

The Harry Potter Economy - cwan
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15108711

======
IsaacSchlueter
Heh. When I saw the title, my first thought was _Srsly? An article on HN about
Gringotts!?_

(ref: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_in_Harry_Potter#Economy>)

~~~
patio11
I love Harry Potter, but somebody needs to explain to me how e.g. the Weasleys
experience material privation by Muggle standards with regards to things like
not being able to afford clothes when both Weasley parents and, for most of
the series, most of their children are all capable of conjuring valuable
things (including clothes) from the ether. Or how Harry is rich like a king
due to his inheritance despite his parents having no detectable business or
reason for excessive wealth (well, aside from their prodigious abilities at
conjuring valuable things from the ether). Or how Hogwarts and the Ministry of
Magic, both of which are shown as having truly _prodigious_ amounts of wealth
expended in their construction and upkeep, are sustained via contributions
from a parallel economy where the level of economic sophistication has not
exceeded "a one-room store attended by an artisan", except for (apparently)
multinational corporations, branding campaigns, and market sophistication
in... quidditch broomsticks.

Economics is a real spoilsport for fantasy literature. I was once taught a
single sentence which now nags at me in every book I read: "Describe how this
army is fed." For example, the carnivorous Canim in the Furies of Calderon
series fielded an army of some 60,000 apex predators in a sparsely populated
agricultural region for a period of over two years. Their purchasing agent
should require about as many sources of meat as all the McDonalds nationwide,
but the economy as depicted couldn't possibly support that.

~~~
jeromec
Harry Potter expert here. Responding to your first question about poverty,
there are some limiting factors on conjuring. First, although items _appear_
to come from nowhere, they actually are likely to come from somewhere. For
example, the feast appears magically on the Great Hall tables, but it comes
from the kitchens below after being prepared by house elves. When things
vanish, they also likely go somewhere else (remember the vanishing cabinet).
Many things are transfigured (transformed) by starting first with a subject,
like turning beetles into buttons, and some effects wear off (a lot of magic
is non-permanent), so here it would make more sense to use actual buttons for
clothing. The second limiting factor is skill level of the witch/wizard, as
many possess expertise in one area, but not others (even Dumbledore being
magically expert in many areas is not an alchemist, for example). This helps
explain why places like Hogwarts and the Ministry are elaborate; witches and
wizards of many skill levels and abilities worked together crossing spells for
added conjuring complexity as well as durability from the magic wearing off.

As for Harry's parents having money, they were a highly skilled witch and
wizard husband/wife team. Just as in the muggle world, as with a smart husband
and wife tandem (think the Obamas), they would do well economically. Harry's
money is riches for a single kid financing a few school years, not necessarily
a king's sum meaning he is set for life.

~~~
inglorian
I would guess that the money was probably inherited rather than earned --
likely from James, as Lily was muggleborn. Even though they may have been a
power couple, or as you say, a highly skilled witch and wizard team, they were
only 20 when they died -- not really enough time to amass obscene amounts of
wealth.

~~~
jeromec
Remember that people in the magical world come of age one year earlier than
muggles. I do think some wealth was inherited, but I also suspect James was
something of an adventurer (remember his outings with Moony, Padfoot, and
Wormtail), maybe Lily as well (they were both Phoenix Order members), which
would have given opportunities to come across gold and rare items like the
invisibility cloak.

~~~
jeromec
Why would someone downvote my comment above? I did agree a source of the
wealth was likely inheritance. But why couldn't James, with his clever, some
would even say mean (to Snape), talents not also be likely to go out and get
into adventures, take a few risks? (before Harry arrived, of course) He was
still young after all. Remember, Sirius was the wealthy one in school. James
went to stay over _his_ house as a kid. Nothing was ever said about James
Potter having a significantly wealthy family. Also, Hagrid says "D'yeh think
yer parents didn't leave yeh anything?" That sounds like Lily and James made
at least some of the money.

------
markessien
I think all of these show one thing: when people like what they use, they will
tell everyone else. You watch an amazing short film on youtube - you tell
everyone you know, and the tree grows very quickly.

The good stuff bubbles to the top. It really is that way. You cannot have
something brilliant and wanted, and it does not get its day. People will
discover it and they will tell others and so on.

When I read an amazing book, the first thing I do is call my sister to tell
her to read it too, so we can discuss it.

If it's good, all you need to do is seed it with a certain number of initial
users. The rest will come by itself.

~~~
inerte
I respectfully disagree. Harry Potter isn't considered "good" among critics,
it's not a literature masterpiece. The same is true for other arts, like
cinema and music. The top sellers usually aren't considered the best.

"Wanted", as in the audience wants to consume, yes. Maybe good enough; for the
mass market.

But it all depends from what angle you approach the conversation. Tastes are
hard to discuss.

Your last paragraph ignores the "everything else" that constitutes a product
and its surrounding business. Things like price, marketing, design,
distribution deals, costs, market share potential, competitors, etc... it's
not enough to simply have a good product; or even a perfect one, if such thing
was possible.

~~~
jordanb
Potter isn't a literary masterpiece, but it is solidly written. Rowling
managed to write some really complex and interesting characters, which is
difficult for any writer and is often missing in Fantasy.

There's a big division between popular writing and literary writing, and
people who write the latter can get up their own asses a bit sometimes about
popular authors. But they still recognize that the popular authors often
really do have skill.

It reminds me of a Jazz musician I was speaking with a bit ago. We got on the
subject of Brittney Spears, and he said that he doesn't like her style of
music but he acknowledges that she does takes a lot of skill, and that a lot
of people try to imitate her and fail.

What literary people can't fathom isn't the success of Rowling (or King or
Crichton etc). What they can't fathom is the success of Dan Brown, a man who
seems to lack any discernible trace of talent.

------
Hexstream
"Central to the books’ success was a repackaging, with a darker cover, for
adults embarrassed about being seen reading a children’s book."

Hehe.

~~~
gaius
This sort of thing will be made obsolete by e-books.

