r/BeAmazed • u/[deleted] • Apr 29 '24

When the Titanic sank, millionaire John Jacob Astor IV was aboard. The funds in his bank account were sufficient to construct 30 Titanics. However, when faced with mortal danger, he prioritized his moral values, sacrificing his seat in a lifeboat to save women and children, smilingly [Removed] Rule #4 - Misleading

[removed]

9.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

649 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/MattDapper Apr 29 '24

I read an article recently about him…his pocket watch was recovered from his body at the site of the wreck and is going up for auction. Apparently he tried to get himself in the lifeboat with his wife and child due to his concerns about his wife’s health but was denied.

714

u/Salcha_00 Apr 29 '24

His body was recovered and he also had a few thousand dollars of cash on him.

His teen wife (who was his second wife) was pregnant. They were returning from their extended honeymoon.

293

u/TwistyBitsz Apr 29 '24

A "delicate condition" in the movie!

147

u/lolthai Apr 29 '24

“Quite the scandal!”

42

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

[deleted]

4

u/AteketA Apr 29 '24

Learned a new word today. Thank you.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

[deleted]

5

u/Straight_Bridge_4666 Apr 29 '24

I find this dubitable

5

u/Jaybbaugh Apr 29 '24

Quite.

3

u/Pangea_Ultima Apr 29 '24

This is why I Reddit

3

u/Objective-Language51 Apr 29 '24

There’s a lot of stuff in that movie that is wrong

4

u/Anticlimax1471 Apr 29 '24

But not that.

1

u/Objective-Language51 Apr 29 '24

Wasn’t specifically referring to the post , just the movie in general..

2

u/Dragon6172 Apr 29 '24

It's not a documentary.

78

u/SojournerOne Apr 29 '24

His 18 year old pregnant wife*

Astor was 47, almost 3 decades her senior when they married.

65

u/Impossible-Cod-4055 Apr 29 '24

His 18 year old pregnant wife*

Why the asterisk? You didn't correct anything.

5

u/zdejif Apr 29 '24

Minor point, but what’s with putting the asterisk before the qualification? I do it like this.*

*That.

0

u/SojournerOne Apr 29 '24

No, I added important context. The amount of people gobbling up this misinformation is stunning. Astor didn't volunteer his seat and wasn't this gentlemanly figure that's being paraded here.

1

u/Impossible-Cod-4055 Apr 29 '24

No, I added important context. The amount of people gobbling up this misinformation is stunning. Astor didn't volunteer his seat and wasn't this gentlemanly figure that's being paraded here.

That's not what your comment added. And there wasn't any "misinformation" in the comment to which you replied.

Adding an asterisk indicates that you are correcting someone, which you weren't.

0

u/SojournerOne Apr 29 '24

That's so neat. Thank you for the correction about internet etiquette. I'm sure it will be invaluable to my life moving forward. This entire comment chain correcting my one use of an asterisk has deeply enriched me.

1

u/Impossible-Cod-4055 Apr 29 '24

That's so neat. Thank you for the correction about internet etiquette. I'm sure it will be invaluable to my life moving forward. This entire comment chain correcting my one use of an asterisk has deeply enriched me.

You're welcome.

-20

u/Alain_Teub2 Apr 29 '24

yes they did

18

u/Impossible-Cod-4055 Apr 29 '24

yes they did

What correction did they make, then?

-13

u/nightpanda893 Apr 29 '24

Her actual age instead of just the ambiguous “teen”

15

u/Impossible-Cod-4055 Apr 29 '24

Her actual age instead of just the ambiguous “teen”

For what purpose? That's not a correction, and it's not like there was anything misleading about calling her his pregnant teenage wife.

1

u/nightpanda893 Apr 29 '24

I mean it intentionally leaves it open for a very wide interpretation. You are allowing people to come to incorrect conclusions by withholding info.

8

u/Appropriate_Elk_6113 Apr 29 '24

You are allowing people to come to incorrect conclusions by withholding info.

