St. Maximos' Hut

A good analysis of "price gouging" and why a price rise after a disaster is not a bad thing.

Consider — if a gas station owner has gas, someone has to decide who gets it. If the price remains at pre-hurricane levels, many will fill their tanks, because they can afford to do so, against the chance (and even likelihood) that gas will later become completely unavailable (a self-fulfilling prophecy if the price is not allowed to rise). Many will do so even if they have no immediate need for it. But after the first few people do this, the gas will be gone, and none will be available for those who come after, because it's now tied up in the gas tanks of those who didn't really need it. Those who didn't get any may include emergency workers, or truck drivers who need it to go out and find other goods to bring in. It is likely worth more to them, but they didn't get it, because the price was artificially fixed. Moreover, had the price been allowed to rise, they would have been able to afford it, because they would have been able to demand more resources with which to pay for it — the emergency worker might have had aid from local agencies to pay for it, or the truck driver might have been willing to make the investment in order to recover it by bringing in necessary goods (assuming, of course, that prices on those weren't capped).

Attempts to prevent price rises under such circumstances mean there will have to be an alternative means of deciding who gets the scarce resource. Rationing by means other than price seems likely to produce bad outcomes quite often. Of course, so does rationing by price - the poor don't get any.

But there is a response to solve the problem with price-based rationing - the well-to-do give money to the poor. What's the solution to a rationing scheme that allows bureaucrats to favor their friends or patrons at the expense of everyone else? You've got to win the next election and replace the bureaucrats, at a minimum.

So what would a moral gas station owner do? Seems to me he'd raise the price to market levels and take some of the profits and give them to deserving cases (and, being on the spot he probably can evaluate who is deserving better than most). The rest of us incur an obligation to start writing checks to charities who will put people on the spot.

Perfect? Far from it. But likely to produce a far better outcome in both moral and economic terms? I think so.

I'd especially welcome comments, since I'm still thinking this through (as is obvious).


Update: there is a good post on this at Tully's Page

As a new member to the list, I would like to introduce myself. I am economist at Hope College, a liberal arts school affiliated with the Reformed Church of America. Previously, I was at LSU and Miami University in Ohio. I obtained my Ph.D. from UCLA and Harold Demsetz was my thesis advisor. Another member of the group, P.J. Hill, and I are revising a paper in which we look at some of the reasons some theologians are very critical of market economies. We utilize an argument of Hayek--that people want to live in the small group where personal relationships are important, but benefit from living in a large, complex system where impersonal relationships dominate.
I plan on continuing with the project by looking at other reasons many theologians don't like market systems, including a group that is known as radical orthodoxy. John Milbank is the biggest name in the group, although D. Stephen Long wrote a book, DIVINE ECONOMY, that focuses more on economic issues and analysis. Milbank advocates Christian socialism and wants to see the economy organized on the basis of gift since creation is a gift from God. According to Milbank, western thought went astray with Duns Scotus and Ockham with the result that we have secularity, nihilism, individualism, and capitalism. He and others take it for granted that capitalism is unjust and anti-Christian. Long argues that economists should heed theologians and that we need to return to theology as the queen of the sciences. While I am sympathetic to such an argument as a Christian--all of life is under the lordship of Christ--neither Long nor Milbank have convinced me that they are the theologians I should listen to. This project has grown since I first had the idea, and fear it could never come to an end--there is always something else to read and, as anyone who tries to write knows, reading is a lot easier work than writing.

Prof. Bainbridge has some thoughts on the theological issues involved in shooting looters. And some of the comments are pretty interesting too.

One commentator raised a point about the state being absent in New Orleans right now, making it more morally right to act outside the state. I've written about this at length (Miners, Vigilantes and Cattlemen, 33 Land and Water Law Review 581 (1998) - you can get it on Westlaw or Lexis if you have access, otherwise email me and I'll send you a hard copy.)

