The “No Dirty Gold” Campaign: What Economists Can Learn from And
The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, ISSN 1749-852X J.T. Marlin, The “No Dirty Gold” campaign p. 58 © www.epsjournal.org.uk – Vol. 1, No. 2 (2006) The “No Dirty Gold” campaign: what (parent of Sterling and Kay Jewelers), Helzberg Diamonds, Fortunoff, Cartier, Piaget, and Van Cleef & Arpels. These represented, in February 2006, a market economists can learn from and contribute to share of 14 percent of U.S. jewelry sales, mostly on the luxury end of the retail jewelry marketplace and in middle-market sales in shopping malls. By May 2006, corporate campaigns three more retailers had joined, Turning Point, Fred Meyer Jewelers, and Michaels Jewelers. John Tepper Marlin NDG has succeeded in bringing on board virtually all of the upscale brand names in the jewelry business and, according to the NDG campaign in June 2006, cademic economists have had a great impact on actors in financial several other large retailers are engaged in a promising dialog with NDG: Wal- marketplaces: the Black-Scholes options-pricing model for instance Mart, QVC, and Whitehall. Non-signing jewelry-selling holdouts that are not Aspawned an industry on Wall Street. But economists have had trouble in engaged in such a dialog are: (1) mass-market generic vendors J. C. Penney and recent years affecting issues of war and peace, even though since Adam Smith Sears/KMart, and (2) Rolex and (surprisingly, given the company’s potential many economists have stressed the destructive and wasteful nature of wars. Recent vulnerability to a student campaign during the coming year) Jostens, which United States military decisions appear to have been made either independently of supplies jewelry to school and college students.
[Show full text]