Lupin's shabby robes, Ron's dress robes, and logical flaw

[Richard Eney]

why isn't it possible to transfigure a worn and patched robe into a
new robe, or a moth-eaten old-fashioned lace-trimmed dress robe
into something more fashionable?

It might be, but, as Hermonie says, wizards have little logic.
I always thought a good pair of scissors and a needle and thread
might have been better at transforming Ron's robes than a wand.

Are you suggesting that a wizard might use muggle methods?
Perish the thought. They're above all that, you know. :-)

Well - if they cannot be made by Magic - then please tell me the
alternative to a needle and thread. Just because Muggles do it
that way does not make it a "Muggle Method". I am sure wizards
do lots of things the same way muggles do - or at least somewhat
similarly.

Of course. But I think, just to prove they are different, whenever
possible they use magic. So a wizard weaver would have a loom that
wove by magic, etc. However, I wonder whether the quality of the
results depends on the skill of the wizard at doing the same job
the ordinary way. That might explain why Hermione's magical knitting
was still misshapen: she could only knit magically as well as she
could knit the ordinary way. Magic speeds things up but doesn't
improve the quality.

That could even explain why the kids have to learn to do astronomy
the hard way first, instead of just being given a spell to draw
the star chart. The spell wouldn't work if they hadn't learned
how to do it properly. Ron's severing charm left ragged edges
because he didn't know how to cut cloth smoothly with ordinary
scissors. Arthur has to take the muggle artifacts he has apart
and put them back together before he can make them run magically,
because he has to have at least a vague idea of how they work in
the ordinary way. He's fascinated with electricity because he wants
to come up with a magical equivalent, but in order to do that, he
has to learn how it all works the hard way. Dang, I think I'm
onto something here.

Some magical abilities are innate and very rare because of that.
Harry's (and James's) skill with a broom, Tonks's ability to
change, Trelawney's ability to channel a vision, Voldy's parselmouth
talent.

=Tamar

[Richard Eney]

Specialized skills. Just 'cause they're wizards doesn't mean they'd
devote thousands of learning-hours to developing a professaional-class
skill in how to make their ratty old clothes look less ratty.

From the description I remember of Ron's used robes, Just the lace was
ratty and old fashioned. There are many muggle students who might have
take a sewing class in a muggle school who could have picked off the lace
and hemmed the robe for Ron. But, JKR put the situation in to emphasize
Ron's lack of funds, so there it stays.

Ginny could probably have done it, but he didn't bother to ask.

=Tamar

[Helena Bowles]

Post by Richard Eney

Specialized skills. Just 'cause they're wizards doesn't mean they'd
devote thousands of learning-hours to developing a professaional-class
skill in how to make their ratty old clothes look less ratty.

From the description I remember of Ron's used robes, Just the lace was
ratty and old fashioned. There are many muggle students who might have
take a sewing class in a muggle school who could have picked off the lace
and hemmed the robe for Ron. But, JKR put the situation in to emphasize
Ron's lack of funds, so there it stays.

Ginny could probably have done it, but he didn't bother to ask.

Maybe. But sewing isn't, as I can personally attest, a universal female
interest or skill. With six brothers Ginny may well have been steered more
towards the tomboy route.
HELENA

[Richard Eney]

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by Richard Eney

From the description I remember of Ron's used robes, Just the lace was
ratty and old fashioned. There are many muggle students who might have
take a sewing class in a muggle school who could have picked off the lace
and hemmed the robe for Ron. But, JKR put the situation in to emphasize
Ron's lack of funds, so there it stays.

Ginny could probably have done it, but he didn't bother to ask.

Maybe. But sewing isn't, as I can personally attest, a universal female
interest or skill. With six brothers Ginny may well have been steered more
towards the tomboy route.

Maybe. Ginny seems to have gone the tomboy route, but I doubt that she
was deliberately steered that way. Molly might have been the sort of
overpowering crafter who doesn't teach her offspring, but I think it's
just as likely that she would have insisted that her darling daughter
learn the traditional feminine arts, at least when Ginny was the only
one left at home during Ron's first year at school and there were no
boys around to be a distraction. Molly is so traditional in many ways
that I don't think she would have let Ginny get to her eleventh birthday
without teaching her anything at all beyond basic reading and arithmetic
(in the home schooling JKR has said is the wizard norm).

=Tamar

[Helena Bowles]

Post by Richard Eney

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by Richard Eney

From the description I remember of Ron's used robes, Just the lace was
ratty and old fashioned. There are many muggle students who might have
take a sewing class in a muggle school who could have picked off the lace
and hemmed the robe for Ron. But, JKR put the situation in to emphasize
Ron's lack of funds, so there it stays.

Ginny could probably have done it, but he didn't bother to ask.

Maybe. But sewing isn't, as I can personally attest, a universal female
interest or skill. With six brothers Ginny may well have been steered more
towards the tomboy route.

Maybe. Ginny seems to have gone the tomboy route, but I doubt that she
was deliberately steered that way. Molly might have been the sort of
overpowering crafter who doesn't teach her offspring, but I think it's
just as likely that she would have insisted that her darling daughter
learn the traditional feminine arts, at least when Ginny was the only
one left at home during Ron's first year at school and there were no
boys around to be a distraction. Molly is so traditional in many ways
that I don't think she would have let Ginny get to her eleventh birthday
without teaching her anything at all beyond basic reading and arithmetic
(in the home schooling JKR has said is the wizard norm).