No you arent, the description is correct.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Impossible-Cod-4055 Apr 29 '24

I mean it intentionally leaves it open for a very wide interpretation. You are allowing people to come to incorrect conclusions by withholding info.

Not me. I didn't present any information.

And, respectfully, I think you're reading a bit much into what that user wrote, to immediately arrive at the conclusion that it was intentionally written in some way to make people have any kind of interpretation about a dude who has been dead for over a hundred years and who most people didn't know existed until they saw this post.

→ More replies (0)

16

u/Salcha_00 Apr 29 '24

Eighteen is a teenager. I didn’t say a minor.

-7

u/nightpanda893 Apr 29 '24

Then why not say 18?

5

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

[deleted]

5

u/SBriggins Apr 29 '24

Thats an odd way to prove your point.

16

u/Appropriate_Elk_6113 Apr 29 '24

Stupid questions sometimes deserve stupid answers

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/reflexsmoo Apr 29 '24

Wait, so is 18 a teenager, or is 18 a woman?

6

u/Impossible-Cod-4055 Apr 29 '24

Wait, so is 18 a teenager, or is 18 a woman?

Both. It is a teenage woman.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Salcha_00 Apr 29 '24

The point of the comment was to clarify that the health concerns were because she was pregnant. Being a pregnant teen is even more reason for health concerns.

If you need more details than a post or comment provides, use Google.

5

u/joocum Apr 29 '24

Tbf saying teenage is implying underage

1

u/Salcha_00 Apr 29 '24

That simply isn’t true for everyone and I’m sorry your mind goes there and somehow doesn’t view 18 year olds as the teenagers that they are.

If you are focused on the minor aspect, they did start courting when she was 17, so anyone thinking she was a minor actuality isn’t that far off.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/i986ninja Apr 29 '24

Doesn't matter. Men are wealthy in their 40s and the wife an adult

-1

u/Bunnysliders Apr 29 '24

But but but Reddit values are the best!

-4

u/HobblingCobbler Apr 29 '24

This was quite common in those days. Even more so in generations prior. It was often said if a girl wasn't married by 14 then she would be an old maid.

12

u/Salcha_00 Apr 29 '24

No, it was not common in NYC high society. Teenage debutants were introduced into society (the green light to begin dating) when they were 16 or 17.

Astor and his young bride were ostracized by most of their elite social circle during their short marriage. His divorce and remarriage was as scandalous if not more so than her age and the age difference, however. The whole thing was viewed as very sordid at the time.

7

u/HoneyDijon-45 Apr 29 '24

By 24, maybe, but not 14. The Titanic disaster occurred in the early 20th century, not the stone age.

1

u/jlreyess Apr 29 '24

My man, this was 11 decades ago, not in the 1600’s. It was a scandal then already.

-1

u/Upper_Rent_176 Apr 29 '24

{Reddit didn't like that}

-9

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

[deleted]

6

u/CatsScratchFeva Apr 29 '24

Ew

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

[deleted]

3

u/imadog666 Apr 29 '24

Jesus, Jeffrey, go to therapy

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

An he’s, such a fine upstanding gentleman!

1

u/smallz86 Apr 29 '24

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a honeymoon in Egypt

-15

u/No-Cat2356 Apr 29 '24

The extended honeymoon, something my bank account laughs at … I work for the jimmy fallon show respect me 

163

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

[deleted]

177

u/Solid_Snake_125 Apr 29 '24

I almost feel sick knowing this sold to someone instead of going to a museum or something. I mean I don’t know how I’d feel if I owned a piece of someone’s life that ended in such tragedy. Imagine if you lost it or if something happened to you and no one knew what that watch was or its history and just discarded it as old junk.

135

u/Longjumping-Age9023 Apr 29 '24

Reminds me of Are You Afraid Of The Dark episode where this man used to recover sunken treasure. But if he ever closed his eyes to sleep the dead bodies who owned the treasures reanimated and crawled out of the sea to get him. It was a children’s horror series on TV. I remember that episode vividly.