It is too late to come up with a pithy summary - all I will say at this point is that (1) historical experience suggests that it is actually quite hard to get a vigilante movement going because there are serious free rider problems involved and (2) there were some quite successful vigilante efforts in the 19th century that made dramatic improvements in law and order, most notably in Montana in 1863-64 and the early to mid 1880s but there were also some horrific abuses, such as the Johnson County War in Wyoming in 1892. The difference between the "good" and bad vigilante movements often turned on the relationship with the state. The key point is that there are some important incentive issues involved that make me suspect that there is more likely to be underprovision than overprovision of private efforts at law enforcement.

Jim Geraghty at TKS, one of the more interesting people blogging, has some interesting thoughts and photos from a trip to Israel. Here's a link to one especially interesting post - poke around, there are a bunch more.

and then the next sentence is:

"Both philosophically and practically, the broad ownership of property is the greatest tool we have to embrace and secure the immense benefits of technological civilization, and to check the encroachment of spiritual enervation on the sanctity of human initiative."


An interesting essay on property, Godliness, technology and much more.

Thanks to G.M. Curtis for the tip to read this.

Two new members are joining us. John Lunn, an economist at Hope College and sometime collaborator of PJ's, is going to give us more econ and David Rodier, from the Dept. of Philosophy and Religion at American University, who Fr. C describes as a neo-Platonist and NASCAR aficionado, will bring us both Greek culture and the possibility of a public tussle over NASCAR with Tom "24" Bogart.

Welcome to them both.

Kudos for selecting St. Maximos as patron of this blog. His very name -- MAXimos -- suggests that he should be the patron saint of neoclassical economists.

Whenever I learn about a saint, I like to offer a brief prayer asking for his or her intercession. My prayer to Maximos went something like this: "Please pray for me that I, like you, not become too attached to my material possessions." Ironically, this prayer came to me a couple of days ago ... while I was washing my car (which has served me well for seventeen years).

As the newest member of this blog, it's time for an introduction.

I'm an economic historian at Wake Forest University. In college I became an atheist and remained so from about fifteen years until a lot of prayers (by my family and others) and my own leap of faith brought me back to God and into the Roman Catholic Church.

Because the obvious agnosticism and atheism of my own college professor helped put me on the wrong track, I make a point of letting my students know that there are intelligent people who believe in God. One way I do this is by opening and closing each semester with a prayer. (If you know of others who do this in secular institutions, please let me know that I'm not alone.)

Like Andy, I see the existence of salsa as proof of God's love. It's not only that He put the ingredients here, but He also gave us the intelligence and the initiative to refine wild plants, cultivate them, and deliver them to the shelves of nearby stores.

On my way home, I drove by a church with one of those signs that can have a new saying each week. I usually enjoy such signs - many show some wit. (The black & white "God Speaks" billboards, for example, are superb, thought-provoking, and short.)

This one read: "The same fence that keeps others out keeps you in."

This suggests that perhaps fences are not godly. Now it might mean that we shouldn't fence others out of our hearts - and a problem with short, pithy sayings is that they lack the nuance to settle things clearly. But how about "good fences make good neighbors"? The tragedy of the commons is the result when we lack fences. What we need are gates in our fences, gates that are open at appropriate times. But we need fences too.

From a friend who is "too tired / lazy to figure" out how to do so:

My thought about giving is that you initially give out of some feeling of moral obligation or duty (and maybe partly as a learned behavior -- my father has always been a big charitable giver and it is a value he passed on to me), but that you continue giving partly out of moral obligation and partly out of habit but partly also because giving makes you feel good. There are always exceptions, but as a general rule people who give seem to be happier than people who are selfish. Giving can make me happy in a simple and relatively direct way, but I think it also promotes some deeper sense of contentment and thereby has a positive impact on my outlook and worldview. It discourages the negative thinking of "how much do I have," "what's in it for me" and "who's ahead of me".

Tyler Cowen has some interesting thoughts over at Marginal Revolution.

Ron Bailey at Reason tells why EU anti-bio-tech policies are hurting the world's poor. These folks are sinful.

