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
|