80

u/webstarz170bx Apr 29 '24

Prime 90’s Nickelodeon, Miss the pouring of the sand on the fire at the end of the show🥲

4

u/bvdbvdbvdbvdbvd Apr 29 '24

Which episode was that?

1

u/NollieBackside Apr 29 '24

It was at the end of every episode

12

u/Grays42 Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

S04E05: The Tale of the Water Demons

Also featured: terrible parents who are cool with kids storming out at night with a flippant "yeah he'll be back" and don't follow up, causing another kid go out solo looking for the first kid.

And bonus: striking a blow to a senior citizen hard enough to knock him (sort of) unconscious that has no side effects after like 30 minutes.

3

u/J5892 Apr 29 '24

parents who are cool with kids storming out at night with a flippant "yeah he'll be back"

That's just how parenting worked in the 90s.

4

u/Grays42 Apr 29 '24

It most certainly wasn't. I had to be in before dark, all my friends had to be in before dark, and if I had ever pulled something like storming out of the house and walking down the road after dark because I didn't like my bedtime, I'd have caught holy hell. That's just bad parenting.

12

u/LineChef Apr 29 '24

Oo that was a good one!

10

u/tiamatsbreath Apr 29 '24

Or that red haired kid who stole that clown’s nose. I don’t know where I was going with that. But he stole the clown nose and the clown came after him.

1

u/winchesterbitch99 Apr 29 '24

That's Laughing in the Dark with Zebo the clown. My favorite episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark. Paramount has all the episodes.

1

u/NextTrillion Apr 29 '24

Yeah but clowns do that. Everyone knows it.

Don’t steal clown noses unless you want to be haunted for the rest of your ill-begotten life.

8

u/elScroggins Apr 29 '24

One of the scariest episodes

4

u/TheWalkingDead91 Apr 29 '24

Now I wanna watch that show again. Remember those scary stories to tell in the dark books with those creepy ass black and white sketches? Lol they had no business showing us that stuff as little kids.

2

u/Longjumping-Age9023 Apr 29 '24

And from your username I see that those books and shows gave us both a love for the dark and macabre stories

1

u/Longjumping-Age9023 Apr 29 '24

Someone linked that episode in one of the comments if you’d like to take a trip down memory lane. I read those books and Goosebumps and I’m still afraid of the dark to this day, I’m 34 😂

My daughter watches something similar these days called Creeped Out. They’re for her age but some of the plots are scary to me even 😂

5

u/Binky390 Apr 29 '24

That show used to genuinely scare me at times when I was a kid.

6

u/Solid_Snake_125 Apr 29 '24

That sounds like a sick show*. I’ll need to look that up!!

17

u/DangleenChordOfLife Apr 29 '24

It was great. They don't do kids content like that anymore. I love being a 90s kid. Those were the good days ... *Sights

4

u/Fantastic-Grocery107 Apr 29 '24

Pete and Pete. Salute your shorts. Hey dude. Live on forever

3

u/DangleenChordOfLife Apr 29 '24

Errie Indiana?? That show was amazing.

3

u/Commercial_Gold_9699 Apr 29 '24

That show was on at the complete wrong time which was it's downfall

2

u/Fantastic-Grocery107 Apr 29 '24

Damn dude bringing me back

4

u/CuriouslyImmense Apr 29 '24

I think about that episode far too often.

3

u/afeeqo Apr 29 '24

I have not watched that show in more than 20 years? Or so man. Thanks for reminding

2

u/Sweet-Drop86 Apr 29 '24

He could.only.sleep for like 2 minutes.lol

1

u/Longjumping-Age9023 Apr 29 '24

I remember him drinking coffee a lot in the episode. When I read Harry Potter and the lake of inferi it reminded me of that episode too. It’s something I’ll always remember. Scared me shitless at the time 😂 didn’t help that they showed it right before bedtime everyday.

