Smaug the dragon's monetary tightening

The Hobbit and macroeconomics.

I love this post so much: Frances Woolley on The Macroeconomics of Middle-Earth:

The full economic impact of Smaug can only be understood by recognizing that the dragon's arrival resulted in a severe monetary shock… It is clear from a simple inspection… that the amount of gold coinage Smaug withdrew from circulation represents a significant volume of currency. This would, inevitably, lead to deflation and depressed economic activity.

Bond Vigilantes' Jim Leaviss contributes his own thoughts on the monetary impact of a Wyrm:

So Smaug dies in the end, and the gold was released into Middle Earth’s money supply. Was there hyper-inflation as a result? Or did Nominal GDP return to trend (i.e. the “catching up” theory that has been talked about by Central Bankers like Mark Carney lately) without longer term inflation problems? If there was hyper-inflation perhaps the political instability that resulted allowed the rise of Sauron as a leader, and the subsequent world war between Men and Elves, and Orcs?

Offsetting Behaviour's Eric Crampton disagrees strongly with Woolley, though. The strongest effect wasn't monetary; it was a supply shock borne by all those dwarves dying:

Dwarvish replacement rates are very low - they're more fertile than elves, but hardly reach human or hobbit ability to repopulate a land.

Leaviss also recommends reading the comments on Woolley's original piece, which you should do. They address concerns like the relation of Smaug's hoarding to the "Peso problem" (what are the rational expectations of a firm living in Middle Earth during the reign of the dragon?), whether or not Middle Earth is properly described as Feudal, and why nothing in the Hobbit seems to have a price.

More economic theory based around sci-fi/fantasy, please.

Some orcs chilling in a field. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Liam Fox as International Trade Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for International Trade.

Only Nixon, it is said, could have gone to China. Only a politician with the impeccable Commie-bashing credentials of the 37th President had the political capital necessary to strike a deal with the People’s Republic of China.

Theresa May’s great hope is that only Liam Fox, the newly-installed Secretary of State for International Trade, has the Euro-bashing credentials to break the news to the Brexiteers that a deal between a post-Leave United Kingdom and China might be somewhat harder to negotiate than Vote Leave suggested.

The biggest item on the agenda: striking a deal that allows Britain to stay in the single market. Elsewhere, Fox should use his political capital with the Conservative right to wait longer to sign deals than a Remainer would have to, to avoid the United Kingdom being caught in a series of bad deals. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.