Could the WW have something like a credit crunch?

[moonlite_tryst]

I'm not an economist and only have the vaguest idea about things such as GDP, inflation, deflation, customs and excise, but I do get that countries survive by trading with other countries, providing a marketable product or service, or selling a natural resource in demand by others. A ridiculously simple overview I know..

Which leads me to my questions:

How do you think the wizarding world economy works?

Do Uk wizards trade with other communities around the world and what do you think the UK wizards could offer?

Do galleons rise and fall in price like other monetary systems? Would Voldemort's actions have had a negaive impct on the WW economy?

How does Gringott's operate?

Do the goblins charge their human customers and would they have something like the Muggle money markets to make a profit on all that gold etc sitting in their vaults?

Could famillies like the Malfoys, Blacks and Potters have amassed their fortunes by taking advantage of generations of Muggle labour or Muggle ambition, such as trading in tea, porcelain, opium etc?

I'm thinking this gathering of wealth on the back of Muggle labour is very likely because there must've been Muggle borns throughout the centuries. Would the heir to a grand estate been made to renounce his title because he was a wizard?

Thoughts?

Comments

[beatnikspinster.livejournal.com]

Why would they need a Statute of Secrecy at all, if no one was interacting? I saw my comments filling in history in her last question, rather than present day economics.

But yeah, I can see some of what your saying, especially if you're trying to extend JKR's intentions. I tend not to care what she intended, ever. I take the what canon facts exist and fill in the rest in an interesting way. I loathe "But It's Magic". It's too close to Jabootu's "It's In The Script" for me. To supplant reason with JKR's impulse-driven construction means waiting for her, personally, to layout the specifics of an economy for us. She didn't establish a portable systemic foundation to extend the WW without her hand, so unless I utilize reason to fill in the blanks, I'm can't write fancomics at all.

[moonlite-tryst.livejournal.com]

To supplant reason with JKR's impulse-driven construction means waiting for her, personally, to layout the specifics of an economy for us. She didn't establish a portable systemic foundation to extend the WW without her hand

*coughs politely and raise hand* Um... blond here. Can you say it again in simpler terms?

[beatnikspinster.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the confusing language. *blush* I've been trying to figure this out for the last few hours, and write it in a way not too mangled.

First, rejecting an idea as rational feels arbitrary. The WW is too derivative of the real world to reject things like deflation out of hand. It's not a wildly original, alien world like those created by Octavia Butler or Ursula K LeGuin. It doesn't escape the bonds of convention, so RL phenomena don't feel out of place for me.

Second, the WW canon responds only to JKR's ever-changing impulses, which are inconsistent, and not a system no matter how many encyclopedias there are. For example: magic can't bring back the dead, except with death's ring or priori incantatem or a horcrux or a horcrux removal AK. Except after interview retcon, then it's not really back from the dead, just looks like it. Portraits totally don't count as resurrecting a person, except there's never a glitch talking to them, unless you totally want to prove how not real they are. Wanna bring Snape or Lupin back from the dead? Good luck!

Without JKR's impulses, the WW can't be expanded. Not by its own authority. So fanon can either use reason to fill in the gaps or substitute anyones impulses. (Unless one person/group asserts their idiosyncrasies as a proxy authority for JKR over fandom. Fancoup.) Canon is governed by erratic authoritarianism, making all fanon subversive regardless of approach. This leaves neither rationality nor impulse with more authority than the other. In the light of this, "rational" isn't a convincing criticism.