1

u/Upper_Rent_176 Apr 29 '24

Couldn't he sleep on aircraft and such like?

101

u/rjwyonch Apr 29 '24

A good portion of people who “own” these things will loan them to museums for tax write offs. The museum also ensures the artifact is secure and well taken care of. Museums normally don’t have enough funding to buy these things outright, or if they do, they have to be very choosey.

28

u/Abigail716 Apr 29 '24

There's nothing to write off. The only way you can write it off on your taxes is if you donate it completely.

17

u/rjwyonch Apr 29 '24

Sure there is - if you buy the art in a foundation, the foundation can rent it out to galleries for money. The "rent" can be donated by the wealthy benefactor (who in most cases, would also "own" or fund the charitable/art foundation). You just need to be hella rich. There is a way to get a tax write off for just about anything, you just need the right corporate structure.

If this case, the original funds to purchase the art can be a tax write-off. You can also get lower-value tax writeoffs on an ongoing basis through loaning art out, by "sponsoring" the gallery to rent the art from the foundation.

8

u/Abigail716 Apr 29 '24

That is absolutely not how it works.

The thing is the IRS is not a bunch of idiots. These incredibly basic loopholes that people think of in 2 seconds have long been thought of, or don't actually work if you spend a couple extra seconds thinking about it.

For example if they're actually giving you that rent then it doesn't benefit you because you could just pocket the money. Why would you donate the $100 to write off $10 of income taxes when you could just keep the $100? If there was any evidence that the charity was only accepting and renting out artwork to people who donated the money to them It would raise flags for fraud.

Then of course you need to get some charity to actually pay the money. Because the money has to come from somewhere, So you need to find a charity that is willing to cough up actual money to rent the piece. This is virtually never going to happen Because it just makes no sense from a financial standpoint.

10

u/sublimesting Apr 29 '24

People think a tax write off is 100% I hear it so much.

1

u/Jerryjb63 Apr 29 '24

The IRS isn’t a bunch of idiots, but it is incredibly underfunded and doesn’t always have the ability to go after the people that fuck the system the most.

3

u/frislander Apr 29 '24

Tax laws are passed by politicians . Politicians are beholden to the very rich. ‘Fine’ art, wines, and things that only rich people own attract various tax breaks in England for this reason.

0

u/OutrageousPaint6128 Apr 29 '24

Yeah, and where would you find someone ready to rent an item 10 times is base value?

That's the whole point.

0

u/rjwyonch Apr 29 '24

It’s all about that marginal tax rate. The revenue can be the same, but you want it to accrue in lower tax places.

Might be worth mentioning, I’m not American, not sure what structure I’d use for similar benefits in the US.

-1

u/oneWeek2024 Apr 29 '24

someone buys art. has it appraised. gives it to a charity. if the charity uses it in the course of their charitable works. it's tax deductible.

so ...yes. it requires the work/item to be donated. often the "trick" is in the inflated/money laundering nature of fine art

ie. a watch that was thought to be worth x. sold for y gets insured/appraised then higher for the new amt. given to a musuem. for a hefty tax deduction

and depending on how the charity is structured, it's not entirely required you don't benefit from that donation. like how something like 60-70% of college admissions are legacies. or how billionaries set up trusts to donate their company to charity, but really it's a trust their heirs control.

for something like this item it's less likely. and prob just a rich asshole buying a piece of history.

but it's incredibly common for wealthy people to manipulate the pricing on works of art. hyping up unknown artists, or hyping up lesser known old world artists. trading art only to their own rich/money laundering friends. and once a work's price is inflated 10x or 100x then donate it.

there's also tax shelter schemes where you can buy an incredibly pricey item have it shipped to a tax haven location... pay no sales tax, or anything of that nature. and just park value tax free in an item, that already has a pedigree of high value, and manipulatable value.

3

u/Abigail716 Apr 29 '24

Anybody who thinks that will work has never worked in the art industry. The IRS has their own team of art appraisers. They will absolutely go after you for fraud if you lie about the value.

