The economics of Harry Potter

[Linoleum]

@Jason_McCullough1

Sure, they’re not a big-fan of wheel-dealers. The best description of the Trek world came to me last night - the technocratic movement.

And here I thought the technocratic movement referred to constipation from trying to get medical nanobots out of your system…

[Enduro_Man]

Coming soon from 2K Boston: TechnoShock!

[Brad_Grenz]

@Gav

Two economists take a look at the economics of the Potter-verse, here.

Looks to be a serious paper, although I think some of the premises are kind of bizarre. Essentially, they’re trying to figure out the public’s view of certain economic issues by looking at the Potter-verse, with the assumption that people approve of the economic basis of the Potter-verse–if not, they wouldn’t read them.

Wait, what? The economy presented in Harry Potter is hardly Utopian. There are poor working class families, there are spoiled kids from families with old money, there are oppressed classes/species being used as slave labor. It’s an interesting aspect of the universe that magic doesn’t solve anything. What a weird assumption. I just finished reading the Stranger, that doesn’t mean I endorse French dudes randomly killing Arabs.

[Nengjanggo]

@Gav

Two economists take a look at the economics of the Potter-verse, here.

Looks to be a serious paper, although I think some of the premises are kind of bizarre. Essentially, they’re trying to figure out the public’s view of certain economic issues by looking at the Potter-verse, with the assumption that people approve of the economic basis of the Potter-verse–if not, they wouldn’t read them.

I think the assumption is more that the Potter-verse is supposed to fit what people expect from real economics:

@Economics geniuses

Thus, if the readers of Harry Potter find the books enjoyable and if they all understand the plots of the story in a similar way, then that means that the books’ model of the world and the attitudes of its heroes towards their world are close enough to the environment that the readers find familiar.

This seems a bit odd to me, since the book is predicated on the existence of magic, which presumably is NOT close enough to the environment the readers find familiar.

Further, they make all kinds of insane inferences about people’s thought processes, ignoring very plausible alternatives:

@Page 8

(here they are talking about wizards using gold coins and not paper money) It is therefore intriguing why the readers do not find fiat money an optimalsolution. Why do readers believe that wizards should prefer heavy and cumbersome money even though they use it in the same way as the paper money? … This view may be related to the readers’ inflation aversion.

Or this view may be related to the association between wizards and the past. I mean, why do the wizards cast spells in Latin? Does this reflect the reader’s view that Latin is an inherently supernatural language? Or does it just reflect an association between Latin and ancient-ness, and ancient-ness and magic?

I couldn’t find any publication information for this. Is this in press? If so, that’s a bit embarassing for whoever’s publishing it.

[Unicorn_McGriddle]

Economists: still not sociologists.

[Bill_Dungsroman]

@Aeon221

Fixed it for ya.

Whew, fuck I first read it as “Hobo-porn.”

[Hawkeye_Fierce]

with the assumption that people approve of the economic basis of the Potter-verse–if not, they wouldn’t read them.
Only economists would make this assumption.