Hat tip: Instapundit

I'd be interested in people's take on whether Severius Snape is good or evil (given his conduct in the climax of the most recent Harry Potter book). I've got a piece underway on a classical liberal analysis of the Potter series, about which I may post more later - the basic idea is that the series is "about" moral choice and that it demonstrates the need for limited government to allow choice to take place. For now, if you post comments on the Snape question, those few who have not finished the sixth book can avoid any plot spoilers by not reading the comments.

The question is not entirely a silly academic one - a 2004 article reported that 60% of American kids aged 6-17, had read at least one of the series and 18% of American adults had read at least one by 2002. Considering how many more have been sold, the series is fast becoming an important common element in our culture.

Let me push the envelope further on my "Hayekian theology" points, hastening to note that I know of no reason to think Hayek himself ever applied his economic ideas to theology.

Hayek did apply his economic ideas to law, however, and there are enough parallels between law and theology to tempt me into deeper waters than I may be able to swim in.

There are 3 key tasks for a legal system, or any system of rules and principles: (1) generating rules and principles; (2) limiting the content of what you generate; and (3) resolving disputes about the application of what you generate. To start, I'll consider just the first.

Hayek argued that legal rules (not of the 55 m.p.h. speed limit variety but of the more general "negligent people must compensate the victims of their negligence" variety) were best generated by a process that relied heavily on custom and not particularly heavily on reason. (This is not to say that we can't use reason later to understand the rules, but that the rules themselves come out of a process that is not based on reason.)

In Law, Legislation and Liberty (I, 18), Hayek writes "'Learning from experience[,]' among men no less than among animals, is a process not primarily of reasoning but of observance, spreading, transmission and development of practices which have prevailed because they were successful - often not because they conferred any recognizable benefits on the acting individual but because they increased the chances of survival of the group to which he belonged."

Hayek explicitly rejects a role for planning in rule generation - individual rules need not be "rationally demonstrated or 'made clear and demonstrative to every individual" (LLL, I, 25). Man has not achieved "mastery of his surroundings mainly through his capacity for logical deduction from explicit premises" but by following rules that experience teaches work.

Suppose we have the Cult of Andy, in which the theology is whatever I say it is. If you want to know the answer to a theological question, just ask me and I will answer it. (The Cult of Me seems a fair description of how some folks approach theology - the "cafeteria Christian", for example, who picks and chooses individual doctrines or practices as suits himself or herself.) Such a religion will fall victim quite quickly to the combination of my self-interest (charity means give me your stuff) and my lack of ability to comprehend enough of the world to design a comprehensive theology that answers all of life's problems.

Compare this to a theology produced by a fractious bunch of clerics and confirmed by the practice of the church itself (I think that fairly describes Orthodoxy, esp. the fractious part.... I suspect, but the fathers may correct me on this, that it also describes to a greater or lesser degree, theological practice in other Christian denominations.) The experience of the church provides not reasoning (for that we have the Church Fathers, colleges of theology, etc.) but the confirmation that practices are correct from experience. Further, the putting into practice by the members of the church of the theology provides the members (clergy and laity alike) with the experience that brings success. In this case, success is not the rewards of the marketplace, but a closer relationship with Christ. It can also be defined as not ending up like the heretical Fr. Arius, whose guts liquified on his way to a church council. In other words, I need not rationally understand the Trinity, but if I follow the teachings of the Church that are based on the Church's understanding of the Trinity, I will come to a closer relationship with Christ than if I spin my wheels applying logic to the issue.

This is all still pretty preliminary thinking on my part, so I invite others to join in.

An aside: the account of Fr. Arius' death given by Socrates is mighty instructive:

It was then Saturday, and . . . going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

(quote from Wikipedia).

A more powerful sign of the wrongness of the Arian heresy is hard to imagine. Markets don't give quite as dramatic a signal of bad business decisions (bankruptcy just doesn't rank up there with excreting one's spleen), and so the "market for theology" is aided in no small part by such signs.

I spent some time making salsa this afternoon. Can there be any doubt that, as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom frequently reminds us during services, that God is a good God who loves mankind when he has given us tomatoes, cilantro, and jalapenos and corn chips with which to eat them?