Yeah, I expect Molly would want her only daughter to share all the
homemaking stuff her sons were probably uninterested in. Whether Ginny was
interested is another matter! (I'm not claiming she definitely wouldn't have
been, just that it's not axiomatic). By "steered" I didn't really mean any
kind of deliberate guidance or encouragement, just that with six brothers
she would have to develop traditionally masculine interests in order to have
someone to play with as a child and a strong personality to hold her own.
She certainly seems to have inherited some of Fred and George's talents
although perhaps not their enthusiasm to employ them indescriminately...
HELENA

Post by Richard Eney
=Tamar

[Richard Eney]

I can use a siscors and thread, but I have no idea whatsoever how to hem
something, let alone take something in or let it out.
And repairing something that's WORN? That's like the fundamental
structure, wouldn't 'repairing' it basicly mean replacing the worn section of
fabric? If I can't hem, I certainly can't do that... even if I knew where to
get an exact match of fabric...
Specialized skills. Just 'cause they're wizards doesn't mean they'd
devote thousands of learning-hours to developing a professional-class
skill in how to make their ratty old clothes look less ratty.

Hence the prosperous robe shops in Diagon Alley. Madam Malkin probably
did spend thousands of hours in her apprenticeship. A thousand hours
is less than a year.

=Tamar

[Helena Bowles]

It might be, but, as Hermonie says, wizards have little logic. I always
thought a good pair of scissors and a needle and thread might have been
better at transforming Ron's robes than a wand.

Are you suggesting that a wizard might use muggle methods?
Perish the thought. They're above all that, you know. :-)

I can use a siscors and thread, but I have no idea whatsoever how to

hem

something, elt alogn take somethign in or let it out.
And repairing something that's WORN? That's liek the fundamental
structure, wouldn't 'repairing' it basicly mean replacing the worn section

of

fabric? If I can't hem, I certainly can't do that... even if I knew where

to

get an exact match of fabric...

Me, neither. And I'm *female*. Given the wizarding society tends to be
very traditional compared to muggle society and even today most boys/men
don't learn needlework it's hardly likely that male wizards would even be
able to cast the most basic clothes repair charm. Just as my father has
never touched a sewing needle and my partner, who is pretty cool about
cooking and housework etc, can just about sew on a button. I can turn a hem
rather unevenly (Praise the Lord for iron on hemming!) and sew on a patch
but it would never look good... beyond that I turn to my mother who in her
day was quite a skilled dressmaker but even she couldn't keep a worn garment
going forever (and she tried. We were not a particularly well off family).

Specialized skills. Just 'cause they're wizards doesn't mean they'd
devote thousands of learning-hours to developing a professaional-class

skill in

how to make their ratty old clothes look less ratty.

Exactly!
HELENA

[richard e white]

Post by Helena Bowles

It might be, but, as Hermonie says, wizards have little logic. I always
thought a good pair of scissors and a needle and thread might have been
better at transforming Ron's robes than a wand.

Are you suggesting that a wizard might use muggle methods?
Perish the thought. They're above all that, you know. :-)

I can use a siscors and thread, but I have no idea whatsoever how to

hem

something, elt alogn take somethign in or let it out.
And repairing something that's WORN? That's liek the fundamental
structure, wouldn't 'repairing' it basicly mean replacing the worn section

of

fabric? If I can't hem, I certainly can't do that... even if I knew where

to

get an exact match of fabric...

Me, neither. And I'm *female*. Given the wizarding society tends to be
very traditional compared to muggle society and even today most boys/men
don't learn needlework it's hardly likely that male wizards would even be
able to cast the most basic clothes repair charm. Just as my father has
never touched a sewing needle and my partner, who is pretty cool about
cooking and housework etc, can just about sew on a button. I can turn a hem
rather unevenly (Praise the Lord for iron on hemming!) and sew on a patch
but it would never look good... beyond that I turn to my mother who in her
day was quite a skilled dressmaker but even she couldn't keep a worn garment
going forever (and she tried. We were not a particularly well off family).

Specialized skills. Just 'cause they're wizards doesn't mean they'd
devote thousands of learning-hours to developing a professaional-class

skill in

how to make their ratty old clothes look less ratty.

Exactly!
HELENA

I think some of the boys learned a few things about sewing. I seam to remember
charly doing a bit of work on a fire proff bellaclava in book 4.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[Helena Bowles]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:25:36 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

If it is possible to transfigure a tea-kettle into a tortoise, why
isn't it possible to transfigure a worn and patched robe into a new
robe, or a moth-eaten old-fashioned lace-trimmed dress robe into
something more fashionable?

Try this theory (taken largely from the old classic movie "The Man In
The White Suit"). If Robes can be transformed/changed/repaired at will

then

any witch/wizard will only ever need one set as he/she could change them

at

will. Ergo no wizard robe industry. So each robe/stretch of cloth sold

would

have to be proof against such spells or Madam Malkin would starve. Simple
economics.

Except, of course, for the fact that if wizards could use magic to
provide for almost all of their needs, they wouldn't NEED jobs, or
businesses or industries... I believe that's one main reason JKR has
avoided dealing with such problems. She wanted her wizarding society
to resemble our Muggle society in many respects. There are, for
instance, shops and businesses on Diagon Alley, workers at the
Ministry, etc. Some wizards are poor, others are rich... They appear
to work for a living. Had she allowed wizards to simply summon up
whatever they needed, or to create wealth through magic (which
shouldn't be that difficult, actually) she wouldn't have had that kind
of normal society - most likely she would been left with wizards who
all lived alone as wealthy individuals and never did a drop of work in
their lives...

Again, simple economics dictates against the easy creation of wealth.
(If it's easy then everyone will do it, if everyone does it by definition it
isn't wealth - it's spiralling inflation <g>) In fact anything that can be
created easily will be of little value economically. Otherwise what you say
actually supports my argument. For wizards to have an economy they must by
definition have commerce, commerce creates restrictions to maintain value.

