Fairly or not economics has a bad reputation. I think this is mostly driven by bad teachers who cannot make the connection between the real world and the blackboard economics taught in 101 classes. So anytime I notice a way where economics can be taught by piggybacking off something popular I take notice. There has been a lot of talk in the economics blogosphere about the world George R.R. Martin has created. Either Game of Thrones is getting big enough to make an impact on the much broader culture or it appeals to the same subset of people that like both economics and Game of Thrones. My fandom hopes for the former but it is more likely that it is the latter, either way I welcome it.
Matt Yglesias kicked it off by comparing the wealth of House Lannister and House Tyrell. The Lannisters are known for the gold mines while the Tyrells are known for their vast farmlands. Yglesias makes the not so obvious point that the Tyrells are richer than the Lannisters because the Tyrells hold real assets while gold is just a medium of exchange and cannot feed an army.
Karl Smith at Modeled Behavior kindly corrects Yglesias by pointing out the Lannister’s wealth is not necessarily due to their stock of gold but from their ability to control the money supply.
Yglesias continues on with two more posts, one responding to some critiques of his original post (he does not address Smith’s critique), and one about the market for dragons.
Henry at Crooked Timber critiques Yglesias on how he words his post on the market for dragons.
There may be more posts out there responding to all of this but these are the posts that popped up in my RSS feeds regarding Game of Thrones and its economics. Enjoy.