Economist Robert Whaples, a wonderful economic historian at Wake Forest University and all-around great guy, is joining us here in the Hut. I'm sure we'll hear from him soon.

One of the nicest things since we started this is the number of emails we've been getting from people interested in the topic. Several have suggested blogs they know about or participate in, and we're adding those to our blogroll.

A nice addition today was Tully's Page, who gets special mention from me because he gave the secret Orthodox handshake. Worth a look.

Andy's post about being a joyful giver raises an issue I plan on discussing later this week or next week as my class works through Robert Frank's book, Passions Within Reason. Because there are benefits from truly being cooperative and making sacrifices in the short run to promote the common good, it behooves people to demonstrate that they are truly cooperative and generous. I'll be back with more soon....

OpinionJournal's Political Diary (a fee-for-subscription e-newsletter published by the WSJ, so I can't link) included a discussion of the cheapening of the term "conscience" in political discourse. After cataloguing the wide range of people referred to as the "conscience of the nation" (Sandra Day O'Connor to Robert Byrd), Joseph Rago turned to historical precedent:

Please. This has nothing to do with conscience and everything to do with vanity, celebrity, self-congratulation and pious sentimentality. When George Washington was a schoolboy, he entered into his commonplace book, "Labour to keep alive in your breast that that little spark of celestial fire -- conscience." These days, "conscience" is the roaring bonfire of political discourse, but there's nothing divine about it.

When "conscience" became a valuable commodity, I suppose it isn't surprising that the political marketplace produced more of it or that producers came up with a "conscience" product that has more to do with political placement than actual moral values. Is this a political Gresham's Law?

A friend passed on one of those constantly-forwarded humor messages, which included one item relevant to our discussion:

"IT'S STRANGE, ISN'T IT?
Isn't it strange how a 20 dollar bill seems like such a large amount when you donate it to church, but such a small amount when you go shopping?"

This phenomenon might have something to do with how we perceive our donations. A $20 seems small when we're shopping both because we want much more than it can buy and because we experience gains from trade in our exchanges in the marketplace, trading our $20 for something worth more to us (the essence of voluntary trade).

When we approach the collection basket, however, the gains from trade are not as immediate - perhaps we see that $20 as a loss (something that psychologists and experimental economists tell us makes us value the $20 more than we'd value a $20 gain).

Churches that successfully raise money from their members are either (1) convincing people that donating money to the church brings a reward (as with the various "give and get back more" messages offered by some); (2) convincing people that they are undertaking a moral duty - something Fr. C discussed in his recent post (which I am still digesting).

#1 seems a little dubious theologically - perhaps the priests can help us on that. It isn't obvious to me that my welfare is always enhanced by getting more; sometimes, I'm better off with less. And then there's Job.

The real trick is approaching our moral duties joyfully, something that takes some work to do consistently, at least for me. I read stories of people who've put their God-given entrepreneurial talents to work to help people not only by creating wealth but who then take part of the fruits of those enterprises and do additional good in the world. Bill Gates seems to me an example of such an individual - not only has he done enormous good by playing a role in cheapening computing power so that individuals like me can blog about moral duties, etc. but the Gates family has put substantial sums into malaria eradication, education, etc. (We could debate Microsoft's business tactics, but that's another topic. For now I will just say that I find my interactions with Microsoft products ever-more value-enhancing than my interactions with Department of Justice products, and leave it at that.)

Cumque indigeret aqua populus coierunt adversum Mosen et Aaron
(And the people wanting water, came together against Moses and Aaron:-- Numbers 20:2)

Privatization, particularly that of “basic services”, is a hot-button issue in the ongoing debate between “progressive” Catholics and free-market Catholic Christians. I’d like to offer some brief observations on the two issues raised in Andy’s post on Ethics and Markets, at least as applicable to the provision of basic services.