We muggles in the Age Of Waste have a similar thing. It's called "built
in obsolescence"...
HELENA

[gjw]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:44:18 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Post by Helena Bowles

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:25:36 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

If it is possible to transfigure a tea-kettle into a tortoise, why
isn't it possible to transfigure a worn and patched robe into a new
robe, or a moth-eaten old-fashioned lace-trimmed dress robe into
something more fashionable?

Try this theory (taken largely from the old classic movie "The Man In
The White Suit"). If Robes can be transformed/changed/repaired at will

then

any witch/wizard will only ever need one set as he/she could change them

at

will. Ergo no wizard robe industry. So each robe/stretch of cloth sold

would

have to be proof against such spells or Madam Malkin would starve. Simple
economics.

Except, of course, for the fact that if wizards could use magic to
provide for almost all of their needs, they wouldn't NEED jobs, or
businesses or industries... I believe that's one main reason JKR has
avoided dealing with such problems. She wanted her wizarding society
to resemble our Muggle society in many respects. There are, for
instance, shops and businesses on Diagon Alley, workers at the
Ministry, etc. Some wizards are poor, others are rich... They appear
to work for a living. Had she allowed wizards to simply summon up
whatever they needed, or to create wealth through magic (which
shouldn't be that difficult, actually) she wouldn't have had that kind
of normal society - most likely she would been left with wizards who
all lived alone as wealthy individuals and never did a drop of work in
their lives...

Again, simple economics dictates against the easy creation of wealth.
(If it's easy then everyone will do it, if everyone does it by definition it
isn't wealth - it's spiralling inflation <g>) > In fact anything that can be
created easily will be of little value economically.

No, you're confusing creating money with creating property.

Money, in and of itself, is worthless. It's just paper. It's value
lies only in what symbolic worth we choose to give it, and what
property we agree to trade for it. If the treasury suddenly began
printing up billions of extra dollars, it would simply dilute the
money pool and devalue all currency accordingly.

However, physical items & property have inherent value of their own. A
house is shelter. Clothing can be worn. Food can be eaten. They fill
essential needs.

If wizards could simply summon up such items, there would be no need
for work, no need for most businesses. They would simply wave a wand
and create a mansion to live in, fine clothes to wear, all the food
they would need, etc.

That is why Rowling has chosen to either disregard such possibilities,
or to occasionally try to explain them away (such as her statement
that conjured items don't last long). She wanted her wizard society to
be similar to Muggle society in many respects, including businesses
and employees, and to do that she has to ignore or circumvent the more
likely consequences of that kind of power.

Taking it a step further, even if they couldn't create lasting items
from scratch, wizards could still enslave Muggles as servants or could
transport vast sums of gold from state treasuries. Would that sort of
thing even be considered a crime when the rules were written by the
wizards themselves?

Or, if they had scruples about the above, they could bewitch inanimate
items to do their work for them (e.g. the Sorcerer's Apprentice and
his brooms), and could use magic to easily locate and recover hidden
hordes of valuable resources (new gold mines, veins of silver, oil
deposits, diamond mines, sunken treasure, etc.) There would be some
possibility of diluting the value of these natural resources, but
given the relatively small number of wizards (and the huge demand for
oil, e.g.), it probably wouldn't be significant. Then there's
mind-reading, prophesy, invisibility... Imagine how well one could do
on Wall Street (or in Las Vegas) with those kind of advantages. There
simply wouldn't be any poor wizards... or for that matter, any
working-class wizards. Most likely, they would all be very wealthy
individuals.

[Philip Lewis]

explain them away (such as her statement that conjured items don't
last long).

Hmmmm... i missed that one... any recollection where it was stated?

As far as robes being "proof" against magical repair... then the
simple thing is for them to buy or make their "seed" clothing that
wasn't magically proof.

Taking it a step further, even if they couldn't create lasting items
from scratch, wizards could still enslave Muggles as servants or could

If the can't lasting items they could still manufacture those
items... (you hint at this) Think about a certain witch's knitting, or

the self stirring/washing pots.

Think of a magic dry cleaner who does nothing but scourgify in the
back room. "Back in 30 seconds or it is free!"

There are tons of ways for a witch/wizard to make money in the muggle world.

My personal theory (stated here before a long time ago) is that
objects then to gain a "resistance" to magic. Robes can only be
changed so many times before they wear out.

I also imagine it takes a certain amount of skill to transfigure
items... although I think turtles into teapots or buttons into beetles
would be harder than blue robes into green...

As far as *magical* items are concerned, i think a great deal of skill
is involved in their making... not just simple transfiguration.

[Helena Bowles]

Post by Philip Lewis

explain them away (such as her statement that conjured items don't
last long).

Hmmmm... i missed that one... any recollection where it was stated?
As far as robes being "proof" against magical repair... then the
simple thing is for them to buy or make their "seed" clothing that
wasn't magically proof.

Assuming a level of skill in making cloth or clothes. I can't make my
own clothes even without magical restrictions!
HELENA

[Helena Bowles]

Post by gjw
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:44:18 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Post by Helena Bowles

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:25:36 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Again, simple economics dictates against the easy creation of wealth.
(If it's easy then everyone will do it, if everyone does it by definition it
isn't wealth - it's spiralling inflation <g>) > In fact anything that can be
created easily will be of little value economically.

No, you're confusing creating money with creating property.

Nope, I was using the concept of "wealth" which carries with it an
intrinsic relativistic aspect.

