The economics of Harry Potter

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

Coming soon from 2K Boston: TechnoShock!

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.

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

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:

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.

Economists: still not sociologists.

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

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.