become Development diamonds when countries like Namibia and Botswana make export taxes and then move to sort and then cut and polish the diamonds in their own country. These things are happening right now. and thse diamonds could and should be marketed as development diamonds too.

Why associate good mining conditions with bad?

because its not all about mining conditions.
What these countries need first to move into the modern world is basic infrastructure.

stable government, highways, power plants, trains, hospitals, schools, farm equipment, telecommunication systems.
Until these things are in place jobs wont be there other than exploitation type jobs.
Once these are in place the next step is living wage mass production jobs and then move up the ladder from there.
It is a model that Korea and Taiwan and India and Brazil and many others have used to drag themselves out of the cycle of mass poverty.
Martin Rapaport touches on this in his interview when he talks about creating jobs outside of diamonds and moving people into them.

edit: the coutries that Garry is talking about are further along this road than others but hasnt reached the point yet that they arent dependant on the diamond trade for the majority of the hard currency needed to move forward.
They are on the road but not out of the woods yet.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/6/2006 8:47:36 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/6/2006 8:31:33 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Infact most diamonds are mined in very good conditions with huge trucks and earth moving equipment by well paid miners. And these diamonds can only become Development diamonds when countries like Namibia and Botswana make export taxes and then move to sort and then cut and polish the diamonds in their own country. These things are happening right now. and thse diamonds could and should be marketed as development diamonds too.

Why associate good mining conditions with bad?

It's a matter of how the profits are used, Ira. Botswana is a kind of model for what could (should) happen in Sierra Leone. Money from the diamond trade has been used to build infrastructure and education for the people. Now they are further-expanding industry. They have used their diamond industry as a life-line.

Strm, what may interest you is that DeBeers is facing big changes in respect to all of this. One major change could see a shift of part of their marketing operation from London to Gabrone, where a massive new facility is being built for aggregation. Implementing that will be breaking a 60-year tradition (those plans are not final). Additionally, DeBeers is responding to pressure by various African governments to give more site-based autonomy and importance, as Garry describes above. Namibia, Angola, Botswana and South Africa want beneficiation - or more diamonds to be cut and polished locally - which would give them a larger share of the wealth generated from mining activities.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan of Sierra Leone said just last month: “Currently, the most serious potential threats to the country’s stability emanate from domestic challenges, including the need to improve the general standard of living of the population, stimulate economic progress, step up anti-corruption efforts and address the issue of high unemployment, particularly of the youth."

This is why Rapaport's proposal has teeth. This is a renounced country that wants its markets opened. Other African nations have already empowered themselves. Meanwhile, 70% of the people in Sierra Leone live on less than a dollar per day. Diamonds are the country's only significant current natural resource - but they are an abundant one.

Employing a labeling organization for ‘fair trade jewelry’ would address the 'serious threats' Annan stated above. It would also address the root cause of the problem: The poverty of those who dig diamonds. Governments could realize increased value and legitimized trade by agreeing to terms whereby money is directed back into relief efforts; ensuring the product did no harm, only good.

In the macro, Serg's point is valid. Many estimates place the actual percentage of conflict diamonds in the world's rough output at p]

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/6/2006 3:11:44 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/6/2006 12:48:26 AM
Author: strmrdr
A student of history wouldnt call it naive its how the world works......

Id be shocked if it was 1 in 10 most feel-goodism stops once it hits the pocketbook.
Its only cool if its other peoples money being spent.

As for subsidies they aren''t kewl in my book either unless the product is a war time necessity which is where the cotton subsidies came from originally but once you get people sponging off the government its hard to kick em off.
Its no longer a vital part of the war machine so it should be dropped and the money put into r&d or better yet returned to the people in the form of lower taxes.

imho any country should tax the tar out of natural resources being exported from that country and spend the money for the good of that country not making foreign companies rich.