Post by gjw
Money, in and of itself, is worthless. It's just paper. It's value
lies only in what symbolic worth we choose to give it, and what
property we agree to trade for it. If the treasury suddenly began
printing up billions of extra dollars, it would simply dilute the
money pool and devalue all currency accordingly.

Yes, I agree. That's effectively what I meant.

Post by gjw
However, physical items & property have inherent value of their own. A
house is shelter. Clothing can be worn. Food can be eaten. They fill
essential needs.
If wizards could simply summon up such items, there would be no need
for work, no need for most businesses. They would simply wave a wand
and create a mansion to live in, fine clothes to wear, all the food
they would need, etc.

Again, yes, but wealth implies an attainment of something more than
merely what is needful. It implies an abundance of whatever others have in
limited quantities.

Post by gjw
That is why Rowling has chosen to either disregard such possibilities,
or to occasionally try to explain them away (such as her statement
that conjured items don't last long). She wanted her wizard society to
be similar to Muggle society in many respects, including businesses
and employees, and to do that she has to ignore or circumvent the more
likely consequences of that kind of power.

Why is it more likely that transfigured items should stay transfigured
than that spells should have a limited life? I agree with pretty much
everything you say, I just don't think that the logic JKR uses is at all
strained. I'm accepting a wizard economy as a natural thing in and of itself
within the logic of the stories.

Post by gjw
Taking it a step further, even if they couldn't create lasting items
from scratch, wizards could still enslave Muggles as servants or could
transport vast sums of gold from state treasuries. Would that sort of
thing even be considered a crime when the rules were written by the
wizards themselves?

Again, if everyone could obtain large quantities of gold (which in
itself is only valuable because of it's scarcity and the symbology we invest
that scarcity with) this would not define wealth. The wizard society
manifestly has degrees of wealth therefore everything that JKR says follows
logically on from that. All we're debating is the mechanics of an economy
where things can be transformed into other things. By suggesting that
cloth/robes cannot be bespelled to be something else is simply an equivalent
of muggle abilities to manufacture things which could last for decades but
to deliberately make them in such a way that replacements will be required
within a much shorter period thus creating greater profits for the
manufacturers.

Post by gjw
Or, if they had scruples about the above, they could bewitch inanimate
items to do their work for them (e.g. the Sorcerer's Apprentice and
his brooms), and could use magic to easily locate and recover hidden
hordes of valuable resources (new gold mines, veins of silver, oil
deposits, diamond mines, sunken treasure, etc.) There would be some
possibility of diluting the value of these natural resources, but
given the relatively small number of wizards (and the huge demand for
oil, e.g.), it probably wouldn't be significant. Then there's
mind-reading, prophesy, invisibility... Imagine how well one could do
on Wall Street (or in Las Vegas) with those kind of advantages. There
simply wouldn't be any poor wizards... or for that matter, any
working-class wizards. Most likely, they would all be very wealthy
individuals.

Wealthy only in relation to Muggles, who they do not regard as part of
their society... And, again, if all wizards did this all wizards would have
similar resources and thus there would be no "rich" wizards or "poor"
wizards. Perhaps some wizards do integrate themselves into Muggle society
and use their talents to become wealthy in Muggle terms. We're also here
ignoring the fact that not all wizards are equally skilled at all spells
therefore some would be better at the things you suggest than others
automatically creating a need for a symbolic item like money so that wizards
unskilled in one area can pay wizards skilled in that area to perform that
task for them. Hence a muggle-style economy.
HELENA

[gjw]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:29:46 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:44:18 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Post by Helena Bowles

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:25:36 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Again, simple economics dictates against the easy creation of

wealth.

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
(If it's easy then everyone will do it, if everyone does it by definition

it

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
isn't wealth - it's spiralling inflation <g>) > In fact anything that

can be

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
created easily will be of little value economically.

No, you're confusing creating money with creating property.

Nope, I was using the concept of "wealth" which carries with it an
intrinsic relativistic aspect.

Post by gjw
Money, in and of itself, is worthless. It's just paper. It's value
lies only in what symbolic worth we choose to give it, and what
property we agree to trade for it. If the treasury suddenly began
printing up billions of extra dollars, it would simply dilute the
money pool and devalue all currency accordingly.

Yes, I agree. That's effectively what I meant.

Post by gjw
However, physical items & property have inherent value of their own. A
house is shelter. Clothing can be worn. Food can be eaten. They fill
essential needs.
If wizards could simply summon up such items, there would be no need
for work, no need for most businesses. They would simply wave a wand
and create a mansion to live in, fine clothes to wear, all the food
they would need, etc.

Again, yes, but wealth implies an attainment of something more than
merely what is needful. It implies an abundance of whatever others have in
limited quantities.

And wizards, if they were capable of magically creating whatever they
wanted, would have an abundance of whatever they wanted - and I doubt
that they would share it with the Muggle world... so it would remain
in limited quantities for most people.

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
That is why Rowling has chosen to either disregard such possibilities,
or to occasionally try to explain them away (such as her statement
that conjured items don't last long). She wanted her wizard society to
be similar to Muggle society in many respects, including businesses
and employees, and to do that she has to ignore or circumvent the more
likely consequences of that kind of power.

Why is it more likely that transfigured items should stay transfigured
than that spells should have a limited life? I agree with pretty much
everything you say, I just don't think that the logic JKR uses is at all
strained. I'm accepting a wizard economy as a natural thing in and of itself
within the logic of the stories.

Did you ever notice that whenever it's convenient for her, JKR has
wizards simply cause objects to appear out of nowhere? For instance,
at Harry's trial in OotP, there's this note:

'Yes — well — I suppose we'll need another chair — I — Weasley,
could you — ?'
'Not to worry, not to worry,' said Dumbledore pleasantly; he took
out his wand, gave it a little flick, and a squashy chintz armchair
appeared out of nowhere next to Harry.