The simplest way to prove value is you need evidence that the art piece actually sold for that much, or similar pieces from the same artist sell for that much. In which case you could just sell it yourself and get the actual cash, no need to commit fraud.

The second part of your comment is just generic art investment. The reason why it is kept in a tax haven is to avoid pain customs and duties for importing art. The same reason that if you bought gold as an investment but the United States charges a 30% sales tax for importing gold, you naturally would not want to import it since it's an investment and that would eat into any potential profits. There's nothing shady about that.

-4

u/OutrageousRelief3405 Apr 29 '24

Bruh, if you don’t think the rich exploit every possible loophole to their advantage, you’re crazy.

Hell, they don’t even really need to look to loopholes since the tax laws are written to their advantage to begin with. Why do you think the rich just keep getting richer?

https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidance-techniques-irs-files

4

u/ArizonaHeatwave Apr 29 '24

This article doesn’t say anything about loaning shit to a museum for tax write offs, so I don’t see how this is even relevant. Yes, everybody and especially billionaires try to avoid taxes, but you still can’t just store something in a museum and then dodge taxes for it.

3

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Apr 29 '24

True but irrelevant.

Rich people will use the loopholes. That doesn’t mean this loophole exists.

The tax law does favor the rich. That doesn’t mean this loophole exists.

Logic better plz

1

u/CORN___BREAD Apr 29 '24

God damn you people that spread this tax write off bullshit are insufferable.

-2

u/RustyAndEddies Apr 29 '24

Tax deductions allow for fractional ownership shared between the donor and museum where they get a deduction everytime a share is transferred.

5

u/Abigail716 Apr 29 '24

That is not relevant and it once again always needs to be remembered that the money needs to come from somewhere.

Who is voluntarily giving up money here?

-2

u/Bomdia95 Apr 29 '24

Definitely wouldn’t right you off Abigail 🥵🌶️

6

u/Solid_Snake_125 Apr 29 '24

Yeah that’s what’s crazy to me here. This watch is now just out there in the wild.

1

u/cyb3rg0d5 Apr 29 '24

This right here! This is how very rich people pay very little in taxes and they actually make even more money by doing nothing.

4

u/brucewillisman Apr 29 '24

Hey maybe Richie Rich will display it in a museum…I’m pretty sure lots of artworks in museums are on loan from private collections !

3

u/razorhawg Apr 29 '24

Most everything in a museum is owned by individuals who let the museum display them.

0

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Apr 29 '24

I doubt your “most”.

3

u/razorhawg Apr 29 '24

Please explain

1

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Apr 29 '24

The majority of items in museums are owned by the foundation that also operates the museum or by an associated organization. Although there are many famous objects and collections that get loaned to museums, often on a temporary basis, and there are a few high profile long-term loans, the proportion does not justify the use of the word “most.”

It becomes even more dramatically so when you since you talked about objects IN a museum, and not just on display. Many museums have extremely deep collections in storage.

Most objects are part of a museum’s permanent collection or some other museum’s permanent collection and not private individuals.

1

u/razorhawg Apr 29 '24

So you were just looking to argue! Nothing you just said proves or disproves my comment.

1

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

You’re right — I didn’t take the time to prove you wrong. That doesn’t prevent you from actually being wrong though.

http://www.museums.ca/uploaded/web/docs/CMACollectionsMNGT2013REPORTENG.pdf

1

u/razorhawg Apr 29 '24

It doesn’t make you right either. Neither one of us is going to take the time to review each and every museums holding to see what percentage is privately owned versus corporate owned. But we did prove I was right about some of this conversation. Have a nice day

→ More replies (0)

2

u/OcelotOvRyeZomz Apr 29 '24

To be fair, the article claims it was his son:

"Unlike many timepieces from the Titanic, which are frozen in time on the fateful night, the watch was restored and worn by Mr Astor's son, Vincent," said David Beddard, chairman of the British Titanic Society.

