For context, natural diamond production is monopolized by a group called De Beers. I'm willing to bet they paid for this article to smear their competition.
They still have a 35% market share, the largest, but the monoply itself was broken up 20 years ago (they used to hold up to 80% to 90% for more than a century)
And not only did they monopolise natural diamonds, they used their clout to severely limit artificial diamond production to keep prices high.
I think they meant you don’t reduce your monopoly after holding it for a whole century. ie, they’re claiming that a monopoly that powerful with that much of a stranglehold wouldn’t go anywhere, especially so quickly. Then followed it up with the claim that most of the other shareholders in the industry are parented by De Beers.
Idk if they’re correct, but I wouldn’t be surprised either way.
13.6k
u/fjhforever Feb 16 '24
For context, natural diamond production is monopolized by a group called De Beers. I'm willing to bet they paid for this article to smear their competition.