 |
 |
doesnt have the 2005 value, which I assume was in US dollars...? Does tell us why a hundred pounds a year seemed to be enough. Doug On 25-Apr-09, at 7:25 PM, Max Richards wrote: > the value of one pound (1.00) sterling in 2005 > > was > > (according to www.eh.net, quoted in V.Glendinning's life of L.Woolf) > > in 1880 66.35 > > 1890 73.31 > > 1900 72.10 > > 1910 67.99 > > 1920 26.76 > > 1930 42.12 > > 1940 36.37 > > 1950 22.95 > > 1960 15.41 > > 1970 10.36 > > [Presumably that website has much more than VG has a use for.] > [What astonishes me is that 1920 figure. Reading about the struggles > of self- > employed authors in the past requires a better head for numbers than > mine. > Moving to France and later Germany was big post-1918, I know. That > would require > more sets of numbers to track, and maybe 'economic history services' > lists > them.] > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au > Douglas Barbour [log in to unmask] http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/ Latest books: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy) http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664 Wednesdays' http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html There's the wind and the rain And the mercy of the fallen Who say they have no claim to know what's right Dar Williams