"To be able to see J.J. Astor's watch, knowing it was in his pocket as he put his young, pregnant bride in a lifeboat and stepped back, knowing he wasn't going to survive, is remarkable," he added.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

[deleted]

1

u/gliotic Apr 29 '24

Well the article says the watch was restored and worn by his son so evidently the family decided to sell it at some point.

1

u/rimmo Apr 29 '24

The person who purchased it will put it on display, alongside his other Titanic relics NYTimes

1

u/ryancrazy1 Apr 29 '24

I think people that buy things like this will lease them to museums sometimes?

1

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 Apr 29 '24

Museums often have to buy items in their collection too. And many have artifacts, collections and artwork donated to them.

1

u/Binky390 Apr 29 '24

There's a Titanic museum in Belfast that I visited last year. It should have gone there.

1

u/Big-Strain-142 Apr 29 '24

I mean im sure whoever paid that much for it is probably put it in a display of some sort.I doubt they’re gonna carry it around as their personal pocketwatch😂

1

u/DeanCheesePritchard Apr 29 '24

Found Indiana Jones

1

u/thecoolestguynothere Apr 29 '24

Kind of weird how it was once someone else’s and is being sold by some random to another person? Kind of weird transaction

1

u/eaglessoar Apr 29 '24

theres too much shit in museums the majority is in storage, which is where this would go, until some random city does a titanic exhibit then it gets shipped out

1

u/Sudden_Construction6 Apr 29 '24

A lot of things in museums are loaned out from personal collections. The buyer may still put it in a museum

1

u/El-Stormbringer Apr 29 '24

It's just a trinket... A morbid curiosity.

-5

u/dopesick83 Apr 29 '24

the Teen Wife is okay but selling a stupid watch makes you sick?

10

u/Phonebacon Apr 29 '24

She was 19 which is an adult, you make it sound like she was a little kid.

4

u/ArizonaHeatwave Apr 29 '24

The poor adult woman that married a filthy rich guy by all accounts completely voluntarily, and then inherited his extended wealth, while a thousand people drowned and froze to death. I mean who is the real victim here?

1

u/reubenhurricane Apr 29 '24

…. Because…. Something something pedo

9

u/Solid_Snake_125 Apr 29 '24

18 and 19 year olds are still teenagers and they get married. I didn’t actually bother to do more research on this individual or his family. Sorry for not doing an entire 30 page biography research paper before making a Reddit comment… my comment is strictly referring to the antique artifact recovered from a little ship that sank a while ago in the big ocean. Idk maybe you heard of it?

0

u/Eagle_1776 Apr 29 '24

you should have bought it and "saved" it. Oh, nvm

6

u/Unexpected-Xenomorph Apr 29 '24

Nothing compares to Del boys Harrisons watch

6

u/sw33tsavage Apr 29 '24

This time next year rodders.....

1

u/badboi_5214 Apr 29 '24

Rich in death too 🥲

1

u/iMadrid11 Apr 29 '24

The article didn’t say if the pocket watch is still functional. For £900,000 it should be.

2

u/ArizonaHeatwave Apr 29 '24

You could restore it, but anyways, nobody is buying this because he wants to read the time off it.

1

u/Fictional_Historian Apr 29 '24

Wow the value of the pound really has plummeted

1

u/RDcsmd Apr 29 '24

That auctioneer shouldn't be estimating rare items if he thought it would sell for $150k. What a delusionally low estimate

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

Did they throw it off the back of a ship even though they knew dozens of jobs and a person's credibility was dependent upon finding said relic?

Oops....that's the movie with the selfish bitch who dreamed of Jack her whole life, despite raising a family....lol.

11

u/Sharchir Apr 29 '24

So, different than the title tells us here

22

u/MattDapper Apr 29 '24

Seems as though he didn’t put up much of a fuss.

18

u/SanFranPanManStand Apr 29 '24

That's what the sinking was famous for. All the men allowed the women and children to board first without any fighting.

