Before heading for analyzing a paradoxical relation between diamond and water, let’s know how anything losses its value with its availability in abundance.

Anything available excessively looses its marginal value in the world. It has been a hot topic of debate among the renowned economists like Adam Smith, John Locke, and John Law who introspected the paradoxical significance of water and diamond and analyzed it at length.

The diamond water paradox theory presents a real picture of the value of diamond and water which even a layperson can very easily create keeping in view existing conspicuousness of water and diamond all over the world.

Diamond, being one of the most invaluable and rarest stones in the world happens to be a life-dream for all, but it never comes true easily due to its being costliest stone in the world.

Hardly any one can trigger even an idea about buying a diamond due to its highest cost.

But what about a glass of water! Would you require to be parted with all of your hard earned money only to get yourself acquainted with a simple glass of water also? No doubt your answer will be “No”, wouldn’t it be!

Though the water is a life-giver and indispensable item for all, it cant be compared with diamond.

Water and diamond despite being found deep into the ground of earth deserve different values due only to theirs availability.

As the water can easily be availed of, the diamond is taken out from deepest ground, pressing into service costliest heavy machines and bulldozers which take several months and year as well for exploring the mines of diamond. Being a most hardest stone, the diamond is a rarest stone to be afforded for a common man. Though the diamonds are taken out from the ground by investing thousands of thousands dollars, their number happens to be meager.

But as far as the water is concerned, it is available everywhere on earth. Be it lake, river, pond, well, rainy water or pumps, all of them are the good sources of water meeting the requirement without money. Such is a paradoxical relation of water and diamond which has been dwelt at length by all the early economists and intellectuals. The reason of ours not lending any priority to the water is its low marginal utility. The diamond actually is found thousands of miles beneath the sea-water surface and can’t be had as easily as water.

Another paradoxical significance meant for diamond and water is theirs pivotal role in saving the life of some one dying due to thirst. Can a diamond save the life of an individual lying on the verge of death due to water? Diamond of course is invaluable thing and can buy us whatever we may aspire for, like power, luxury, comfort and conviviality. But can it quench a thirst in order to save the life of some one dying due to thirst?

Despite being a symbol of magnificence, the diamond fails to save a life by serving as water. But the water, despite being much cheaper by its cost is indispensable, invaluable, incomparable and conspicuous material for all the creatures. Hardly does any one bother to know that without the water entire world will cease to exist, while the diamond has nothing to interfere in Nature’s dispensation.

Each one of us, after finding all of our basic needs fulfilled, always forget to valuate the significance of water and diamond. Such allurement for diamond reveals a paradoxical relation between the diamond and water.
There are many who hardly will like to compare their precious diamond with meager water. They still will adhere to the notion that diamond is all and everything in their life.

But what will their reaction be if the water unexpectedly disappears from the earth, putting every one the verge of death. Suppose Mr. X, owning a well is blessed by God with plenty of water. In such situation all the diamond owners will beg for a glass of water exchanging all of their diamonds for the sake of their lives. A long Que of aristocrats will be visible holding their diamond for the sake of a glass of water only. Such theory explains the diamond-water paradox which many of the economists had analyzed much earlier to moot out real marginal utility significance.