1
added by Tigerlily888
Source: tumblr
David Yates, David Heyman, Mathew Davies, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, Katie Leung and Imelda Staunton!
This harry potter fotografia might contain traje de passeio, terno de negócio, rua, cena da cidade, ajuste urbano, cenário urbano, cena de rua, cidade, urbana definindo, bem vestido pessoa, terno, calças de terno, terninho, pessoa bem vestida, terno das calças, pantsuit, and terno de calça.
I recently found a strange contradiction in the concept of wizarding money.I'd like to know if my idea is true or if there is a counter-argument against it.
In pg.65 of HP and the Chamber of Secrets,we learn that Muggle money can be exchanged into wizarding money.
We also know that potentially valuable(in a Muggle point of view) objects such as chairs can be Conjured por magic(eg:Dumbledore does this in the courtroom in HP and The Order of the Phoenix).
So any wizard who knows basic Transfiguration can Conjure objects such as chairs,sell them to Muggles to obtain Muggle money and then exchange this money into Galleons,thus obtaining an infinite amount of wealth.
Doesn't this contradict the whole point of wizarding money?
Thanks in advance for any help.
In pg.65 of HP and the Chamber of Secrets,we learn that Muggle money can be exchanged into wizarding money.
We also know that potentially valuable(in a Muggle point of view) objects such as chairs can be Conjured por magic(eg:Dumbledore does this in the courtroom in HP and The Order of the Phoenix).
So any wizard who knows basic Transfiguration can Conjure objects such as chairs,sell them to Muggles to obtain Muggle money and then exchange this money into Galleons,thus obtaining an infinite amount of wealth.
Doesn't this contradict the whole point of wizarding money?
Thanks in advance for any help.