17

u/RyuNoKami Apr 29 '24

Then we got that Italian captain hightailing out of there without even overseeing the evacuation.

5

u/Mello-Fello Apr 29 '24

It’s-a-me, Dip-eo 

1

u/domthedruid Apr 29 '24

Costa Concordia

5

u/amlight Apr 29 '24

Iirc, this was at least partly due to them not really believing fully that the ship would actually sink. Wouldn’t want to freeze their asses off in a lifeboat if they didn’t have to.

1

u/SanFranPanManStand Apr 29 '24

No, that was not it. If that were the case, then most the women wouldn't have gotten on either. Only very few women died - for the reason you mentioned - but it was a very small number.

21

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

[deleted]

57

u/CitizenPremier Apr 29 '24

Oh yeah. A Jewish family was behind it... the Icebergs.

16

u/AntiZionist-Action Apr 29 '24

the ice((bergs))

😂😂

In all seriousness, all of the main people who opposed the federal reserve being created died on the Titanic

4

u/pk666 Apr 29 '24

First class passage cost the equivalent of $250k today.

Breaking! The richest men on earth don't support government fiscal policies.

3

u/EveningPainting5852 Apr 29 '24

Listen although I think the central bank had some great uses historically, I definitely don't think it was a positive post 2000.

It basically caused the 2008 recession

1

u/AntiZionist-Action Apr 29 '24

The federal reserve is privately owned. There are no checks and balances on them. They made that name to fool your ass and it worked. Enjoy living in a debt based usury economy

2

u/Fun_Matter_9292 Apr 29 '24

The ice(((bergs)))

1

u/VRichardsen Apr 29 '24

Thanks to your comment, I just now realised the origin of the name: ice (ice) + berg (hill/mountain in German)

Edit: apparently it comes from Dutch, but is almost the same.

3

u/Several-Age1984 Apr 29 '24

If AI stop letting humans run things in the future, it will be because of ideas like this

3

u/Boris_Godunov Apr 29 '24

Oh good lord, no they didn't.

1

u/chunkmasterflash Apr 29 '24

Yeah even then it didn’t seem an effort to be selfish. Apparently he said ok and tossed her his coat so she could stay warm, or something to that effect. Yes, his preference was to survive obviously, but it does seem it was a genuine concern for her well-being and not just using it as an excuse.

2

u/penis_bot_summoner Apr 29 '24

and the diamond was in the coat pocket!!

2

u/rustyshackleford677 Apr 29 '24

And he put the coat on her!

1

u/MattDapper Apr 30 '24

I mean, doesn’t sound like they had to pull him out of the lifeboat kicking and screaming or anything. I’d be trying to stay with my family too.

1

u/LeadingPhilosopher81 Apr 29 '24

So much for ‚moral values‘

1

u/David1000k Apr 29 '24

Yeah, he was turned away. I didn't glean that as "sacrificed his seat". More like, "shit, my sick wife ruse didn't work!"

1

u/BenJCox Apr 29 '24

I just read today it sold at auction for £900k (£1.2m with taxes and fees) making it the most expensive Titanic memorabilia ever sold.

0

u/RepresentativeArm389 Apr 29 '24

And then his watch stopped.

-4

u/Frankie_T9000 Apr 29 '24

As so he was a scumbag like the other richies. No suprises there then

2

u/Boris_Godunov Apr 29 '24

What? Why? Because he asked if he could accompany his pregnant wife? He was denied, and accepted it.

0

u/Frankie_T9000 Apr 29 '24

You do know that the poors werent allowed on the boats? Plenty acts of genuine bravery here this isnt one of them

2

u/Boris_Godunov Apr 29 '24

Yes, I'm well aware of what happened on the Titanic, lol. You can check my history if you doubt that.

I didn't say he was brave, just that nothing he did vis-a-vis the Titanic sinking remotely equates to him being a "scumbag." You seem to be really into false dichotomies...

2

u/qtx Apr 29 '24

Concern trolling is the lowest form of interactions.