Disclaimer: This blog is packed with spoilers from the movie and a few other juicy bits, so dive in at your own risk!
And to Cartier, this blog, in no means, aims to throw shade at your business. It’s simply an economic analysis blended with satire and personal viewpoints, on a fictional piece that caught my eyes!
A month ago, when Netflix finally decided to pour in another new set of films and TV shows (especially the old, classic ones), I decided to spend one afternoon adding some to my list to watch later, before the “Leaving X Month, 2025” showed up. And in the process, I stumbled upon Ocean’s 8, when my mom’s “Eureka” moment kicked in and she suddenly got really interested in seeing what I was planning to take a geek at (usually she would not give a hoot and simply grab the remote from me and switch channels. But this time something really struck her).
A Facebook reel — the classic old cyber gossip cubicle for the omniscient millennials and Gen X (and possibly for some of the boomers as well, who just happen to use it to stalk their high school exes).
Apparently, she saw a video of Sandra Bullock entering a fancy cosmetics store, dressed elegantly in a striped black mini-dress and a black overcoat, as if she had just arrived from her helicopter (according to my mom). She looked at the vast selection of makeup, from 50+ lipstick shades to eyeshadows and other extravagant items that I wouldn’t even know how to name. But her glance was part of a clever plan she had already thought out. She quickly grabbed as much as she liked and headed to the cashier to return it all—only she never actually bought anything. In the end, she managed to leave undetected with expensive makeup and a bag that made the cashier question her sales skills.
And that’s when I knew I had to watch the rest of the movie to deeply understand what the mastermind was doing behind it all.
While my Mom loved that one scene that made her feel connected to a film that seemed foreign, I was fascinated by how eight talented women (watching Rihanna, Anne Hathaway, Cate Blanchett, Sarah Paulson, Mindy Kaling, and Sandra share the same screen was an absolute bliss) pulled off a heist—not only stealing the Cartier but also capturing other expensive pieces in the process. Which, eventually, led each of the eight masterminds to experience their “rags to riches” moments without ever looking back.
But the question still remains: Was Debbie Ocean’s robbery really a harm after all? Or did it accidentally stimulate the Economy?
Insurance is a Shock Absorber — like me!
First, let’s start with the basics. As we all know, and as it is usually evident with all that we own and especially with all kinds of “luxuries” around the world, the Cartier necklace was, in fact, insured.
Insurance is like the economic equivalent of a cozy blanket on a chilly night, much like my feelings when I found out my best friend’s ex had started hanging out with another one of our friends, just a month after their split. I mean, seriously? Talk about moving on faster than a squirrel on caffeine! I usually keep my cool, even when I’m internally screaming, but I’m secretly sentimental about everything—though I tend to keep that under wraps until I decide it’s time for a dramatic outburst.
Nonetheless, going back to the Cartier that DIDN’T ACTUALLY collapse, cause unemployment, or even halt productivity at a point beyond the sweet spot that economists like to call the revenue maximizing point or the “marginal revenue (MR)“, when it was stolen. It was evident that the loss didn’t just vanish into thin air; it was just never there.
What I mean in simple terms is that, even though Debbie Ocean’s robbery looked like an economic loss or a damage to the business, financial systems like insurance that absorb shocks — meaning they are more resilient to drastic changes or sharp volatility that would usually strip the economy a part of its whole— prevents individuals like Debbie from looking like the ringmaster at a Circus, and instead puts them on the sideline as another prick in the pot.
And for those concerning over the ROE or ROA associated with such a precious asset, should hear me out: I am not trying to sound absolute here and completely dismissing the robbery by saying that they didn’t have any loss at all. But what I would point out is that even at the balance-sheet level, the loss is largely cosmetic. Insurance converts a physical asset into liquid capital, preserving firm value while altering only the form — not the substance — of wealth. So any accounting loss would be short-lived, smoothed out periodically, and kind of remain immaterial for a firm of Cartier’s scale.
