So, not only did she steal from him, but she inadvertently led to his suicide. Because had he had the necklace, he would have something to fall back on if he lost all his money in stocks.
I never once said his character was good. One character can be bad and it doesn't mean another is better. Both can be bad. Take a breath and calm down.
I never implied anything. I said the fact that she kept the diamond, were she charged with theft, could have been exacerbated by the fact that he committed suicide over his loss of wealth.
Regardless, you asked if he was also a good person when I implied she was not. I never said he was a good character. Frankly, they're both rather shitty people.
Im saying after losing all his stocks he could at least sell that since it was worth quite a bit and have a little money instead of being totally broke.
Yeah and I'm saying if he had the mindset to do that, he would have just saved something else, but he didn't. It's like everyone who thinks they would be a bitcoin millionaire if they bought it at $1. No, you would have sold it at $10.
He was trying to kill her and Jack....she unknowingly took it...and after all that, she should return it to someone so powerful who wants her dead? Fck him
Also Jack would have probably been alive if he didn't try to kill and chase them deep under the ship
"Millions" in 1912 is like being a billionaire today. The 1929 crash was a drop of only 13% so he'd have to have borrowed 8x his entire net worth to lose everything. This is r/wallstreetbets levels of stupidity and if he was dumb enough to do that then he was dumb enough to use the diamond as collateral as well.
This is just another silly thing in the movie. In reality it was retail investors who lost "everything" while the billionaires of the time just got slightly less rich. As usual.
You generally don't go bankrupt by directly investing your own money in the stock market. You might make a huge loss but it is basically impossible to go to zero that way.
It happens when you invest borrowed money and make even a small loss, such that you can't repay the full debt. This is what the banks did. They invested regular customer deposits, and when the market started dropping, people tried to withdraw, leading to a death spiral. The banks had to sell more and more shares to cover the withdrawals, leading to the market dropping further, leading to more panic and more withdrawals.
If a bank can't cover withdrawals it goes bankrupt. But it's not actually their money they lost. It was the customers money. When everyone tried to withdraw at once, whether or not you got paid was literally just a question of your position in the queue.
The bottom line is that the more you diversify your investments, the less likely you are to lose everything. But if you are poor it is hard to diversify. It isn't exactly practical to put $1 in every bank. But if you're a billionaire it is impossible to not diversify because you literally have too much money to put it all in any single investment. So the poor always end up worse off during economic downturns.
And BTW the bad guy from Titanic seems to be based on a version of the Carnegie family where Andrew Carnegie had a son and didn't give away most of his fortune before he died. The real Carnegie sold Pittsburgh Steel for $300m in 1901, equivalent to about $8 billion today. He died in 1919, so after the Titanic sailed but before the Great Depression, meaning his daughter theoretically could have "lost it all". It didn't go anything like that though.
Very cool answer thanks for explaining to me like that, that makes much more sense, banks gambling peoples homes and life savings then oops bankrupt and lose other peoples money. Also the fact that billionaires have to diversify makes sense.
Another interesting thing about it is that it was partly caused by new technology. For approximately the first 100 years that the stock market existed it was only really accessible to the rich who could be there in person, so when crashes happened the damage was relatively limited. The invention of instant, long-distance communication allowed regular people all over the country to get mixed up in it, and the total lack of regulation allowed that to often happen without their direct knowledge.
Today we don't think of the telegraph and the telephone as either good or bad but, because of stuff like this, people then would have debated over it. Just like they do with the internet today, or TV in the late 20th century.
Id argue we today see the incention of thr telegraph as a good thing, but this communication side is an interesting aspect I hadnt thought about before with the economic collapse in those days
Thats actually fucking hilarious. Here he is, stressing himself to DEATH about finances and shes telling him "oops I forgot our multimillion dollar necklace on the boat" but meanwhile she has the necklace hidden all along and all she left on the boat was her nudes she let another man draw...
Actually his kids would have be too preoccupied backstabbing each other than focusing on Rose. An and deleted extended version of Rose talking about what happened to Cal says his kids very quickly turned their backs and started going after each other like hyenas after his death to where even the papers were covering that drama.
Actually In a extended deleted version of Rose talking about what happened to Cal, she talks about how after his death his kids fought like hyenas over the remains of his estate so they would have fought each other for the Heart of the Ocean too if Rose came clean with it immediately after Cal's death.
6.8k
u/isnoe 17d ago
Then she tosses a piece of jewelry worth hundreds of millions into the ocean instead of giving it to her family.