She doesn't even bother to explain it. He doesn't appear to have
transfigured anything into a chair. He doesn't appear to have used
"Accio" to bring it (we don't see it flying in through the door).
Apparently, he either created it from scratch or else teleported it
directly from another location (similar to apparation). Such objects
serve their purpose, then are waved away... Yet with that type of
power, we're expected to believe that wizards live in poverty, when
it's convenient to her story.

I don't really mind her cheating a bit, I'm just pointing out the fact
that she does...

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
Taking it a step further, even if they couldn't create lasting items
from scratch, wizards could still enslave Muggles as servants or could
transport vast sums of gold from state treasuries. Would that sort of
thing even be considered a crime when the rules were written by the
wizards themselves?

Again, if everyone could obtain large quantities of gold (which in
itself is only valuable because of it's scarcity and the symbology we invest
that scarcity with) this would not define wealth.

It would certainly eliminate actual poverty. Give the Weasleys a lot
of gold and they won't be wearing shabby robes, that's for sure...

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
Or, if they had scruples about the above, they could bewitch inanimate
items to do their work for them (e.g. the Sorcerer's Apprentice and
his brooms), and could use magic to easily locate and recover hidden
hordes of valuable resources (new gold mines, veins of silver, oil
deposits, diamond mines, sunken treasure, etc.) There would be some
possibility of diluting the value of these natural resources, but
given the relatively small number of wizards (and the huge demand for
oil, e.g.), it probably wouldn't be significant. Then there's
mind-reading, prophesy, invisibility... Imagine how well one could do
on Wall Street (or in Las Vegas) with those kind of advantages. There
simply wouldn't be any poor wizards... or for that matter, any
working-class wizards. Most likely, they would all be very wealthy
individuals.

Wealthy only in relation to Muggles, who they do not regard as part of
their society...

But that is precisely the point. Rowling does not paint a picture of a
society in which everyone is fabulously rich, but some are even more
wealthy than others. Instead, she pictures a society in which there is
real poverty, genuine need going unfilled. Ron can't even afford to
buy candy on the train early on, wears shabby clothes to school, uses
a dangerous broken wand, can't afford an owl for correspondence, Ginny
buys used school books...

Post by Helena Bowles
And, again, if all wizards did this all wizards would have
similar resources and thus there would be no "rich" wizards or "poor"
wizards. Perhaps some wizards do integrate themselves into Muggle society
and use their talents to become wealthy in Muggle terms. We're also here
ignoring the fact that not all wizards are equally skilled at all spells
therefore some would be better at the things you suggest than others
automatically creating a need for a symbolic item like money so that wizards
unskilled in one area can pay wizards skilled in that area to perform that
task for them. Hence a muggle-style economy.

Money might well exist as a form of exchange, but only if the creation
of such items was beyond the skill (or patience) of the average
wizard. For instance, someone talented at potions might trade a rare
potion to someone else who is good at making exceptionally fast
broomsticks. And money would be the way of keeping count. But that
would only account for why some wizards lack a few magical luxuries
that are difficult to make. Most everyday items would simply be
conjured up or purchased on the Muggle market.

[Tim Behrendsen]

Post by gjw
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:29:46 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Post by Helena Bowles
Why is it more likely that transfigured items should stay transfigured
than that spells should have a limited life? I agree with pretty much
everything you say, I just don't think that the logic JKR uses is at all
strained. I'm accepting a wizard economy as a natural thing in and of itself
within the logic of the stories.

Did you ever notice that whenever it's convenient for her, JKR has
wizards simply cause objects to appear out of nowhere? For instance,
'Yes - well - I suppose we'll need another chair - I - Weasley,
could you - ?'
'Not to worry, not to worry,' said Dumbledore pleasantly; he took
out his wand, gave it a little flick, and a squashy chintz armchair
appeared out of nowhere next to Harry.
She doesn't even bother to explain it. He doesn't appear to have
transfigured anything into a chair. He doesn't appear to have used
"Accio" to bring it (we don't see it flying in through the door).
Apparently, he either created it from scratch or else teleported it
directly from another location (similar to apparation). Such objects
serve their purpose, then are waved away... Yet with that type of
power, we're expected to believe that wizards live in poverty, when
it's convenient to her story.
I don't really mind her cheating a bit, I'm just pointing out the fact
that she does...

That doesn't indicate any sort of cheating. We don't know how long the chair lasts. I have
a feeling that transfigured or created items don't last very long, like the Lepraucaun
gold.

JKR does actually deal with the issue a bit...

----
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/1100-garcia-dateline-1.html
Deep and obscure questions occasionally appear from unlikely quarters. `I got asked in New
York, 'How does the Wizard economy work?' Now, in fact, I know how it works, but no one
had bothered to ask me that ever before, so that was very satisfying to have the chance to
explain. Predictably, a Wall Street journalist actually asked me that!`
----

----
Rowling was once even asked how the wizard economy works. Fortunately, she knew the
answer.
"No one's every really tripped me up. I've occasionally been surprised," said Rowling, who
has "reams of background" about Harry and his home world.
----

Of course, we have zero details, but the point is that there is a logic behind the Wizard
economy, so I doubt there is actual cheating. She just hasn't shared it with us in detail.
:)

[gjw]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 19:15:05 -0800, "Tim Behrendsen"

Post by Tim Behrendsen
Of course, we have zero details, but the point is that there is a logic behind the Wizard
economy, so I doubt there is actual cheating. She just hasn't shared it with us in detail.
:)

Or she is bluffing. ;)

[Helena Bowles]

Post by gjw
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:29:46 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:44:18 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:25:36 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Again, yes, but wealth implies an attainment of something more than
merely what is needful. It implies an abundance of whatever others have in
limited quantities.