Agreed

Now how do we move the thinking away from defense and where else the US should spend its money - to the damage that is being unleashed on African and Indian families trying to make a living growing and value adding cotton when the price is forced down by grossly subsidized US farmers who maybe should be encouraged to grow other crops (oil and gas replacing?).

That is a trillion dollar question and the problem is corruption most of the money goes to large corporations that gets channeled into votes for polititions.
The money could be much better spent taking care of the poor and creating opportunities at home.
The idea of giving money for foreign aid does not work giving opportunities works much better.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/6/2006 9:36:04 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/6/2006 8:47:36 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/6/2006 8:31:33 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Infact most diamonds are mined in very good conditions with huge trucks and earth moving equipment by well paid miners. And these diamonds can only become Development diamonds when countries like Namibia and Botswana make export taxes and then move to sort and then cut and polish the diamonds in their own country. These things are happening right now. and thse diamonds could and should be marketed as development diamonds too.

Why associate good mining conditions with bad?

It''s a matter of how the profits are used, Ira. Botswana is a kind of model for what could (should) happen in Sierra Leone. Money from the diamond trade has been used to build infrastructure and education for the people. Now they are further-expanding industry. They have used their diamond industry as a life-line.

Strm, what may interest you is that DeBeers is facing big changes in respect to all of this. One major change could see a shift of part of their marketing operation from London to Gabrone, where a massive new facility is being built for aggregation. Implementing that will be breaking a 60-year tradition (those plans are not final). Additionally, DeBeers is responding to pressure by various African governments to give more site-based autonomy and importance, as Garry describes above. Namibia, Angola, Botswana and South Africa want beneficiation - or more diamonds to be cut and polished locally - which would give them a larger share of the wealth generated from mining activities.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan of Sierra Leone said just last month: “Currently, the most serious potential threats to the country’s stability emanate from domestic challenges, including the need to improve the general standard of living of the population, stimulate economic progress, step up anti-corruption efforts and address the issue of high unemployment, particularly of the youth.''

This is why Rapaport''s proposal has teeth. This is a renounced country that wants its markets opened. Other African nations have already empowered themselves. Meanwhile, 70% of the people in Sierra Leone live on less than a dollar per day. Diamonds are the country''s only significant current natural resource - but they are an abundant one.

Employing a labeling organization for ‘fair trade jewelry’ would address the ''serious threats'' Annan stated above. It would also address the root cause of the problem: The poverty of those who dig diamonds. Governments could realize increased value and legitimized trade by agreeing to terms whereby money is directed back into relief efforts; ensuring the product did no harm, only good.

In the macro, Serg''s point is valid. Many estimates place the actual percentage of conflict diamonds in the world''s rough output at <1%. In the micro Rapaport''s is just as valid. The point is not to AVOID that <1%. If we have the power to reduce it further - or eliminate it - we should take the opportunity to do so. The information age represents great opportunity.

Yes I am aware that Debeers is being dragged kicking and screaming into helping countries that are now taking charge of their natural resources like they should.
They would be much better off cutting out the middle man and partnering with the India diamond cutters on a profit sharing bases and selling the resulting diamonds on the net b2b.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/6/2006 9:36:04 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

In the macro, Serg's point is valid. Many estimates place the actual percentage of conflict diamonds in the world's rough output at <1%. In the micro Rapaport's is just as valid. The point is not to AVOID that <1%. If we have the power to reduce it further - or eliminate it - we should take the opportunity to do so. The information age represents great opportunity.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused about the a) referent scenario and b) the relative pervasiveness of the problem.

In the recent related thread initiated by Denver appraiser, he brought forward this point...

"The era being described in that (Lord of War) movie is prior to Canadian diamonds, Kimberly Process and the USA Patriot act. The war being depicted is over (sort of). That said, diamonds have been, and will undoubtedly continue to be used as currency for transactions ranging from illegal weapons to drugs to prostitution and slavery. The transactions depicted in that movie would be very difficult to reproduce in 2006 but the bad guys are pretty creative people and they are still out there. The next time is likely be some other commodity, some other country and some other travesty. The real solution to pay attention. The problem is not in the diamonds. It’s not the diamonds that did the evil, and it wont be the oil, water, food, lumber, medicine or whatever other fungible commodity that they use next time."