I also happened to come across a recent study by EIOPA on how insurance companies behave when financial markets are stressed and to translate my understanding of the study (I am guessing you can read a 47 pager with complex pie graphs, histograms, linear tables, and regression models in 6-7 minutes). It basically discusses how insurance companies buying assets when others sell and just simply being nonchalant during times of distress, apparently reduces volatility to performance shocks and stabilizes markets rather than jumpstarting the market, like my Mom does every day at 5 am in the morning without fail, because I won’t wake up even when my alarm goes off — and honestly I think that’s truly something to feel special about. Perhaps I identify as a significant shock absorber myself.
Hence, it is clear that, in reality, insurance doesn’t pay out. It actively prevents losses from creating bigger ripples in the economy before it reaches the broader system and this is exactly why the robbery of the Cartier necklace in this case is just as irrelevant as your next door neighbor receiving a sweater on the 3rd of December (don’t worry; I have been there for a very long time and we are still going strong. It just never goes beyond that, so we just have to accept it at this point💪).
Transfer Vs. Destruction of Wealth: the clear distinction nobody talks about
Now, you’ll ask me what must’ve inspired this brilliant point to pop into my head and make the cut in the post when it was as optional as choosing between the lavender case and the blue case for my new iPhone 17 at AT & T—because I mean, are you truly pondering how in the world theft can be seen as “transferring” wealth and assets that actually matter to the economy, instead of a symbol of destruction to property? I’d love to explore that wild theory, myself, as a matter of fact.
And that’s what I am doing I guess — teaching you guys a handful of the many concepts I have learned while technically trying to defend a literal robbery.
To make the distinction crystal clear, before we jump into the core of it, let’s get this straight:
- Wealth destruction = factories burn down, harm to both physical property and possibly life, disappearance of skills, massive downturn of the entire company/industry
- Wealth Transfer = ownership changes hands and thats it!
According to a working research paper by the Central Bank of Malta, which investigates the relationship between wealth transfers and homeownership in Malta, households that receive large transfers are more likely to become homeowners — by as much as 15.1%, and can afford properties over 30% more expensive than those who don’t receive. This means wealth transfers reallocate value without erasing it. In macroeconomic terms, the asset itself and its contribution to the economy does not change, only its owner does.
So, coming back to the case being discussed, Debbie Ocean’s act is best interpreted as redistribution rather than destruction of economic value.
Now of course you might pinpoint to the fact that if someone stole something from me, that I had created and/or bought with my own hard earned money, would I still react the same way — being able to remain completely indifferent about it and dismiss it as a “transfer” of wealth, to convince myself that it wasn’t a major harm after all and that it’s okay?
I mean the simple answer is — no. Because, at least from my own perspective, I don’t possess assets that sit unused and hidden away, serving no purpose beyond their own existence. But here’s the catch. Debbie Ocean’s robbery technically ended up feeding and financially aiding eight different — perhaps, disadvantaged individuals — by reallocating the wealth. All, without destroying the necklace, its material value, and its future exchange potential. In economic terms, the act resulted in positive externalities, which we will be exploring later in this blog. It didn’t really strip the necklace of its identity and roots; it only changed places when it didn’t receive enough attention and placement as much as it deserved to, when it was still under the ownership of its original owner.
And that brings me to the tantalizing topic of asset economic velocity—buckle up, because this is where it gets really interesting!
Velocity Assets: They Don’t Run Like Physics, But They Sure Make You Sprint for Decisions!
While this robbery might’ve poked a tiny hole in the business balloon, it didn’t do much to the economy’s overall health—think of it like a mosquito bite on an elephant. And honestly, it didn’t make a big splash in the Cartier pool either, since that necklace was lounging hundreds of feet underground, cold and lonely, trapped in a rigid case like an introvert at a party, with only the security guards and business officials for company. Not a single soul was able to buy it, and it was stuck in the dark with no sunlight, kind of like that forgotten Tupperware in the back of the fridge—just sitting there, attracting no profit and racking up costs like an HBO subscription no one is using (speaking from a real life experience btw — except it was not my money that was draining over the course of several months but my Dad’s 😬). So naturally, someone had to rescue it from its sad little case, and that’s exactly what Debbie did—kudos to her for giving that lonely necklace a chance at a new life!
The bottom line is, an asset living idly, under a rock — both figuratively and literally — isn’t really contributing economically.