The first argument may easily be addressed from a Catholic perspective. Despite the more heated rhetoric of “social gospel” folks and liberation theology aficionados, the church has consistently upheld private property rights. For example, in Mater et Magistra, Pope John XXIII writes, “private ownership of property, including that of productive goods, is a natural right which the State cannot suppress. (para. 19). This encyclical stands between Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (“private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature”) and John Paul II’s commentary on its 100th anniversary (“The modern business economy has positive aspects. Its basis is human freedom exercised in the economic field…” In the anniversary Encyclical Centisimus Annus, JPII is eloquent in defending free market ideas.

The rub comes, however, in the other half of the discussion which Andy points out—the obligation placed upon Christians to be charitable (as opposed to “doing charity”). As articulated in Mater et Magistra, the private ownership “naturally entails a social obligation as well. It is a right which must be exercised not only for one’s own personal benefit but also for the benefit of others.” As well, from Centisimus Annus, there is an extensive discussion about making “responsible use” of economic freedom.

On the one hand, from Rerum Novarum,

For man, fathoming by his faculty of reason matters without number, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present welfare, but also about those which he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.

Leo XIII goes on to say that, “For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces.”

Thus, I would say that a Catholic understanding, consonant with the Encyclicals, is anything but a bar to distribution even of “life sustaining” goods. Indeed, Rerum Novarum, and JPII’s comments on its 100th anniversary, contain a constant theme that the state which interferes with such distribution is subject to contempt.

Of course, the mischief is planted in the same documents, Albeit in the context of the needs of working people, the problem lies in statements like this in Mater et Magistra, “As for the State, its whole raison d’etre is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. It cannot, therefore, hold aloof from economic matters. On the contrary, it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods, ‘the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue.’ It has also the duty to protect the rights of all its people, and particularly of its weaker members, the workers, women and children.” (para. 20)

Or, how about, “Equity therefore commands that public authority show proper concern for the worker so that from what he contributes to the common good he may receive what weill enable him to be housed, clothed and secure, to live his life without hardship.” And, finally, “Even prior to the logic of a fair exchange of goods and the forms of justice appropriate to it, there exists something which is due to man because he is man, by reason of his lofty dignity. Inseparable from that required "something" is the possibility to survive and, at the same time, to make an active contribution to the common good of humanity.” Centisimus Annus (para. 34)

The devil is in the details, and such statements in the Encyclicals have created a tension. We can easily see that those who believe command economy or statist delivery of all services would seize on such language to oppose privatization of any good or service they deem “necessary for the practice of virtue.” The Latin American experience alone provides ample examples of this disastrous approach. (Indeed, JPII publicly rebuked and rebuffed a priest who had joined the Sandinista government to push such “progressive” thinking”)

At the end of the day, my own answer is that “It is lawful for a man to own his things. It is even necessary for human life.” (Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 66, A2). The duty of charity, the seriousness of Christian life, compels us that we should readily share those goods with those in need. (Q. 65, Art. 2). We are compelled to take care of those who suffer from privation as a matter of Scripture. (e.g. St. Luke 11:41) Compelled charity is no charity, and, coupled with the inefficiency of state distribution for whatever reason, frequently and sadly leads to tyranny.

Apart from the arguments from the Encyclicals, I would commend Alejandro Chafuen’s book Faith and Liberty (Lexington Books; 2nd edition (July, 2003) to illustrate how sympathetic to the free market 16th-century Catholic theologians were. As well, Prof. Tom Woods, a perennial favorite of mine, takes up the defense of the market in his a book called The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Lexington Books (March, 2005))

in economic liberty comes to mind from the weekend edition of the Financial Times, which includes a lengthy article ("Faith, Hope and Parity" by Vincent Boland) on a property dispute between the Orthodox Church in Turk ey and the government. (subscription required for access eventually, unfortunately, but it is available as I post here). The story is interesting on a number of points.

Most interesting here is the view of religious freedom in Turkey. Here's a key passage:

"Ataturk decreed that the country was to be secular, nationalist, republican, popular, statist, and modern. These are its governing principles today, 82 years after it was created from the ruins of the Ottoman empire. So the people of Turkey, the majority of whom are Sunni Muslims, are free to worship. But what and even how they worship is, to a large extent, dictated by the state.

