Posted on 03/22/2014 11:20:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
As a boxing fan, I thought Shannon Briggs was the second coming of Mike Tyson when I watched him fight in person at Madison Square Garden. He bolted off his stool to plummet his opponent within a minute of the opening round. This was a bad man! Alas, it was more about competition.
His opponent that night was a tomato can, and Briggs was 'not 'unstoppable, like a human-robot. I learned this a few fights later when he fought another would-be tomato can, and took a shot to the chops that busted his lip. Seeing his own blood for the first time sent Briggs, the 25 and 0 fighter (25 knockouts) reeling.
In fact, the shock of blood seemed more powerful than the blow that actually landed. Briggs was counted out in the third round of that fight. Although he would continue to fight, and continue to win championship belts later in his career, he was never the same fighter; and he never recaptured that facade of invincibility. To his credit, he took a savage beating in his last pro fight against Vitali Klitschko, which lasted 12 rounds, but he spent the next four weeks in intensive care.
Sturm & Drang
German for "Storm and Stress," was a movement from 1760 to 1780, among poets, philosophers, and composers that focused on the angst in life.
I thought about Shannon Briggs and the Sturm & Drang movement, when I saw the Federal Reserve's assessment of too-big-to-fail banks. It might seem odd that a pro fighter that did not live up to the hype, and a short-term art movement which influenced timeless poems, as well as works from Mozart, have something in common. On the one hand, there is the pugilist that was a walking wall of granite, only to turn into clay after failing his first stress test. On the other hand, music and written words sought to reflect the agony of stress.
...Take a Punch?
According to the Federal Reserve, the top 30 banks with $50.0 billion or more in assets, were as impressive as Shannon Briggs, as he developed a record that shouted to the world that he was an indestructible monster. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, banks were tested for a meltdown scenario that was begun last quarter, to last through 2015. However, it turned out to be nine months of hell that would see a negative GDP of 6.1% in the first quarter of next year, and the market free falling to 7,500. In addition, home prices were being swallowed by a sinkhole. Zions Bancorporation was not ready for that to happen, but Zions said it would get its act together, so its shares rallied nicely anyway.
So, $500 billion wiped out and the following banks would still be in the fight. I don't think so!
Face it...too big to fail has only become a larger problem, and the unruly meltdown presented in the Fed's severely adverse scenario would see blood in the Street. More importantly, it would mean another massive bailout. That's right, the personification of a perfect 'Sturm and Drang' situation that would make that old enlighten crowd in Germany take great pleasure. There is nothing quite like the perfect storm and the aura of human angst.
The stress test is a joke and the results are an insult.
In the end, Main Street would suffer, and money that could be used differently, or saved could gush into the vaults of these banks and other major companies. Once the dust settles, CEOs and other highly placed executives would be back to record bonuses and Main Street would still struggle, although under pro-success and free market conditions; not as long as the current malaise. Over the long run, the nation has an amazing economy that bounces back, which is why I say stop with this nonsense, and allow failed banks to fail, so America can suffer less and come back sooner.
Speaking of comebacks...Shannon Briggs is scheduled to come out of retirement early next year to fight for $10,000,000 in Dubai. If that happens, forget about the rally in biotech stocks and Fed money printing. However, it would be the biggest sell signal I could ever imagine. Having that much cash to squander on a guy that lost it all a long time ago, after he failed his first stress test, proves there is too much excess cash and froth. At least it would be some dumb oil sheik forking over the money for that charade, and if there were a severely adverse meltdown, you and I would pay to bailout the banks.
I like Charles, but he either needs to get an editor or fire the one he has and get a better one.
Note that even with the stress test, there are four outperforming banks—but none of the four are banks in the usual sense of having lots of loan or investment exposure. Bank NY/Mellon and State Street are mostly investment custodians. Discover and American Express are primarily credit card companies.
“plummet his opponent?”
Fell his opponent?
Sounds like an autocorrect mangling of pummel to me.
It likely was, but plummet wouldn’t be exactly wrong in that context. It would be an odd choice, but not incorrect.
At the risk of sounding like a school marm, “plummet” is an intransitive verb in that it does not have a direct object.
I said it would be an odd choice of phrase.
If one were planning to fell a tree it would plummet to the ground, just as an opponent would.
The direct object of plummeting an opponent would be to bring them down rapidly.
Something may plummet to the ground, but one doesn't plummet that something (that something being an object of the verb) to the ground.
I like Charles and even like his writing, but he needs an editor (as many of us do).
“Something may plummet to the ground, but one doesn’t plummet that something (that something being an object of the verb) to the ground.”
Does one fell a tree?
"Plummet" is intransitive.
One may "fell" a tree, but one does not "plummet" a tree.
A tree may plummet. But there is no object to the verb plummet (i.e. it is intransitive).
Um ... hello? Calvin already covered this in a conversation with his tiger friend Hobbes:
"I like to verb words," Calvin says.
Hobbes asks, "What?"
Calvin explains: "I take nouns and advetives and use them as verbs. Remember when 'access' was a thing? Now it's something you do. It got verbed. Verbing weirds language."
(Hobbes concludes: "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.")
BTW, I hate the verb "gifted." I don't know if Calvin invented it but it has his finger prints all over it.
The one that really grates on me is a different mis-use, I suppose, of language, which (alas!) is as dynamic and shifting and living as any tree or stream, no matter how much I object! {^)
The one that just sets my teeth on edge, and I cannot quite figure out why (!!!) is the use of "product" instead of "products." That seemed to suddenly pop into use about ten or 12 years ago. It annoyed me then, and it still annoys me! I have to laugh at myself! {^) It always sounds a little pompous, a little cocky, a little self-important: "We ship ten tons of product annually." Fifteen, 20 years ago, a person would have said: "We ship ten tons of products annually." He would have been more correct, but it just sounds so much more cool to say "product"! The same kind of guy who, instead of saying, "Let's talk," now says: "Let's dialogue." And I'm thinking, "'Dialogue' this!"
Bah! {^)
On a lot of tv shows I watch, “product” is a euphemism for (illegal) drugs.
Perhaps if the product you were shipping was deer, then having no plural would be correct. Since there is no plural of deer, 1 or 1000 would just be ‘product’. lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.