And wizards, if they were capable of magically creating whatever they
wanted, would have an abundance of whatever they wanted - and I doubt
that they would share it with the Muggle world... so it would remain
in limited quantities for most people.

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
That is why Rowling has chosen to either disregard such possibilities,
or to occasionally try to explain them away (such as her statement
that conjured items don't last long). She wanted her wizard society to
be similar to Muggle society in many respects, including businesses
and employees, and to do that she has to ignore or circumvent the more
likely consequences of that kind of power.

Why is it more likely that transfigured items should stay transfigured
than that spells should have a limited life? I agree with pretty much
everything you say, I just don't think that the logic JKR uses is at all
strained. I'm accepting a wizard economy as a natural thing in and of itself
within the logic of the stories.

Did you ever notice that whenever it's convenient for her, JKR has
wizards simply cause objects to appear out of nowhere? For instance,
'Yes - well - I suppose we'll need another chair - I - Weasley,
could you - ?'
'Not to worry, not to worry,' said Dumbledore pleasantly; he took
out his wand, gave it a little flick, and a squashy chintz armchair
appeared out of nowhere next to Harry.

Dumbledore is considered to be an exceptionally skilled wizard,
remember, as I think are most members of his permanent teaching staff. We
still have no evidence as to what charm/spell he used. The armchair could
have been brought from anywhere. He doesn't speak aloud so we don't know how
hw is using his magic.

Post by gjw
She doesn't even bother to explain it. He doesn't appear to have
transfigured anything into a chair. He doesn't appear to have used
"Accio" to bring it (we don't see it flying in through the door).
Apparently, he either created it from scratch or else teleported it
directly from another location (similar to apparation). Such objects
serve their purpose, then are waved away... Yet with that type of
power, we're expected to believe that wizards live in poverty, when
it's convenient to her story.
I don't really mind her cheating a bit, I'm just pointing out the fact
that she does...

I think the only major difference is our view is that I don't really
think it necessarily is cheating. I don't think she has really done anything
in this area that violates the internal structure of her world.

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
Again, if everyone could obtain large quantities of gold (which in
itself is only valuable because of it's scarcity and the symbology we invest
that scarcity with) this would not define wealth.

It would certainly eliminate actual poverty. Give the Weasleys a lot
of gold and they won't be wearing shabby robes, that's for sure..

Why? You seem to be arguing that gold has an intrinsic value where
money doesn't. As you rightly point out despite gold being a finite resource
there would be plenty to go round each wizard. This is effectively the same
as every muggle has the same amount of money. When large quantities of
payment-symbols - whether gold coins or paper notes - are around it takes
more of each symbol to buy something. If the Weasleys were able to conjure
gold, so would everyone else and thus gold would be devalued (and eventually
worthless).

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
Wealthy only in relation to Muggles, who they do not regard as part of
their society...

But that is precisely the point. Rowling does not paint a picture of a
society in which everyone is fabulously rich, but some are even more
wealthy than others. Instead, she pictures a society in which there is
real poverty, genuine need going unfilled. Ron can't even afford to
buy candy on the train early on, wears shabby clothes to school, uses
a dangerous broken wand, can't afford an owl for correspondence, Ginny
buys used school books...

Um... not being able to buy sweets doesn't *really* equate with "real
poverty or genuine need"... The Weasley family have tight finances but they
have enough to eat, enough to clothe themselves, a roof over their heads and
the money for occasional luxuries (like Ron's broom for being made prefect).
Ron uses a broken wand because a) he doesn't tell his parents straight
away/they refuse to replace it immediately as punishment (or in order to
save up for one, or a combination of both). They have an owl for
correspondence - he's just a bit old and past it. Not all students have post
owls. Second hand school books - well, so what? We haven't seen an example
of wizard homelessness or starvation - *real* examples of need although
personally I'm sure they may exist.

Wizard economy is as self contained as any single currency. Wizards
compare their lifestyles to other wizards, not to Muggles. If all wizards
could obtain gold easily then they would be wealthy compared to Muggles but
not in relation to each other.

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
And, again, if all wizards did this all wizards would have
similar resources and thus there would be no "rich" wizards or "poor"
wizards. Perhaps some wizards do integrate themselves into Muggle society
and use their talents to become wealthy in Muggle terms. We're also here
ignoring the fact that not all wizards are equally skilled at all spells
therefore some would be better at the things you suggest than others
automatically creating a need for a symbolic item like money so that wizards
unskilled in one area can pay wizards skilled in that area to perform that
task for them. Hence a muggle-style economy.

Money might well exist as a form of exchange, but only if the creation
of such items was beyond the skill (or patience) of the average
wizard. For instance, someone talented at potions might trade a rare
potion to someone else who is good at making exceptionally fast
broomsticks. And money would be the way of keeping count.

That's exactly what happens in the Muggle economy... And I think we are
shown within Hogwarts itself that skill at various forms of magic is nor
equal...

But that would only account for why some wizards lack a few magical
luxuries

Post by gjw
that are difficult to make. Most everyday items would simply be
conjured up or purchased on the Muggle market.

Assuming that wizards buy from Muggles. They seem mostly to buy from
each other. If they did otherwise there would be no galleons, sickles and
knuts. Arthur Weasley obviously never needs to handle muggle money as he is
completely incapable of doing so.
HELENA

[gjw]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:40:53 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:29:46 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:44:18 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:25:36 +0100, "Helena Bowles"

Again, yes, but wealth implies an attainment of something more than
merely what is needful. It implies an abundance of whatever others have

in

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
limited quantities.