So, I thought we have essentially two situations. 1) What Kimberly was designed to address, (and which we have been associating with the concept of "conflict diamonds") which has satisfied 99% of the problem, the cause of which is also past. And 2) a more pervasive continuing economic problem, still pertaining to many of the countries in Africa, and still representing considerably more than 1% of the output of diamonds we see. This, at least, is what I thought Rappaport was trying to establish in his message in the video...and what "fair trade" approaches were trying to address, as distinct from the specific scenario of "conflict diamonds."

Help me get this sorted out, si vous plai...

 

[Serg]

Re: So, I thought we have essentially two situations. 1) What Kimberly was designed to address, which has satisfied 99% of the problem, the cause of which is also past. And 2) a more pervasive continuing economic problem, still pertaining to many of the countries in Africa, and still representing considerably more than 1% of the output of diamonds we see. This, at least, is what I thought Rappaport was trying to establish in his message in the video.

I think, Conflict diamonds was not real reason of Kimberly process. I see two other real reasons but I do not like discuss it on public forum. Try see economical reasons, not ethical. Politics are far from ethic.

It is Much more easy to find chain of sellers weapon using serial number on weapon.

It is crazy idea : “add paper for rough to control sells weapon”. Hollywood film is stupid, wrong stereotype and simple propaganda.

I am very sorry for my post. Could we closed this topic?

 

[He Scores]

It wasn't until the end of the interview that I realized that it was Gary interviewing Rappy and not Tom Brokaw!

Good job Gary. Nicely done and thanks to Pricescope for sharing it.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/6/2006 10:07:09 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/6/2006 9:36:04 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

In the macro, Serg's point is valid. Many estimates place the actual percentage of conflict diamonds in the world's rough output at <1%. In the micro Rapaport's is just as valid. The point is not to AVOID that <1%. If we have the power to reduce it further - or eliminate it - we should take the opportunity to do so. The information age represents great opportunity.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused about the a) referent scenario and b) the relative pervasiveness of the problem.

In the recent related thread initiated by Denver appraiser, he brought forward this point...

'The era being described in that (Lord of War) movie is prior to Canadian diamonds, Kimberly Process and the USA Patriot act. The war being depicted is over (sort of). That said, diamonds have been, and will undoubtedly continue to be used as currency for transactions ranging from illegal weapons to drugs to prostitution and slavery. The transactions depicted in that movie would be very difficult to reproduce in 2006 but the bad guys are pretty creative people and they are still out there. The next time is likely be some other commodity, some other country and some other travesty. The real solution to pay attention. The problem is not in the diamonds. It’s not the diamonds that did the evil, and it wont be the oil, water, food, lumber, medicine or whatever other fungible commodity that they use next time.'

So, I thought we have essentially two situations. 1) What Kimberly was designed to address, (and which we have been associating with the concept of 'conflict diamonds') which has satisfied 99% of the problem, the cause of which is also past. And 2) a more pervasive continuing economic problem, still pertaining to many of the countries in Africa, and still representing considerably more than 1% of the output of diamonds we see. This, at least, is what I thought Rappaport was trying to establish in his message in the video...and what 'fair trade' approaches were trying to address, as distinct from the specific scenario of 'conflict diamonds.'

Help me get this sorted out, si vous plai...

Regrettably, Neil is correct. If not diamonds, it will be other commodities. For the diamond industry, Kimberly was triage. My inclination is that we should continue doing what we can beyond KPCS to empower people-centered solutions in the places we can reach.

As for the 1% figure... I know using percentages is a sticky wicket, especially considering the output of Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and up-and-coming countries. Canada currently supplies 15% of rough, exclusively in the north. However, a mining operation is about to be created atop the world’s largest existing diamondiferous kimberlite field in Saskatchewan. By 2016 Canada’s contribution could double or triple.

