Money, bribery and corruption in the wizarding world

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 127344


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Emma Hawkes <ehawkes at i...> wrote:
> 
> Money is one of the first things Harry Potter is introduced to in 
> the  wizarding world.  ...  
> 
> For example, ... the Weasleys meet ... the quidditch world cup, 
> ...edited...
> 
> ...However, it is revealed that Arthur Weasley did not actually 
> have to buy his tickets - they were donated by the dodgy Ludo Bagman 
> (whose very name reeks of implied bribery). 
> 

bboyminn:

Excellent ideas, very insightful. I'm just going to add a couple of
minor points.

Why would Bagman waste nearly half of the most premium and expensive
seats in the World Cup Stadium on the Weasleys? It seems that even the
Bulgarian Minister objected to all the seat being taken by the UK
Ministry and demanded they add another row so his prestigious patrons
could be seated in the top box[reading between the lines]. At a
real-world football (American style), Soccer, or baseball stadium,
these premium seat would indeed cost a fortune. 

So why didn't Bagman get Arthur standard routine common stadium seats?
Certainly for free, Arthur would have been happy with that. Well, of
course, the answer is Harry Potter. I'm sure Bagman intended to give
Arthur common seats until he found out Harry was going to be there.
Then both Bagman and Fudge saw a great public relations opportunity,
never hurts a politician to be seen with the hero of the wizard world,
especially when that hero is a poor sympathetic orphan. Seriously....
great P.R.

So, it wasn't random chance, benevolence, or completely a returned
favor that got Harry in the Top Box, it was a cold calculated
political move, by some very self-serving politicians. Hummmm.....
almost like the real-world (sarcasm).


> Emma Hawkes continues:
>
> Arthur Weasley clearly participates in the exchange of favours but 
> appears to shun bribery and venal corruption. In this context,
> the poverty of the Weasleys is perhaps the strongest indicator of 
> Arthur's ethics and commitment to the forces of good. ...
> 
> Emma Hawkes

bboyminn:

Again, an excellent point, one that I had never thought of before, but
one I completely agree with. 

Again, just filling in some miscellaneous info, I like to remind
people that the Weasleys aren't as poor as Ron's whining might make
them seem. They have spending money, a house and land, plenty of food
to eat, and clothes to wear. They are working class. They have to
manage their money well, they don't have spare cash for extravagances
or luxuries, but they get by just fine.

Note when Molly cleans out her bank vault of a few bits of silver and
a single piece of gold, we don't know that that was all the money they
had. First of all, that's not enough cash to buy everything they
needed. So, in addition to what was in the vault, we can (or at least,
I can) assume that Molly also had a small bag of gold that represented
the most recent paycheck that Arthur brought home. The books don't say
that, but it makes more sense than believing Molly bought everything
she needed with a few pieces of silver and one gold Galleon. That
probably doesn't even add up to $20.

On your main point, I do agree, Arthur low income IS a strong
indication that he is not corrupt. He is not above exchanging a few
small favors or helping someone who deserves it, but shuns any real
graft. 

So, in a sense, this was nothing but a nice long 'I agree' with a few
extra details thrown in.

Steve/bboyminn