And wizards, if they were capable of magically creating whatever they
wanted, would have an abundance of whatever they wanted - and I doubt
that they would share it with the Muggle world... so it would remain
in limited quantities for most people.

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
That is why Rowling has chosen to either disregard such possibilities,
or to occasionally try to explain them away (such as her statement
that conjured items don't last long). She wanted her wizard society to
be similar to Muggle society in many respects, including businesses
and employees, and to do that she has to ignore or circumvent the more
likely consequences of that kind of power.

Why is it more likely that transfigured items should stay

transfigured

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
than that spells should have a limited life? I agree with pretty much
everything you say, I just don't think that the logic JKR uses is at all
strained. I'm accepting a wizard economy as a natural thing in and of

itself

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
within the logic of the stories.

Did you ever notice that whenever it's convenient for her, JKR has
wizards simply cause objects to appear out of nowhere? For instance,
'Yes - well - I suppose we'll need another chair - I - Weasley,
could you - ?'
'Not to worry, not to worry,' said Dumbledore pleasantly; he took
out his wand, gave it a little flick, and a squashy chintz armchair
appeared out of nowhere next to Harry.

Dumbledore is considered to be an exceptionally skilled wizard,
remember, as I think are most members of his permanent teaching staff. We
still have no evidence as to what charm/spell he used. The armchair could
have been brought from anywhere. He doesn't speak aloud so we don't know how
hw is using his magic.

It's not just Dumbledore. Further along in the story, McGonagall does
the exact same thing (except for her taste in chairs):

"Professor McGonagall pulled her wand from the pocket of her
dressing gown and waved it; three chairs appeared out of thin air,
straight-backed and wooden, quite unlike the comfortable chintz
armchairs that Dumbledore had conjured up at Harry's hearing."

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
She doesn't even bother to explain it. He doesn't appear to have
transfigured anything into a chair. He doesn't appear to have used
"Accio" to bring it (we don't see it flying in through the door).
Apparently, he either created it from scratch or else teleported it
directly from another location (similar to apparation). Such objects
serve their purpose, then are waved away... Yet with that type of
power, we're expected to believe that wizards live in poverty, when
it's convenient to her story.
I don't really mind her cheating a bit, I'm just pointing out the fact
that she does...

I think the only major difference is our view is that I don't really
think it necessarily is cheating. I don't think she has really done anything
in this area that violates the internal structure of her world.

The inconsistency is that when it is convenient to her, wizards are
free to whip up just about anything they need on the spur of the
moment. When it is not (when she's trying to portray poverty),
suddenly they can't even produce robes or books.

It's probably a good decision in the long run, though. I think her
wizarding world is far more interesting with workers, shops and class
levels than it would have been if all wizards had been portrayed as
wealthy loners...

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
Again, if everyone could obtain large quantities of gold (which in
itself is only valuable because of it's scarcity and the symbology we

invest

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
that scarcity with) this would not define wealth.

It would certainly eliminate actual poverty. Give the Weasleys a lot
of gold and they won't be wearing shabby robes, that's for sure..

Why? You seem to be arguing that gold has an intrinsic value where
money doesn't. As you rightly point out despite gold being a finite resource
there would be plenty to go round each wizard. This is effectively the same
as every muggle has the same amount of money. When large quantities of
payment-symbols - whether gold coins or paper notes - are around it takes
more of each symbol to buy something. If the Weasleys were able to conjure
gold, so would everyone else and thus gold would be devalued (and eventually
worthless).

But only in the wizarding world. Gold would make all wizards
enormously wealthy in the real world. They could all buy huge mansions
and estates for their privacy, wonderful clothes, furniture, all the
food they needed, etc. The only items that would be beyond their
needs would be a few items which could not be conjured up by the
average wizard (and could not be purchased in the Muggle world). And
if a wizarding family were large, chances are someone in the family
would be capable of creating most of their more exotic magical needs.
So while someone in the wizarding world might find it difficult to
acquire the fastest broomstick in town, or items such as the
rememberall, I can't really see an otherwise wealthy man (or woman)
enslaving themselves to the rigors of a 9-to-5 job in order to buy a
handful of magical gadgets.

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
Wealthy only in relation to Muggles, who they do not regard as part

of

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
their society...

But that is precisely the point. Rowling does not paint a picture of a
society in which everyone is fabulously rich, but some are even more
wealthy than others. Instead, she pictures a society in which there is
real poverty, genuine need going unfilled. Ron can't even afford to
buy candy on the train early on, wears shabby clothes to school, uses
a dangerous broken wand, can't afford an owl for correspondence, Ginny
buys used school books...

Um... not being able to buy sweets doesn't *really* equate with "real
poverty or genuine need"... The Weasley family have tight finances but they
have enough to eat, enough to clothe themselves, a roof over their heads and
the money for occasional luxuries (like Ron's broom for being made prefect).
Ron uses a broken wand because a) he doesn't tell his parents straight
away/they refuse to replace it immediately as punishment (or in order to
save up for one, or a combination of both). They have an owl for
correspondence - he's just a bit old and past it. Not all students have post
owls. Second hand school books - well, so what?