Regardless, of whether the figure is 10% or 0.01%, I agree with Rapaport that diamond jewelry's symbolism is such that 'fair trade' jewelry will have a market and funds can be used to do good by building infrastructure in many places - not just hot spots of 'conflict' or unrest.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/6/2006 10:38:33 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Regardless, of whether the figure is 10% or 0.01%, I agree with Rapaport that diamond jewelry''s symbolism is such that ''fair trade'' jewelry will have a market and funds can be used to do good by building infrastructure in many places - not just hot spots of ''conflict'' or unrest.

Going on Google for "fair trade diamonds," not too surprisingly, an article featuring Rappaport arises again. I''ve only scanned it, but page three uses 65% as a descriptor, for the nature of effected populations. This is neither .01 percent nor 10 %, and could reasonably effect any one''s diamond purchasing decisions today. That number is not incidental. Anyone deciding to make a diamond purchase, and who wants to entertain the implications of the purchase, could be motivated to consider their options. Also, I think avoiding the problem, going Canadian, etc., is not the way to go. But, from what I understand, we should not understand the problematic situation is a marginalized one.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Ira we're talking apples and oranges. Rapaport cites 65% of diamonds as produced in African developing countries. My figure was the amount of rough diamonds estimated as still fueling armed conflict and civil wars. Regardless, I am not here to argue about existing conditions and the need to improve them. I agree they exist - in many areas of the world.

 

[denverappraiser]

This is a very different topic from the ‘conflict diamonds’ issue and I think it’s much closer to addressing the fundamental problems. I think the backing of Mr. Rapaport will go a long way to moving this initiative forward but I have serious doubts about it’s feasibility.

Every product, including coffee, jewelry and diamonds, involves a complex web of people in the production and distribution cycle. The fair trade people are attempting to use their marketing and political clout to raise prices and use the proceeds to benefit one group without affecting the others. This is simply not an economic reality. Coffee is a pretty good example.
The fair trade price of coffee is currently fixed at $1.26/lb. or $0.05 over the NY ‘C’ commodities market price, whichever is greater. The ‘C’ price is currently $1.10 according to Bloomberg (Sept. 6, 2006). This means the premium to the farmers ranges from a minimum of $0.05/lb up to about $0.50/lb depending on the status of the commodities market. Currently it’s $0.16/lb plus an additional $0.15 for ‘organic’, which they pretty much seem to all do for a total of $0.31/lb. The relationship between a pound of green coffee and a pound of the ground Folgers is unclear to me but surely it’s not one to one. I’ll guess at 1.5:1 but I’m happy to admit that I made this number up. Let''s look at some prices.

Folgers costs me $3.62/lb in their biggest package (54 oz) at the local grocery store. It’s even cheaper at Sam’s Club and similar discount sources.
Deans Beans, a popular and apparently competitive fair trade brand, wants $6.50/lb plus $1.35 shipping if you buy in their biggest package (5 lb).

This means that at current prices, I would be paying a ‘premium’ of $4.27 or more to efficiently buy a pound of Deans Beans over a pound of Folgers – A whopping 117%. Using the current commodity market and my 1.5:1 conversion number, $0.46 of that goes to the producing farm or co-op (some of which goes to administrative overhead, marketing and the fair trade people themselves and some goes to the farmers) so 89% of my premium goes to other players including roasters, tax collectors, shippers, financers, retailers and others involved in the chain. I don’t have all that big a problem with this because some of these other participants are worthwhile in their own right and I’m sure Dean’s makes a fine product but it seems like this premium is a lot if benefiting farmers is the primary objective.