One of the main functions of the Directorate of Religious Affairs, an arm of the government, is to write the sermons that are preached in mosques every Friday. Religious schooling is permissible but limited, and is tightly controlled. Most Turkish people are quite content with this arrangement, believing that it protects them from a stifling and perhaps oppressive Islam. Others are not, believing that it has left a spiritual vacuum, perhaps even a hostility to religion per se, at the heart of the Turkish state."

This seems extraordinary - the government is writing the sermons for the imams? People are "free to worship" but "what and even how they worship" is subject to state control? It does not seem possible to label this as being "free" in any meaningful sense.

In economic terms, let's imagine a market in which people are "free" to buy however much they want and at any price they want, but what can be sold is dictated by the government. Is this a "free" market? Certainly not. Does Turkey have a "free" market in religion? Again, the answer seems clear - no. It has a market for religious ideas in which state intervention is heavy handed indeed.

It gets worse, however. The Turkish state is also involved in seizing property from religious establishments, including enormous amounts of Orthodox church property.

The failure to respect religious institutions' property rights is a basic failure of religious freedom. At a minimum, a society with religious freedom is one in which religious institutions can hold property with the same rights as non-religious ones.

Religious freedom thus might be said to require some minimal degree of economic freedom. I have to think about that some more, and perhaps others will chime in via comments. But I'm leaning toward thinking that religious freedom ultimately requires security of property rights.

Aside: There is a lot to quibble with in this article. I found it rather obnoxious in places. For example, the author opined that Orthodox churches' interior decorations are "excessive" while mosques are praised because "their elaboration is an exterior one; inside they are as austere and simple as the ceremonies they hold." Sure, if one's tastes run to "austere" ceremonies and sacred spaces, a mosque is likely to be more to one's taste than an Orthodox church. But a Friends' Meeting or New England Congregational Church would probably be even more austere. The relevance of the degree of "austereness" in building decoration or ceremony to the property dispute or constitutional issues seems, well, hard to grasp.

is all that separates a Guatemalan orphanage, Hogar Rafael Ayau, from Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

Hayek and Mises both knew Manuel Ayau, founder of Universidad Francisco Marroquin, a free-market oriented university in Guatemala. Indeed, UFM's library is the Mises Library.

Ayau's daughter is Mother Ines, who runs Hogar Rafael Ayau - an orphanage founded by her family. The orphanage has an interesting history. After long period of success as a private charity, it was taken over by the Guatemalan government. Not surprisingly, it fell into disrepair and became a far and less loving environment for the children. Finally, in the late 1990s, the government approached Mother Ines, who was living a life of contemplation and prayer with her fellow nuns, and asked her to take over the orphanage. Within a few months, the nuns had found the families of many of the children.

And to beautify the blog, here's a picture of my family with Mother Ines.


When I visited the orphanage last year, I found a loving environment filled with happy, well-cared for children. Each child, Mother Ines pointed out to me, had his or her own storage space where their personal belongings could be kept. This, she said with a twinkle in her eye, taught them about private property from an early age.

The university is transforming Guatemala in many ways; the orphanage in others. I highly recommend a visit to their web site. Support them if you can - for both are doing God's work, and also Hayek's work, in a place that needs both.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Manuel Ayau has the best business card I have ever seen - and I have an autographed copy on my bookshelf, awaiting the right frame.

It reads:
Manuel F. Ayau Cordon
Arch Typical Far-Right Latin Libertarian Oligarch

The title comes from, I believe, a left-wing publication that referred to him that way. Can't beat that!

Michael Goltz, who writes icons as an avocation, is also in the process of creating an icon of St. Maximos. Here's his line drawing design of the icon - as his creation progresses, he's promised us more images. With luck, he'll add comments explaining the image.

I'm not sure of the economic content here, but who can resist being part of the creation of an image of our namesake?

Michael Goltz, a fellow St. Maximos fan, forwarded this link, where a more complete account of the saint's life can be found.