From a Keynesian perspective I imagine that J. K. Rowling and the whole Harry Potter series is just great for the economy. So much money spent because of it!
But what about of the Austrian view? I don't think it increased productivity, did it? I don't think we are a wealthier nation thanks to Harry Potter.
Or are we, because all those books and movies are desired consumer goods?
I am sceptical, because I don't think that a string of best sellers will lead us out of this recession, as opposed to an increase in the food or energy supply.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Absolutely books and movies and things of the like constitute wealth (even if I may find many/most to be junk). It would be a pretty poor world if all we could consume was things that made us "more productive" or had some physical, tangible value.
Arts and what many might think of as "frivolous" services (spa treatments, massage, etc) constitute a great deal of the modern world's "wealth." These things improve our quality of life and shouldn't be dismissed as "unproductive." At the same time, you're correct of course that it isn't things like the next bestseller or box office hit that will help pull us out of the doldrums. But, I think that's kind of beside the point, really.
Cheers!
There are many good things about hit movies and books in terms of productivity. Particularly books and even more particularly books for children. Children's books make children more creative and intelligent, therefore more likely to have a great idea that could change the world for the better and lower unnecessary labor. Wouldn't you say reading/learning about AE has made your thought process more efficient? Children's books have the same effect. More intelligent people can lead to a more productive society. However, some hit movies are pretty mentally-depleting.
And I suppose the workers involved could become useful to society as well, in terms of inspiration. Making money can lead to savings and savings fuels investment. They could use their extra money to start a new business or whatever they damn please. Not to mention that there are indeed psychological effects of employment that stimulate the "creative juices", and it's best that employment comes about throuh demand than through public policy.
Harry Potter was of course detrimental and inefficient. They only exist because of violent intervention in the market. Not unlike Blackwater.
scineram: Harry Potter was of course detrimental and inefficient. They only exist because of violent intervention in the market. Not unlike Blackwater.
Just what I suspected.
I'm not sure if this is a serious thread or not...
I'll side with Curtis on this point, but add the following. Books and other luxury goods could very well 'lead us out' of this recession if and once government intervention lessens. If people truly have such a high preference for entertainment, then I see no problem with our resources being spent largely on it (as opposed to 'more productive' items). I doubt those are the preferences of people, but they might be.
It started serious, and I'm still interested in getting an explanation from the AE perspective. Of course, it got a bit sidetracked to the humorous side.
It is consumption.
After I learned about the Labour Party, and that JK Rowling supported Gordon Brown, I sort of lost my stomach for Harry Potter. Why does politics have to ruin everything?
Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes Harry Potter as a "Black Swan" in this article, which might help answer your question.
I'm sure the unfortunate lady knows nothing of economics. But at least she doesn't pretend to.
As opposed to Taleb, who writes that "the financial bubble" is the "core pathology of the capitalistic system". Not the most Austrian thing to say, ay?
I also noted his "8. CONCLUSION: JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS Fairness Some researchers, like Frank (1999), see arbitrary and random success by others as no different from pollution, which necessitates the enactment of a tax."
That's his conclusion? Tax the lucky?
Thank you for the link, btw.
What about the question of government granted monopolies? Aren't the copyrights on these books and movies part of that state granted monopoly of intellectual property? What would be the economic impact of such books or movies without copyrights? Is there a difference here between the followers of Rand and the followers of Rothbard?
@LeeO
We can't expect too many persons to favor free market policies, much less be anywhere near us in the political spectrum. If we refused to use media created by etatists we would surely have a bland world. And on that note, I don't care too much for JK Rowling's love for IP laws. How many fans has she sued now for creating deriative works? Shame really too. I've come to think Dumbeldore is a philosophical anarchist from his constant circumventing of the Ministry of Magic.
@Dave
Would it be fair to say that the question is similar to the debacle [amongst the etatist] whether professional sport players and other celebrities should be taxed?
More like the question of whether Usain Bolt should be required to run with ankle weights, given his unfair genetic advantage.
Depends then. Whats the goal for the person asking?
If not to sell novels, then what use are all the capital goods associated with producing and distributing novels?