Can diamondtaires and jewelers do it for less? Will customers willingly pay more? Maybe, but I doubt it. Who is to decide what is ‘fair’? What about the cutters, the labs, wholesalers, retailers and even the dreaded ‘middlemen’ (like Mr. Rapaport)? How much do they deserve?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[He Scores]

I''m out of the mainstream as far as retailing goes, but my intuition is that unless this movie raises more concern about how other people in other countries are affected, Mrs. Gotrocks here in the US could care less where her diamond came from as long as she has one.

This happened with the Krugerand in the early eighties I believe. Americans could have cared less where their gold coin was coming from. It was the gov''t who legislated sanctions against it.

I''ve had only one email from my hundreds of former retail customers regarding both the "tv vs. diamond" bit or conflict diamonds.

I could be wrong but if Dianne Sawyer getting ripped off on 60 minutes by a 47th street jeweler didn''t stop people from going to that jeweler, I don''t know what will.


Bill Bray

 

[Serg]

I read some articles about reason of infinity and global civil war in Sierra Leone.
One idea was: Reason is money coming from outside ( International charity is here too).
Citizens spend most efforts for control such incoming. It produce local armed guard, destroyed central government , fragmented country and destroy any conditions for normal economic.
Additional money will increase problem only.
But I agree with some other ideas from Rapaport articles
"1) Do no Harm
2) The problem in Sierra Leone is that the only way to transform military power into political power through the use of economic power
3) Governments can and must do is create an enabling environment for business to establish sustainable development"

 

[Regular Guy]

John, you end up saying we''re talking about apples and oranges...and the clarification I was seeking had been just that, suggesting, and wanting to confirm that we are indeed talking about two different situations...one: conflict, and one: fair trade, intending to uplift the conditions of those who need it. I''m glad we agree that these are two situations.

Date: 9/6/2006 12:41:08 PM
Author: denverappraiser

This is a very different topic from the ‘conflict diamonds’ issue and I think it’s much closer to addressing the fundamental problems. I think the backing of Mr. Rapaport will go a long way to moving this initiative forward but I have serious doubts about it’s feasibility.

-----------------

Can diamondtaires and jewelers do it for less? Will customers willingly pay more? Maybe, but I doubt it. Who is to decide what is ‘fair’? What about the cutters, the labs, wholesalers, retailers and even the dreaded ‘middlemen’ (like Mr. Rapaport)? How much do they deserve?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Neil, two things:

One...is the recognition of this new problem, as distinct to what has been called "conflict diamonds". The other is remedies. You say you have doubts, as you did in the previous discussions, and examples with Deans Beans. But...now there''s some new information, which Mr. Rappaport has supplied, and models associated with it. In fact, he''s done some field operations, and model building based on it. How about looking at the work that''s been done, and trying to review the viability of that which has been worked out.

Although we could talk about the fairness of paying more people up the chain in a newly worked out model...can''t we just look at each and every set of parties in the process for whom, we could say, are participating, but not on the basis of optimizing the choices available to them. There is a better way of saying this, no doubt...and you and I could gripe, like George Costanza on Seinfeld, that he really wants to be a TV host...and that we''re all like him, and would rather rake in a million vs whatever we''re doing. But...maybe we could just look at those individuals at the end of the chain who really seem to have little choice about employment, figure out, if not what would be fair to them, but what could be humane, and build that into the model for pricing. Sounds to me like Rappaport is now about the details of exactly what they would deserve, and further, the means of getting it to them.

You''ve pointed out how the coffee model seems bloated for the cost/benefit payoff. We agree that the end game is worth accomplishing. Let''s try to root for players who are trying to figure out how to grab the right end of the stick.

 

[oldminer]

Martin Rapaport's idea to make the buying of a diamond gift and "altruistic purchase" is a very good one compared to the present pitch of "branding" diamonds to add value. If any time one bought a diamond , one also thought of the good it was doing for miners and their families in impoverished, third world countries, there would be a very positive effect that would enhance diamond sales and the feeling enjoyed when making such a purchase.

Martin has some good ideas. Will some group take the ideas and turn them into reality? We'll see if it happens in any large way over the next few years.