Big Albert
It's the Memorial of St. Albert the Great. I've long been intrigued with Albertus Magnus. He not only taught St. Thomas Aquinas, and he not only early recognized STA's brilliance ("You call him a Dumb Ox; I tell you this Dumb Ox shall bellow so loud that his bellowing will fill the world"). He was also the earliest scientist: the Roger Bacon of the Continent (or Bacon was the Albertus of the Island). But that's not the reason I'm intrigued with him. Albert was not only the premier botanist of the 13th century, he was also something of a magician, and that's what fascinates me. In the early stages of the scientific revolution--which started in the 13th century, not the 16th century like Voltarists want us to believe--science and magic were intertwined. It was all part of an effort to gain control over the world, or, in Albert's case, an effort to understand God's creation better and to further man's dignity in cooperation with that creation. Magic and science are merely two heads of the same hydra. We have long seen the diabolical side of magic and Albert condemned purported works by Hermes Trismegistus for containing diabolical magic, but Albert himself may have practiced magic ("Albertus probably was a magician"--Frances Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, p. 380). I don't have an opinion about whether Albert practiced magic, though I'm inclined to think he did. He was cutting edge (Aquinas was cutting edge, a fact often forgotten these days). The development of science was just beginning and it shared a lot of characteristics with magic (think of alchemy). I think a study of Albert would go a long way toward illustrating the problems with modern science today . . . and explaining how the most scientific age in the history of the world can contain so much crass superstition (from astrology to belief in Martians). It might also show us how a religion like Catholicism, and maybe only Catholicism, can strike the proper combination between those powerful tendencies--science and superstition. * * * * * * * The New York Times recently invited six economists to comment on the viability of a gold standard. All six said it wasn't viable. One gold-standard economist sighs: "Several invoked the common but mistaken notion that 'the gold standard' was responsible for the Great Depression. None distinguished between the robust classical gold standard and the fragile jerry-rigged central-bank-mismanaged gold-exchange system that failed in the interwar period. Sigh. That's not exactly my idea of finding 'room for debate.' Academic defenders of the gold standard are not that difficult to find (cough, cough)." Link. * * * * * * * "A new pricing survey of products sold Wal-Mart showed a 0.6 percent price increase in just the last two months. At that rate, prices would be close to four percent higher a year from now, double the Fed's mandate." Okay, so the CPI is going up twice as fast as the Fed predicted. That's nothing, really. I just think it's going to be a lot more than four percent (like maybe 8.48%, which is probably where it really is right now). According to the current issue (11/13-11/19) of The Economist, food is up 8% in the past month and 31.5% over the past year. * * * * * * * "The classical gold standard, the one that was in place from 1880 to 1914, is what the world needs now. In its utility, economy and elegance, there has never been a monetary system like it." Some Rothbardian nut job? Nope. It's Jim Grant, arguably the most-influential finance writer in the world today. Link.