To back this argument, I would like to tie it to one of the main ideas from Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, where he states that “Real wealth consists in what is produced and consumed: the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the houses we live in…not merely money”. The necklace’s value is not just in its price tag and prestige. If it’s sitting in a vault unused, its not really generating any kind of profit or revenue. Its real economic contribution depends on how it is used or circulated, not where it sits or who made it.
While Hazlitt does NOT endorse the idea of theft or robbery being productive and economically sound, what he really propagates through his work is that genuine richness comes from sufficiency and social contentment and not endless accumulation.
Ergo, the necklace went from being a ragged doll sitting in the corner of a basement to being the main object in a Pass The Ball type game, actively participating in economic circulation, while indirectly leveraging demand and supply.
And if a newfound ragged doll can benefit you in some way, whether emotionally or socially, then who’s to stop it? It is creating a positive externality after all , which finally brings me close to the woman of the match.
Externalities: Debbie Ocean – the Reformer & Philanthropist Who Stole Hearts!
Besides being drop-dead gorgeous, straight out of a fantasy rom-com, Debbie Ocean (aka THE Sandra Bullock) might’ve unlocked doors of fortune and prosperity for multiple individuals (and not just any TYPE of individual, but WOMEN) who could, as a result, stand on their own ground and start building their own lives.
Perhaps, her robbery after all didn’t turn out to be a significant downturn of societal morals and values, but a mission empowering and giving deserved recognition to women who were already dominating in generally male dominated fields.
So unlike Cartier — who never had plans of utilizing the million dollar asset for the welfare of the public and were only focused on acquiring astronomical wealth for their private benefit — the benefits of Debbie’s robbery didn’t just lie in personal financial gain, but social good and growth of a certain percent of the human capital. Which means that the externalities produced by the act were positive.
An Economic Externality is several kids being taken hostage by the Demogorgons and several military officials costing their lives because Ashley Klein decided to snitch on Delightful Derek and THE team on Stranger Things Season 5 Episode 4. (spoiler if you haven”t watched it already; sorry!)
For those looking for a more technical definition, Externalities are the unintended side effects (costs or benefits) of an economic activity experienced by a third party not directly involved in the transaction and is classified into two categories: Positive & Negative.
For instance, the example that I shared earlier was a classic case of negative externality. On the contrary, in the movie, that robbery unleashed powerful positive externalities (Positive externality = Social Benefit > Private Benefit & Social Benefit = Private Benefit + External Benefit) — it sparked job creation, funneled funds that empowered women to kickstart their own ventures, igniting even more job opportunities, and transformed those women into self-reliant leaders who sidestepped any post-illegal shenanigans. Seriously, if this isn’t a prime example of productivity, then what is?
Finale: The Grand Reveal of What the Heck Just Happened
In the movie, to Cartier, the necklace was more about prestige and showcase and less about capital and value. It was a signal whose value lay in how it was represented, and not what it produced.
The necklace was not being sold. It was not generating cash flow. It’s marginal revenue was unchanged. So from an economic perspective, neither marginal cost nor marginal revenue shifts, meaning the firm’s equilibrium remains intact. Which also means that neither the supply curve nor the demand curve shifted, because the consumers never interacted with the asset in the first place (except for that one time when Anne Hathaway’s character Daphne Kluger wore it for the Met Gala, but that was merely part of the process — I mean the firm never really profited from it, right?).
Hence, the economic question isn’t who owned the necklace; it’s whether it was ever doing anything economically meaningful in the first place. And the answer to that is, well, no.
P.S. So next time you see a spare coin sitting idly on a busy street, with no whereabouts of its owner, remember to pick it up and think to yourself, “You’re not doing this for me. You’re not doing this for you. Out there, there’s an eight-year-old girl lying in bed, dreaming of being a criminal. So, let’s make her dreams come true!” ~Debbie Ocean.
(I’ve been wanting to slip this quote into this blog ever since this topic popped into my head)
Author: Avantika Goswami (Ava) Date: December 21, 2025
Comments
One response
Hi, this is a comment.
To get started with moderating, editing, and deleting comments, please visit the Comments screen in the dashboard.
Commenter avatars come from Gravatar.