You missed the point. No one with that kind of power, who could
literally live like kings in the real world, would opt to live like
paupers instead. A few of the more bigoted might, in order to
completely avoid contact with Muggles, but Mr. Weasley is one of the
most tolerant persons (towards Muggles) in the series, yet instead of
just buying some glorious mansion in the countryside, he lives like
something out of the old "Ma & Pa Kettle" films. Ron complains about
his small bedroom, the Weasley's house is crooked and "looked as
though it had once been a large stone pigpen with extra rooms added".
Their chickens and their garden might even indicate that they have to
grow their own food (although it's hard to tell, the chickens might be
pets and the garden might be a hobby). They have to wait until they
win a contest before they can even take a vacation to Egypt!

Post by Helena Bowles
We haven't seen an example
of wizard homelessness or starvation - *real* examples of need although
personally I'm sure they may exist.

The description of Lupin on the train comes pretty close. (Although,
as a werewolf, he has an excuse of sorts.)

Post by Helena Bowles
Wizard economy is as self contained as any single currency. Wizards
compare their lifestyles to other wizards, not to Muggles. If all wizards
could obtain gold easily then they would be wealthy compared to Muggles but
not in relation to each other.

Picture this. Two wizards live next to each other. One is, in the
Muggle world, Donald Trump, and the other is Ted Turner. In other
words, both are billionaires, with every luxury Muggle money could
buy. Homes, cars, servants, travel, luxury hotels, jewelry... Now, one
of them (say, Trump) also has numerous wizarding gadgets, while the
other (Turner) lacks a few wizarding gadgets and envies Trump. THAT'S
what relative "poverty" would really look like in a wizarding world.

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
And, again, if all wizards did this all wizards would have
similar resources and thus there would be no "rich" wizards or "poor"
wizards. Perhaps some wizards do integrate themselves into Muggle society
and use their talents to become wealthy in Muggle terms. We're also here
ignoring the fact that not all wizards are equally skilled at all spells
therefore some would be better at the things you suggest than others
automatically creating a need for a symbolic item like money so that

wizards

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
unskilled in one area can pay wizards skilled in that area to perform

that

Post by gjw

Post by Helena Bowles
task for them. Hence a muggle-style economy.

Money might well exist as a form of exchange, but only if the creation
of such items was beyond the skill (or patience) of the average
wizard. For instance, someone talented at potions might trade a rare
potion to someone else who is good at making exceptionally fast
broomsticks. And money would be the way of keeping count.

That's exactly what happens in the Muggle economy... And I think we are
shown within Hogwarts itself that skill at various forms of magic is nor
equal...
But that would only account for why some wizards lack a few magical
luxuries

Post by gjw
that are difficult to make. Most everyday items would simply be
conjured up or purchased on the Muggle market.

Assuming that wizards buy from Muggles. They seem mostly to buy from
each other.

That's only because Rowling deliberately chooses to ignore the obvious
solution to wizard poverty.

Post by Helena Bowles
If they did otherwise there would be no galleons, sickles and
knuts.

No, the galleons would remain for exchange between wizards, for
wizard-only goods. But all wizards would be rich in terms of Muggle
money, and they would no doubt use it to acquire whatever they needed
that didn't absolutely require specialized a magical source. Ad to
that whatever magical items they (or their friends and family) can
conjur up by themselves, and there would be no real economic problems.

Post by Helena Bowles
Arthur Weasley obviously never needs to handle muggle money as he is
completely incapable of doing so.

Another example of JKR purposely avoiding the obvious, in my opinion.
She wants to keep her wizarding community similar (in economic
respects) to Muggle society, so she simply ignores the fact that
wizards would have to be incredibly foolish (or horribly bigoted) to
avoid using Muggle currency. And since self-interest usually wins out,
after so many centuries, I'm sure they would have figured that out by
now.

[Mark Evans]

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
It would certainly eliminate actual poverty. Give the Weasleys a lot
of gold and they won't be wearing shabby robes, that's for sure..

Why? You seem to be arguing that gold has an intrinsic value where
money doesn't. As you rightly point out despite gold being a finite resource
there would be plenty to go round each wizard. This is effectively the same
as every muggle has the same amount of money. When large quantities of
payment-symbols - whether gold coins or paper notes - are around it takes
more of each symbol to buy something. If the Weasleys were able to conjure
gold, so would everyone else and thus gold would be devalued (and eventually
worthless).

There is obviously more to wizarding currency than the metal itself.
Given that Hermione is able to manufacture a whole set of fake coins.

[Tim Behrendsen]

Post by Mark Evans

Post by Helena Bowles

Post by gjw
It would certainly eliminate actual poverty. Give the Weasleys a lot
of gold and they won't be wearing shabby robes, that's for sure..

Why? You seem to be arguing that gold has an intrinsic value where
money doesn't. As you rightly point out despite gold being a finite resource
there would be plenty to go round each wizard. This is effectively the same
as every muggle has the same amount of money. When large quantities of
payment-symbols - whether gold coins or paper notes - are around it takes
more of each symbol to buy something. If the Weasleys were able to conjure
gold, so would everyone else and thus gold would be devalued (and eventually
worthless).

There is obviously more to wizarding currency than the metal itself.
Given that Hermione is able to manufacture a whole set of fake coins.

What makes you think Hermione's fake coins where made of gold?

[Home]

If it is possible to transfigure a tea-kettle into a tortoise, why
isn't it possible to transfigure a worn and patched robe into a new
robe, or a moth-eaten old-fashioned lace-trimmed dress robe into
something more fashionable?
-Andrea Baker

It has to do with the problems of time travel.
As her examples so far have shown, the past cannot be changed once it is
set.
Thus, robes that are shabby, are so because they have traveled through a
great deal of time.
Once they have become shabby, they cannot be "updated" or improved as this
would involve changing them to a previous condition, i.e. to what they were
in the past. As DD tells Harry at the end of book one, only the future can
be changed - by the choices we make.

Ken