Weasleys being poor

[Steve Vander Ark]

No: HPFGUIDX 11205

Hey, troops, just had a great comment set to me via Lexicon feedback. 
I don't think I've read this idea before, although I don't read all 
the messages on here. So I'll toss it in the ring here. It makes 
sense to me, although I haven't sat back and looked for the flaws or 
contrary examples yet. Here's what Jonathan said about tha fact that 
the Weasleys can't conjure themselves the things they don't have:

"On another point about why the weasleys don't use magic to make new 
clothes, we don't know how long an item magicked up by a wand lasts; 
remember Cinderella: the magic items changed back at midnight; 
remember the gold at the quidditch match. Ron would look a bit silly 
if his clothes vanished on him, items made from thin air may only 
last a few hours. Wormtail's new hand would last because it was fused 
to his body but most items will evaporate."

So how about it? Are there examples of magicked items (not enchanted 
or magicCAL items, but MAGICKED items, normal items which are 
conjured up for non-magical use)which DID last indefinitely? Would an 
item last longer depending on how much magical power you used on it? 
And then would riches or poverty in some way be tied to how much 
magical "energy" you had to inbue into something, and for most if not 
all wizards they don't care to spend too much of their own megical 
energy on something unless it's for a VERY good cause (like the 
Philosopher's Stone)? So riches and wealth in the Malfoy sense would 
be the same kind of riches and wealth as in our Muggle sense, since 
magicked wealth would cost too much in personal magical energy to be 
worth having for anyone at all? Will I ever stop talking in 
questions? Do I even know what I'm saying anymore?

Steve Vander Ark
The Harry Potter Lexicon
wherein resides the wisdom of the ages
or not
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon